0:00:38 > 0:00:43Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
0:00:43 > 0:00:48They are calling it Care BnB - NHS bosses in Essex plan
0:00:48 > 0:00:51to discharge bed-blocking patients to members of the public
0:00:51 > 0:00:52with a spare room.
0:00:52 > 0:00:57But is it an appropriate way to treat these vulnerable people?
0:00:57 > 0:01:00A hand-out from government for everyone from the unemployed
0:01:00 > 0:01:02to millionaires - could a Universal Basic Income
0:01:02 > 0:01:10for all really be a good idea?
0:01:10 > 0:01:12Sheffield Hallam MP Jared O'Mara is no longer a Labour MP,
0:01:12 > 0:01:15as the party investigates allegations he used abusive,
0:01:15 > 0:01:18sexist and homophobic language.
0:01:18 > 0:01:21But does the party have good enough vetting to prevent unsuitable
0:01:21 > 0:01:23candidates being selected?
0:01:23 > 0:01:27And who's top dog in the House of Commons?
0:01:27 > 0:01:30We'll bring you Parliament's premier pooch.
0:01:35 > 0:01:38All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole
0:01:38 > 0:01:43of the programme today is Matthew Taylor -
0:01:43 > 0:01:47he was head of the policy unit at No 10 under Tony Blair and is now
0:01:47 > 0:01:49the Chief Executive of the RSA.
0:01:49 > 0:01:55The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts,
0:01:55 > 0:01:57Manufactures and Commerce which describes itself
0:01:57 > 0:01:58as "an enlightenment"
0:01:58 > 0:02:01organisation - so we look forward to being enlightened over the next
0:02:01 > 0:02:0360 minutes.
0:02:03 > 0:02:04By you!
0:02:04 > 0:02:06First this morning - up to 300,000 people with long-term
0:02:06 > 0:02:16mental health problems have to leave their jobs each year.
0:02:22 > 0:02:24That's according to a report commissioned by Theresa
0:02:24 > 0:02:26May published today.
0:02:26 > 0:02:28It also claims poor mental health costs the UK economy up
0:02:28 > 0:02:29to £99 billion each year.
0:02:29 > 0:02:32The Prime Minister is asking NHS England and the civil service
0:02:32 > 0:02:34to accept the report's recommendations and said it showed,
0:02:34 > 0:02:35"We need to take action."
0:02:35 > 0:02:37The question is - what action?
0:02:37 > 0:02:39It sounds like radical action is needed.There is no question the
0:02:39 > 0:02:43issue of mental health has moved off the agenda and it is a bigger cause
0:02:43 > 0:02:51for people to be absent from work or even worse drop out of work
0:02:51 > 0:02:55entirely. I undertook a review earlier this year for the Prime
0:02:55 > 0:02:59Minister about work. One of the things I argued in that is we need a
0:02:59 > 0:03:03more concerted approach to health and well-being at work, bad work
0:03:03 > 0:03:06makes people sick so part of the reason people have mental health
0:03:06 > 0:03:09problems is because we have too much work which is stressful which
0:03:09 > 0:03:13doesn't give people a voice autonomy at work and I think this is a role
0:03:13 > 0:03:18for local government. If city mayors combined authorities and could take
0:03:18 > 0:03:22the lead in bringing together employers, the health service,
0:03:22 > 0:03:25voluntary sector organisations and say, what can we do to improve the
0:03:25 > 0:03:28quality of health and well-being at work, and make it easier for people
0:03:28 > 0:03:33with mental health issues to get back into work?It is all very well
0:03:33 > 0:03:36having reviews, recognising that action needs to be taken, that there
0:03:36 > 0:03:40is a serious problem, whether it is with mental health, or more recently
0:03:40 > 0:03:44the racial disparity audit the government has carried out. But if
0:03:44 > 0:03:47there is no real money behind it it doesn't necessarily mean it is all
0:03:47 > 0:03:51about money but if there is no real money behind it isn't it just virtue
0:03:51 > 0:03:56signalling?It is obviously better to be about lot of that money into
0:03:56 > 0:03:59these initiatives but what I would say about mental health and health
0:03:59 > 0:04:03and well-being at work is often the issue is the lack of joining up.
0:04:03 > 0:04:08What we should be doing is more preventative work, helping employers
0:04:08 > 0:04:11to understand the conditions which they need to create to make it
0:04:11 > 0:04:14easier for people to maintain their well-being but also to enable people
0:04:14 > 0:04:19to talk about mental health issues thoroughly on. That should be in the
0:04:19 > 0:04:22interests of employers because they don't want to lose good staff. It is
0:04:22 > 0:04:25in our interests because those people will stay in work rather than
0:04:25 > 0:04:29falling back into the benefits system.What about people out of
0:04:29 > 0:04:32work and trying to get them back in? The figures of 300,000 for the whole
0:04:32 > 0:04:36of the UK and there has been a cut in mental health nurses working in
0:04:36 > 0:04:40the NHS in England you will not get those people back easily.I make a
0:04:40 > 0:04:46distinct and between that, this is one of the number of a growing list
0:04:46 > 0:04:49of funding challenges. There is another issue which is simply about
0:04:49 > 0:04:55raising awareness. I am an employer on the RSA and we have thought hard
0:04:55 > 0:04:57about mental health issues and well-being with a well-being
0:04:57 > 0:05:00strategy. If you do that kind of thing you are less likely to find
0:05:00 > 0:05:03members of staff who come in so stressed and anxious that they drop
0:05:03 > 0:05:07out of work. Actually, there is more that can be done because there is an
0:05:07 > 0:05:10aligned interest in terms of what the public need, what people
0:05:10 > 0:05:14themselves need and what good employers need.Thank you.
0:05:14 > 0:05:17Now, the NHS in England is increasingly struggling to deal
0:05:17 > 0:05:19with the problem of patients who no longer need hospital care
0:05:19 > 0:05:21but are waiting to be discharged.
0:05:21 > 0:05:24Last year there was a 40% rise in people occupying hospital beds
0:05:24 > 0:05:29who could be cared for at home or in the community.
0:05:29 > 0:05:35Well, one NHS Trust thinks it may have found a solution.
0:05:35 > 0:05:38Dubbed Care BnB, the idea is to ask local residents
0:05:38 > 0:05:41to with spare rooms to host patients recuperating from hospital -
0:05:41 > 0:05:46all for a little extra cash.
0:05:46 > 0:05:49The scheme is part of an Essex trial which would see 30 patients waiting
0:05:49 > 0:05:51for discharge from hospital stay with local residents
0:05:51 > 0:05:54who have a spare room.
0:05:54 > 0:05:59Health care start-up firm CareRooms is recruiting
0:05:59 > 0:06:02hosts near Southend University Hospital who they say could earn up
0:06:02 > 0:06:05to £1000 a month for taking in a patient who is
0:06:05 > 0:06:06ready to be discharged.
0:06:06 > 0:06:09Hosts would be required to heat up meals, supply drinks and offer
0:06:09 > 0:06:13conversation and company.
0:06:13 > 0:06:16This isn't the first controversial measure that's been proposed by NHS
0:06:16 > 0:06:17organisations in recent weeks against the backdrop
0:06:17 > 0:06:20of budget deficits.
0:06:20 > 0:06:25Earlier this month three Clinical Commissioning Groups -
0:06:25 > 0:06:29or CCGs - announced plans to ration non-urgent surgery.
0:06:29 > 0:06:33Smokers in East and North Hertfordshire CCG are to be
0:06:33 > 0:06:38breathalysed to prove they have quit before being referred for surgery.
0:06:38 > 0:06:40And obese patients will also be told they cannot have an operation
0:06:40 > 0:06:42unless they lose weight.
0:06:42 > 0:06:45NHS England has also been delaying cataract surgery until people can no
0:06:45 > 0:06:49longer perform daily activities.
0:06:49 > 0:06:52And some CCGs have told patients gluten-free food will no longer be
0:06:52 > 0:06:56offered on prescription.
0:06:56 > 0:06:58Well, earlier I spoke to Dr Sarah Woolaston, the chair
0:06:58 > 0:07:03of the Health Select Committee.
0:07:03 > 0:07:05I started by asking her if the scheme had her support.If it is
0:07:05 > 0:07:12something where you are bringing in people who have experienced, former
0:07:12 > 0:07:15carers who have an adapted home, that might be something worth
0:07:15 > 0:07:18piloting but that is not what is being asked, this is just random
0:07:18 > 0:07:21members of the public being asked if they would like to make some extra
0:07:21 > 0:07:28money. That is not the way forward and my question for NHS England
0:07:28 > 0:07:32would be, are these bodies going to be registered with the Care Quality
0:07:32 > 0:07:35Commission so that we can be putting quality and safety at the heart of
0:07:35 > 0:07:39this? I think that is a crucial question here.Would you like to see
0:07:39 > 0:07:43the pilot end? You don't think they should even be experimented with?
0:07:43 > 0:07:47The idea that we do everything we can to make sure we stop the
0:07:47 > 0:07:51revolving door back into hospital of people who are discharged home
0:07:51 > 0:07:54Internet settings where they are not managing, we should look at all the
0:07:54 > 0:07:59options. But what we know from the state of care from the Care Quality
0:07:59 > 0:08:01Commission is the whole system is under pressure. My big ask of the
0:08:01 > 0:08:06government is to look at not just social care but the NHS, look at the
0:08:06 > 0:08:08whole system. When they bring forward their consultation in the
0:08:08 > 0:08:14green paper don't keep them as two separate systems, they have to be
0:08:14 > 0:08:17brought together and we need a proper review of long-term
0:08:17 > 0:08:21sustainability across health and care.Isn't this an innovative way
0:08:21 > 0:08:26of tackling the bed blocking problem, which is such an issue
0:08:26 > 0:08:31within the NHS? Isn't it better to actually send an old person out of
0:08:31 > 0:08:34hospital to a warm home where they are going to get a warm meal and be
0:08:34 > 0:08:38looked after in the broadest possible sense by another member of
0:08:38 > 0:08:45the public, good one?Well, I think the term blocking is pejorative and
0:08:45 > 0:08:49I think we should say Dimeck transfer of care. It is offensive
0:08:49 > 0:08:54for a lot of old people. -- delayed transfer of care. Many people I have
0:08:54 > 0:08:58come across who have been former carers I have seen could provide a
0:08:58 > 0:09:03wonderful way home, if you like, out the fundamental underlying problem
0:09:03 > 0:09:10here is the shortage of social care Puvrez -- provision and social care
0:09:10 > 0:09:15in the community and the whole of the funding for health and social
0:09:15 > 0:09:17care needs to be looked at to get something sustainable for the
0:09:17 > 0:09:21future. It is under huge pressure. If there was a registration system
0:09:21 > 0:09:29and of qualified carers would money dumped my to patients online would
0:09:29 > 0:09:32that be acceptable?This is a pilot that has been proposed and what
0:09:32 > 0:09:35needs to happen now is we need to carefully at the pilot and make sure
0:09:35 > 0:09:40quality and safety are at the heart of it. As a bare minimum this
0:09:40 > 0:09:43company should be registered with the Care Quality Commission. The
0:09:43 > 0:09:47idea that we conduct a pilot isn't something I would say that we
0:09:47 > 0:09:51absolutely must do. Of course we must continue to look at all of the
0:09:51 > 0:09:55innovative solutions but I would say let's go back a step and save the
0:09:55 > 0:09:59fundamental problem here is the shortage of care provision. We know
0:09:59 > 0:10:02that care home providers are still under enormous pressure, we are
0:10:02 > 0:10:07losing many care home beds and the workforce in social care is really
0:10:07 > 0:10:10at breaking point.How much more money should be spent by the
0:10:10 > 0:10:16government?We know that in the short term by 2019-2020 we're
0:10:16 > 0:10:20looking at a funding shortfall in social care of around 2 billion.
0:10:20 > 0:10:23What we don't have in the NHS and social care is a body looking over
0:10:23 > 0:10:28the horizon at the long-term giving us good quality data about all of
0:10:28 > 0:10:31the demographic challenges we face and what the needs and costs are so
0:10:31 > 0:10:39that we can properly plan for it. Magath health and social cake
0:10:39 > 0:10:43together. We keep on having dysuria funding of health and social care.
0:10:43 > 0:10:46What about depriving surgery to patients who haven't quit smoking?
0:10:46 > 0:10:50Is that a good idea?You have to look at it from the clinical point
0:10:50 > 0:10:53of view, if you are a smoker having a routine operation and can stop
0:10:53 > 0:10:57smoking before that that is in your best interests.That is not what is
0:10:57 > 0:11:02being suggested, they are saying let's deprive that surgery as a
0:11:02 > 0:11:04proposal going forward to the people have not given up smoking and until
0:11:04 > 0:11:09they do give it up we will not perform the operation, is that
0:11:09 > 0:11:12right?I think if it is being done purely as a rationing measure I
0:11:12 > 0:11:16don't agree. If it is being done as a way of saying we can give you a
0:11:16 > 0:11:19better outcome of your surgery if you stop smoking than I think that
0:11:19 > 0:11:24is worth trying. If it is routine and there is no urgency at all about
0:11:24 > 0:11:27it and you have three months to give up smoking before you have surgery,
0:11:27 > 0:11:31that is absolutely going to be in your best interests, it shouldn't be
0:11:31 > 0:11:35a rationing measure.It has been put forward partly as a rationing
0:11:35 > 0:11:38measure as well as improving outcomes, in the same way that
0:11:38 > 0:11:41people who are overweight or obese are being told they must lose weight
0:11:41 > 0:11:46before they have an operation. Would you support that?It wouldn't be
0:11:46 > 0:11:54right to deprive people of the surgery they need because they are
0:11:54 > 0:11:56overweight. But again, if there are opportunities to improve outcomes
0:11:56 > 0:11:59before they start and it is not urgent of course that is in their
0:11:59 > 0:12:01clinical interests but should not be used as a rationing measure.The
0:12:01 > 0:12:03other suggestions are delaying cataract surgery until people can no
0:12:03 > 0:12:08longer perform daily activities. Is that justifiable?That is not
0:12:08 > 0:12:11justifiable and there have been announcements on that recently and
0:12:11 > 0:12:14Simon Stevens also commented on it. That is unacceptable. And of course
0:12:14 > 0:12:18it means we sometimes end up with greater costs in the long term in
0:12:18 > 0:12:21the NHS because of people are becoming more and more disabled at
0:12:21 > 0:12:26home because of low vision had more likely to fall that in itself has
0:12:26 > 0:12:29serious consequences not just for them as individuals but it can add
0:12:29 > 0:12:34costs to the NHS.But this is the reality for many local NHS trusts.
0:12:34 > 0:12:36They are doing this because they just haven't got the money to
0:12:36 > 0:12:41perform all these operations. Do you have sympathy with them?What we
0:12:41 > 0:12:45need to look at, and it's something I race with Simon Stevens when he
0:12:45 > 0:12:49came to the health committee, is this idea that what has to give? The
0:12:49 > 0:12:53system is under huge pressure. What is going to give? Is it going to be
0:12:53 > 0:12:57waiting times for routine surgery? He indicated that is part of the
0:12:57 > 0:13:00system that will slip. We have seen that already, increasing waiting
0:13:00 > 0:13:04time through routine surgery, and we are seeing all the other markers of
0:13:04 > 0:13:09pressure in the NHS is starting to flash warning lights now. But as I
0:13:09 > 0:13:13say, we have to take a step back, look at sustainable long-term
0:13:13 > 0:13:18funding and the workforce for NHS and social care.In the meantime, do
0:13:18 > 0:13:22you think rationing is going to become the norm?I think we have
0:13:22 > 0:13:26always had that to a certain degree in the NHS, let's be clear about
0:13:26 > 0:13:30that. But what we know is waiting times are likely to be increased as
0:13:30 > 0:13:34the service comes under increasing pressure. And I say again, we need
0:13:34 > 0:13:39to have an honest discussion with the public about all the options for
0:13:39 > 0:13:44long-term sustainable funding in health and care.Including raising
0:13:44 > 0:13:50taxes?Yes, no political party has a monopoly. We have to look at the
0:13:50 > 0:13:52whole spectrum working together in the best interests of the public.
0:13:52 > 0:13:59Would you support an increase in income tax to support improved
0:13:59 > 0:14:02funding in health?We have to look at what they have done in Japan and
0:14:02 > 0:14:06Germany where people over a certain age start to pay an increased
0:14:06 > 0:14:10precept towards their social care costs. Pulling the risks of social
0:14:10 > 0:14:14care. There are lots of things that we could do to get more money into
0:14:14 > 0:14:18the total system. There are things we could do going back and looking
0:14:18 > 0:14:22again at benefits for wealthy pensioners. Should we tax those
0:14:22 > 0:14:25benefits? We know the manifesto proposal is not going to be
0:14:25 > 0:14:28supported by the DUP. There are things we know that our political
0:14:28 > 0:14:32realities that we can't get through Parliament. And that's the trouble,
0:14:32 > 0:14:38we're kind of court now, I think for ever, for manifestos, with nobody
0:14:38 > 0:14:42sitting at honest truth is for the public. This is the only stage of
0:14:42 > 0:14:47the political cycle where we can realistically get political parties
0:14:47 > 0:14:50to sit down together, think about what the options are, stop looking
0:14:50 > 0:14:54at this from a sort of party perspective of how am I going to get
0:14:54 > 0:14:58the highest number of MPs by not being honest with people? Set out
0:14:58 > 0:15:02all the options and come to a conclusion about how we are going to
0:15:02 > 0:15:06fund this, because otherwise I'm afraid the public are not going to
0:15:06 > 0:15:10have any respect for politicians if we can't get to grips with this.Dr
0:15:10 > 0:15:14Sarah Woolaston. We asked for an interview with a spokesperson from
0:15:14 > 0:15:17Southend University Hospital but nobody was available. Matthew
0:15:17 > 0:15:24Taylor, is on the idea of Care BnB a disaster waiting to happen?
0:15:24 > 0:15:30No, I think it is a great idea. There is a charity called Shared
0:15:30 > 0:15:35Lives which provides adult foster care, it encourages people to treat
0:15:35 > 0:15:39vulnerable people as members of the family, it provides a support
0:15:39 > 0:15:43services, you do not have to stick with it if it is not working, and I
0:15:43 > 0:15:49think that model can work in this case. Look, there are millions of
0:15:49 > 0:15:53empty bedrooms in this country, and millions of people who are generous
0:15:53 > 0:15:57people who would like to be able to support other people, and wouldn't
0:15:57 > 0:16:00all of us much rather be receiving care in a family home with people
0:16:00 > 0:16:04that we know, rather than being in hospital, which, as we know, is a
0:16:04 > 0:16:09bad place to be if you are sick?But these are not necessarily people you
0:16:09 > 0:16:12would know, the suggestion is elderly people would go into the
0:16:12 > 0:16:21home of the people they do not know, no medical qualifications, and
0:16:21 > 0:16:23surely there risk attached to that. There are risks attached to
0:16:23 > 0:16:28everything, and if you have a culture of avoiding risk, you will
0:16:28 > 0:16:31never get anywhere. Of course, you need to get this right, any family
0:16:31 > 0:16:36would need to have basic training, not terribly sophisticated, basic
0:16:36 > 0:16:40health training, they would need to know they get the support they need
0:16:40 > 0:16:44by simply making a phone call. But as long as you put all that in
0:16:44 > 0:16:49place, the idea has got a compelling logic to it.You say it is
0:16:49 > 0:16:51innovation Daesh isn't it desperation on behalf of NHS trusts
0:16:51 > 0:16:58who are so strapped for cash and cannot deal with the revolving door
0:16:58 > 0:17:03of elderly patients?I make a fundamental distinction between some
0:17:03 > 0:17:08of these ideas that we are discussing, the rather crude
0:17:08 > 0:17:11rationing, which is desperation, and this, which is a good way of saying,
0:17:11 > 0:17:16if you are elderly and frail, you would rather be in a nice bedroom, a
0:17:16 > 0:17:21nice house with people who know your name and how many sugars you like in
0:17:21 > 0:17:24a cup of tea, rather than being in a hospital where you are likely to
0:17:24 > 0:17:29pick up an infection and which cost a lot more. Essex is right, pilot it
0:17:29 > 0:17:32with 30 people, find out how it works, but to suggest that you
0:17:32 > 0:17:38should not even explore it...So Sarah Wollaston is wrong.I think it
0:17:38 > 0:17:42is completely wrong to say that you should not even explore the idea. If
0:17:42 > 0:17:47there are fundamental flaws, it will be discovered at pilot stage.Just
0:17:47 > 0:17:50briefly, before we end, what is wrong to saying to someone that you
0:17:50 > 0:17:55have a better outcome if you stop smoking or lose weight before an
0:17:55 > 0:18:00operation?If there is a clinical basis for it, that is to say, if you
0:18:00 > 0:18:03don't change or habits, the treatment is not going to work, I
0:18:03 > 0:18:07agree with that. But when it gets into the business of morally judging
0:18:07 > 0:18:13people, I don't know where the end of that is.
0:18:13 > 0:18:16Now, universal basic income.
0:18:16 > 0:18:19The idea: Give every citizen a wodge of cash,
0:18:19 > 0:18:22regardless of how rich they are or whether they have a job,
0:18:22 > 0:18:24and then you could do away with most of the benefits system.
0:18:24 > 0:18:27It may sound a bit far fetched, utopian even, but it's gaining
0:18:27 > 0:18:29support across the political spectrum, and four councils
0:18:29 > 0:18:31in Scotland, with the backing of the Scottish Government,
0:18:31 > 0:18:33are looking into piloting the idea.
0:18:33 > 0:18:37Ellie has been finding out more.
0:18:37 > 0:18:39Broadly speaking, the way it works at the moment,
0:18:39 > 0:18:43the more you earn, the less you get in benefits.
0:18:43 > 0:18:48If you don't have a job, you can expect welfare payments.
0:18:48 > 0:18:50But what if everyone got given the same,
0:18:50 > 0:18:54from millionaire hedge-fund manager to unemployed single parent?
0:18:54 > 0:18:56A wodge of cash regardless of income,
0:18:56 > 0:18:59resources or employment status.
0:18:59 > 0:19:01It's an idea that's been catching on too,
0:19:01 > 0:19:03with countries as diverse as Canada, Kenya, Finland
0:19:03 > 0:19:04and India all trying out versions.
0:19:04 > 0:19:08And now Glasgow City Council want to have a go too.
0:19:08 > 0:19:10In fact, four councils in Scotland are now
0:19:10 > 0:19:13actively looking at the idea, and they're in the early
0:19:13 > 0:19:17stages of designing pilot schemes to test it out.
0:19:17 > 0:19:22Empowering people and actually changing the relationship between
0:19:22 > 0:19:26the state and the individual, and giving people
0:19:26 > 0:19:29the opportunity to have space in their life to not have to worry
0:19:29 > 0:19:32about whether or not they're going to be able to feed
0:19:32 > 0:19:34themselves that week or the next, I think people start
0:19:34 > 0:19:36to make different decisions, people start to take...
0:19:36 > 0:19:39Maybe they would take a chance on starting a business,
0:19:39 > 0:19:46but it might be they choose to work to help in the community.
0:19:46 > 0:19:50Here's where we keep most of Derek's medication.
0:19:50 > 0:19:53Lynne Williams is a full-time carer for her husband Derek.
0:19:53 > 0:19:55She says UBI is a no-brainer.
0:19:55 > 0:19:59I mean, when I gave up my full-time job, what I get back from the state
0:19:59 > 0:20:03is effectively £62 a week, that's what carer's allowance is,
0:20:03 > 0:20:08and it says that, effectively, you're worth about £1.70 an hour.
0:20:08 > 0:20:10To be given a basic income that says, you know,
0:20:10 > 0:20:14"We value what you do, what you do means something,"
0:20:14 > 0:20:17I think that, at a time when services are struggling,
0:20:17 > 0:20:20when benefits are being consistently attacked, for me it's just something
0:20:20 > 0:20:24that says we value what you do.
0:20:24 > 0:20:27ARCHIVE:It tells you what the new National Health Service is
0:20:27 > 0:20:31and how you can use what it offers.
0:20:31 > 0:20:34Supporters of the idea admit it would be as revolutionary
0:20:34 > 0:20:38as the inception of the NHS and welfare state after World War II,
0:20:38 > 0:20:42something that, at the time, critics said was unaffordable.
0:20:42 > 0:20:45There is money there - we have to choose how we spend it.
0:20:45 > 0:20:48But a basic income itself would be brought in and would include
0:20:48 > 0:20:51using money that's already in the system, to a large extent,
0:20:51 > 0:20:54so that would include personal tax allowance that we already receive
0:20:54 > 0:20:57that technically is this idea of free money for everybody,
0:20:57 > 0:20:59although you don't see it directly yourself.
0:20:59 > 0:21:02It would bring in some of the existing welfare state,
0:21:02 > 0:21:04so child benefit, for example, would be rolled into that.
0:21:04 > 0:21:07Some areas would still be kept separate.
0:21:07 > 0:21:09We sometimes look at the costs in isolation.
0:21:09 > 0:21:15However, if this led to increased physical and mental well-being,
0:21:15 > 0:21:18with therefore less need of the NHS and other support services,
0:21:18 > 0:21:24if it led to increased businesses being created, new jobs,
0:21:24 > 0:21:26actually, we could see substantial savings and finances brought
0:21:26 > 0:21:28in through those avenues as well.
0:21:28 > 0:21:31I'm told the sort of figures being suggested for recipients
0:21:31 > 0:21:35in the pilot areas could reflect current levels of jobseeker's
0:21:35 > 0:21:36allowance, so roughly £73 a week.
0:21:36 > 0:21:39But the scheme is very much in the planning stages
0:21:39 > 0:21:46and isn't likely to be rolled out for at least a couple of years.
0:21:46 > 0:21:48We're joined now by the Labour MP Karen Buck,
0:21:48 > 0:21:50who opposes the idea of universal basic income.
0:21:50 > 0:22:00Our guest of the day, Matthew Taylor, supports it.
0:22:01 > 0:22:08Matthew Taylor, why do you support it?I think it is a response to the
0:22:08 > 0:22:12kinds of challenges people face in the 21st century, the growth of
0:22:12 > 0:22:16insecurity, precariousness, people moving between work. It is also a
0:22:16 > 0:22:21response to the fact that success of welfare reforms have failed to
0:22:21 > 0:22:25address, they just move around the problem of poor working incentives,
0:22:25 > 0:22:28and the great thing about UBI, if it is done in the right way, is that it
0:22:28 > 0:22:32means poorer people, when they get jobs, they don't lose their
0:22:32 > 0:22:38benefits, it strengthens work incentives, and if they have gaps
0:22:38 > 0:22:40between work, rather than going through a cumbersome process of
0:22:40 > 0:22:43signing on and all the problems with the loss in that, they have
0:22:43 > 0:22:47continuity. No-one is talking about a lot of money, we're talking about
0:22:47 > 0:22:51having the basics of sustenance. Wouldn't that be a way of replacing
0:22:51 > 0:22:55what is still a fairly complicated welfare system, even with universal
0:22:55 > 0:23:01credit, which, as we know now, is in the middle of huge rows between
0:23:01 > 0:23:04political parties in Parliament? Only it wouldn't do away with those,
0:23:04 > 0:23:11because the floor with UBI, with that idea come is that you would
0:23:11 > 0:23:16still be required to have something that helps you... I'm sorry.I do
0:23:16 > 0:23:20not know if you will be able to continue.One more go, you would
0:23:20 > 0:23:25still have to tackle the problems of people with disabilities.I will
0:23:25 > 0:23:32come back to you, Matthew. Isn't it also a problem about spreading your
0:23:32 > 0:23:35resources to thinly, that actually it would be better to concentrate,
0:23:35 > 0:23:40on, as you say, the working poor, people who either do not earn enough
0:23:40 > 0:23:44from their jobs or who are out of work altogether?So I think the
0:23:44 > 0:23:47important thing about UBI is to understand that it is a concept
0:23:47 > 0:23:51rather than a policy, and views about and vary from futurists who
0:23:51 > 0:23:58see it as a passport to a post-work society, through to much more things
0:23:58 > 0:24:03from the RSA advocacy, which sees it as welfare reform. Some say that
0:24:03 > 0:24:08higher rate taxpayers would not get it.You can understand why.But the
0:24:08 > 0:24:12point is, by providing it to a reasonably broad section of the
0:24:12 > 0:24:17population, you address work incentivising. The design has got to
0:24:17 > 0:24:20address housing costs and disability costs, and that is one of the most
0:24:20 > 0:24:25difficult issues to deal with, but nevertheless we need to start from
0:24:25 > 0:24:30the failings of our current welfare system. A lot of money and time has
0:24:30 > 0:24:33gone into universal credit, and it is not going to improve things.And
0:24:33 > 0:24:38it is about increasing the incentive to work, I can see how some people
0:24:38 > 0:24:42would see a UBI as a disincentive to work, but wouldn't it encourage
0:24:42 > 0:24:48them?It depends very much on what level you are setting it at, but the
0:24:48 > 0:24:52couple are getting factor is that people are simply... There is a risk
0:24:52 > 0:24:56that it will put a downward pressure on wage negotiations, which is one
0:24:56 > 0:25:00of the reasons that trade unions are concerned.You would want to do it
0:25:00 > 0:25:04in the context of the living wage, so you would need to make sure it
0:25:04 > 0:25:10did not become a way in which working families come like tax
0:25:10 > 0:25:15credits, it became a way of subsidising poor pay. It has to be
0:25:15 > 0:25:18part of an overall approach, and I do not think it would be ready to be
0:25:18 > 0:25:22introduced for a decade, but in Scotland, Finland and other places,
0:25:22 > 0:25:26there are ways of testing it.But there is opposition to it in
0:25:26 > 0:25:29Finland, for the BBC is that Karen has set out, the trade union
0:25:29 > 0:25:38movement are not happy with the idea because of what it does to wages. --
0:25:38 > 0:25:43for the reasons that Karen has set out.We are seeing a theme here,
0:25:43 > 0:25:48people being averse to experimentation. What we will find
0:25:48 > 0:25:51out are DBA Birrell consequences. We don't know whether it does
0:25:51 > 0:26:04incentivise people to work. -- the real consequences. We need to
0:26:04 > 0:26:06understand the payroll consequences. In the systems that have had
0:26:06 > 0:26:09something like a basic income, it seems to broadly speaking
0:26:09 > 0:26:15incentivise people to work, although it does reduce incentives to work
0:26:15 > 0:26:18for women with young children. And maybe that is a reflection of the
0:26:18 > 0:26:23fact that do not want to work.We know you cannot design a perfect
0:26:23 > 0:26:29system, but wouldn't it and fraud, as well as persuading people that
0:26:29 > 0:26:36work is better?Well, there are advantages to doing this... This is
0:26:36 > 0:26:43ridiculous.Go on, then I will let you go.There are advantages to
0:26:43 > 0:26:47doing it, but I think the disadvantages doesn't deal with all
0:26:47 > 0:26:51the complexity within the system. I think there is a real problem about
0:26:51 > 0:26:57the risk of this engaging people from the workplace.We both agree it
0:26:57 > 0:27:00needs to be piloted, there is a lot more to be learned about how it
0:27:00 > 0:27:05works, but one thing we should not miss out - Karen will know this as a
0:27:05 > 0:27:10brilliant constituency MP - a number of people have difficult experiences
0:27:10 > 0:27:15with the welfare system, so one advantage is you get the state out
0:27:15 > 0:27:18of the system of regulating people, oppressing people, and into the
0:27:18 > 0:27:22business of supporting people to make choices, and that is a big
0:27:22 > 0:27:25gain, if we would like to make people feel more positively about
0:27:25 > 0:27:31covenant.But you can do many of those things without going for a
0:27:31 > 0:27:37grant scheme.£73 a week, does that sound about right?I would started
0:27:37 > 0:27:41very modest. Not enough to live on, but enough to keep your head above
0:27:41 > 0:27:45water, so we don't have what we are talking about now, people destitute
0:27:45 > 0:27:49because they are waiting for their benefits.I will let you go and rest
0:27:49 > 0:27:52your voice, Karen, thank you for persevering!
0:27:52 > 0:27:55The spotlight was turned on Labour MP Jared O'Mara this week
0:27:55 > 0:27:57when the Guido Fawkes website published offensive comments
0:27:57 > 0:27:59that he had made online as a younger man.
0:27:59 > 0:28:02On Tuesday, this programme heard from one of his constituents,
0:28:02 > 0:28:04Sophie Evans, who alleged that Mr O'Mara had used
0:28:04 > 0:28:06sexist and abusive language towards her earlier this year,
0:28:06 > 0:28:07before he was elected.
0:28:07 > 0:28:09He strenuously denies those allegations.
0:28:09 > 0:28:12Yesterday, Labour announced that the MP for Sheffield Hallam
0:28:12 > 0:28:14had been suspended from the party.
0:28:14 > 0:28:17The case has led to criticism of the vetting procedures
0:28:17 > 0:28:22that candidates undergo before being selected.
0:28:22 > 0:28:24Last night, the grassroots Momentum group in Sheffield
0:28:24 > 0:28:28reacted to the news that Mr O'Mara had been suspended.
0:28:28 > 0:28:34Very, very ashamed at the way in which this has been covered.
0:28:34 > 0:28:36Shouldn't he have been interviewed for the position?
0:28:36 > 0:28:38The Labour Party have confirmed tonight
0:28:38 > 0:28:41that he wasn't interviewed to be a candidate in the election.
0:28:41 > 0:28:45Well, I mean that just goes to show how poor the selection process is
0:28:45 > 0:28:47and how undemocratic the selection process is really.
0:28:47 > 0:28:53This is why we need mandatory reselection.
0:28:53 > 0:28:55From what I know, the Sheffield Hallam constituency
0:28:55 > 0:28:56didn't really fund it too well.
0:28:56 > 0:28:59They weren't really sure of who to stand, there weren't many
0:28:59 > 0:29:02people there willing to stand.
0:29:02 > 0:29:05So I think lessons need to be learned, obviously.
0:29:05 > 0:29:09Jared actually came to the University of Sheffield
0:29:09 > 0:29:12and obviously, based on one meeting, you can't really judge him too much,
0:29:12 > 0:29:15but he seemed like someone who is progressive.
0:29:15 > 0:29:18So I would really like to make sure that the investigation done
0:29:18 > 0:29:31into what he has said is thorough.
0:29:31 > 0:29:35The views of Momentum activists in Glasgow.
0:29:35 > 0:29:36I'm joined now from Glasgow
0:29:36 > 0:29:39by the Labour NEC member and Momentum activitst Rhea Wolfson,
0:29:39 > 0:29:41and here in the studio by the Labour MP John Mann.
0:29:41 > 0:29:45Welcome to both of you. Rhea Wolfson, the journalist and Jeremy
0:29:45 > 0:29:49Corbyn subordinate Paul Mason says the Jared O'Mara debacle shows why
0:29:49 > 0:29:53they need Labour Party members to select candidates and not backroom
0:29:53 > 0:29:57fixer is. Mandatory reselection for all. Do you agree with that?We have
0:29:57 > 0:30:00to remember the context of the last elections, snap general election.
0:30:00 > 0:30:05Many others argued we should find a way to include local Labour Party
0:30:05 > 0:30:09members despite the short time frame. That wasn't possible and it
0:30:09 > 0:30:15didn't happen and ultimately it has led to situations like this. I would
0:30:15 > 0:30:17say the normal scrutiny might not look back at social media presence
0:30:17 > 0:30:23for the past 15 years. I have been on record and still support
0:30:23 > 0:30:28mandatory reselection but I don't think that is this debate, it is
0:30:28 > 0:30:32about local scrutiny and accountability that comes from
0:30:32 > 0:30:36mandatory reselection and looking forward we should seek local parties
0:30:36 > 0:30:40involved in selections and as we are into selecting candidates for the
0:30:40 > 0:30:43upcoming general elections they will be.John Mann, do you agree the
0:30:43 > 0:30:47betting procedure failed in this case? They said the regional
0:30:47 > 0:30:51committee looked at Jared O'Mara's CV and didn't even interview him. Is
0:30:51 > 0:30:56that acceptable was in the Labour Party's policy is to ask people if
0:30:56 > 0:30:59they have anything in the background that could bring the party into
0:30:59 > 0:31:03disrepute or embarrass the party. That has been the case for about 20
0:31:03 > 0:31:13years. You are one of the candidates in the last election. I don't know
0:31:13 > 0:31:16if she was asked if anything in her background would embarrass the
0:31:16 > 0:31:21party. That is an important question to ask because if you say no and
0:31:21 > 0:31:24there is the non-beastly it's easy for the Labour Party to do something
0:31:24 > 0:31:29about it because you wouldn't have told the truth. In Tambe's case if
0:31:29 > 0:31:32he wasn't asked the question he cannot tell the truth or not tell
0:31:32 > 0:31:37the truth and that is it flawed process. 20 years has been our
0:31:37 > 0:31:46system doing that. -- Jared's.The fact it was a snap election, did
0:31:46 > 0:31:49that affect it?That is no excuse, there aren't many seats that didn't
0:31:49 > 0:31:54have people ready to go. Snap election is just an excuse for that.
0:31:54 > 0:31:58These procedures are straightforward and standard. In this case the
0:31:58 > 0:32:02Labour Party National executive and Rhea is an elected member of it,
0:32:02 > 0:32:05they impose candidates. If they impose candidates because it is an
0:32:05 > 0:32:09emergency situation they should be following the party's rule book and
0:32:09 > 0:32:12if they haven't done so questions need to be asked about why they were
0:32:12 > 0:32:18not doing so.Rhea, what do you say to that?Nobody has suggested the
0:32:18 > 0:32:22process was not followed and part of the application process does involve
0:32:22 > 0:32:26people saying exactly as John said, anything in your history that will
0:32:26 > 0:32:31embarrass the party. I agree with John and whites swift action has
0:32:31 > 0:32:38been able to be taken. I don't think we are disagreeing at more scrutiny
0:32:38 > 0:32:42must go into selection process is. Again, I don't support in anything
0:32:42 > 0:32:45but exceptions the NEC making choices and choosing candidates. I
0:32:45 > 0:32:49think local parties have to play an important role in that.But would
0:32:49 > 0:32:57local party or local membership have avoided what happened with Jared
0:32:57 > 0:33:01O'Mara?The investigation is ongoing so I don't want to comment on
0:33:01 > 0:33:04anything that is happening but I don't want to prejudice that in any
0:33:04 > 0:33:09way and Jared deserves to have a fair process. Local parties play an
0:33:09 > 0:33:12important role because they know people in the community and how they
0:33:12 > 0:33:16interact and if they are active. They know if it is obvious in some
0:33:16 > 0:33:19cases that they hold certain views which might not be apparent because
0:33:19 > 0:33:22they wouldn't have put it on their CV, that does come out in local
0:33:22 > 0:33:28party selections. It provides important scrutiny.Wouldn't that be
0:33:28 > 0:33:30an important role for the local party and local members to play, if
0:33:30 > 0:33:34they could give to some extent expert knowledge of the candidate
0:33:34 > 0:33:38being put forward?I am all for local parties deciding who the
0:33:38 > 0:33:42candidates are rather than Rhea and her colleagues on the national
0:33:42 > 0:33:45executive deciding. I think that is good. But in this case it is totally
0:33:45 > 0:33:49irrelevant. Jared has been an activist, he has been a council
0:33:49 > 0:33:53candidate before, and therefore, the local party knows him as well as
0:33:53 > 0:34:00anybody else. So you are going to get situations where... Who knows
0:34:00 > 0:34:03everyone? You cannot have a selection process that's going to...
0:34:03 > 0:34:08If you weed out everyone who can't come forward and say, right, here is
0:34:08 > 0:34:13all of my history for ever and I have documented it. The only people
0:34:13 > 0:34:17you would end up with are people who have been around for 50 years with
0:34:17 > 0:34:23an unblemished record as councillors.Was suspension the
0:34:23 > 0:34:26right thing to do?Of course suspension was right after what he
0:34:26 > 0:34:31did, of course, Labour had no choice, it was right what they did.
0:34:31 > 0:34:34The commentary from him is grotesque. The allegations that from
0:34:34 > 0:34:41this year are incredibly serious. Although he does deny them.He does
0:34:41 > 0:34:46deny them but therefore suspended, which is the due process, and
0:34:46 > 0:34:49investigating him to see if he is telling the truth or these women who
0:34:49 > 0:34:54have come forward are telling the truth, is important. Violence
0:34:54 > 0:34:58against women, misogyny, has no place in Parliament and no place in
0:34:58 > 0:35:01the Labour Party.Rhea Wolfson, is it ever going to be possible to
0:35:01 > 0:35:06ensure that every candidate's past misdemeanours, or alleged unsavoury
0:35:06 > 0:35:09behaviour, is investigated and therefore dealt with before they are
0:35:09 > 0:35:13selected as a candidate?I think more important than that almost is
0:35:13 > 0:35:17what we do when there are issues. Ultimately we have a process here
0:35:17 > 0:35:20and I think we need to be careful about what opportunities we are
0:35:20 > 0:35:24giving to people to rectify behaviour that no longer aligns with
0:35:24 > 0:35:32what they believe. People have to learn from mistakes and that is an
0:35:32 > 0:35:36important process we have in place. We need to be careful not to create
0:35:36 > 0:35:41a generational gap. I am 27 and has an online footprint that people will
0:35:41 > 0:35:45not have if they are 30 years older than me.Do you think people's
0:35:45 > 0:35:48online past needs to be taken into account?It does come absolutely but
0:35:48 > 0:35:52we must have the process that says you have said this in the past, do
0:35:52 > 0:35:56you stand by it, or are you a different person? That is what we
0:35:56 > 0:36:00have seen here and I hope we will see a constructive outcome in this
0:36:00 > 0:36:04situation.Listening to all of this, Matthew Taylor, do you think the
0:36:04 > 0:36:10selection process was at fault? That there was some decision not to go
0:36:10 > 0:36:14through due process because of a snap election and there wasn't time,
0:36:14 > 0:36:17and that actually having more local membership involvement would be a
0:36:17 > 0:36:22good thing?I agree with John and I say this as an employer, somebody
0:36:22 > 0:36:26who interviews lots of people for jobs. Either the question was not
0:36:26 > 0:36:29asked and the question should have been asked, however rushed the
0:36:29 > 0:36:34process was, it is one of the most basic. I have sat in on the
0:36:34 > 0:36:37selection of candidates, last-minute selections, when I worked for the
0:36:37 > 0:36:40Labour Party. Of course you can ask the questions. The question was
0:36:40 > 0:36:43either not asked, a fundamental failure of process, or it was and he
0:36:43 > 0:36:51lied and if he lied he is bang to rights, basically.There is no other
0:36:51 > 0:36:53possible outcome. Rhea Wolfson, Labour is getting ready for another
0:36:53 > 0:36:55election and the selection process is under way for various target
0:36:55 > 0:36:59seats and there is a major review into party democracy over the next
0:36:59 > 0:37:0312 months, which could include mandatory reselection of MPs. But
0:37:03 > 0:37:07aren't mandatory reselection is the opportunity to get rid of potential
0:37:07 > 0:37:09candidates who don't back Jeremy Corbyn, which is something you have
0:37:09 > 0:37:14wanted to see all along?I want to see mandatory reselection, not to
0:37:14 > 0:37:18get rid of candidates who don't support Jeremy Corbyn. Mandatory
0:37:18 > 0:37:22reselection is a way to keep another level of scrutiny and a level of
0:37:22 > 0:37:26accountability for MPs. We do it for cancer was. It is not a
0:37:26 > 0:37:30controversial thing for councillors. For elected representatives we need
0:37:30 > 0:37:33a robust level of scrutiny for them and I think mandatory reselection
0:37:33 > 0:37:38plays an important part in that. What do you say to that?We don't
0:37:38 > 0:37:41have that for councillors in most parts of the country, we have a
0:37:41 > 0:37:44reselection process and that reselection process exists. If
0:37:44 > 0:37:47people want to get rid of their MPs they can do and there are MPs who
0:37:47 > 0:37:52have been got rid of. Most go quietly if their local party says we
0:37:52 > 0:37:56don't want you again, you are too old. With the expenses scandal some
0:37:56 > 0:38:00got pointed to the door and went quietly. On the occasion like Bob
0:38:00 > 0:38:03wearing in Liverpool Bay fight it out and get voted out. We already
0:38:03 > 0:38:07have a process. What we don't want is a long winded process which means
0:38:07 > 0:38:10for me, I have no fears about somebody trying to stand against me
0:38:10 > 0:38:16in the slightest but Dummett representing 20 constituents on the
0:38:16 > 0:38:19child abuse inquiry. Of that would have clashed with the six-month
0:38:19 > 0:38:23reselection process you cannot do both so we would spend six months is
0:38:23 > 0:38:26purely going around hundreds of meetings, whereas the process we
0:38:26 > 0:38:31have at the moment is short, sharp. If my constituency members don't
0:38:31 > 0:38:37like me they have the power to get rid of me and they will.What other
0:38:37 > 0:38:41prospects of Jared O'Mara remaining NMP?If he has lied, none, telling
0:38:41 > 0:38:48the truth, good. -- remaining an MP. What is the process that will flow
0:38:48 > 0:38:53from what is going on now?I hope the process is the Labour Party
0:38:53 > 0:38:57brings in someone with expertise and specialism in sexual harassment and
0:38:57 > 0:39:00abuse to be advising the process throughout so that there is a
0:39:00 > 0:39:07professional advice, and therefore we go through the due process. This
0:39:07 > 0:39:11happens in the workplace.He could stay independent, couldn't he?You
0:39:11 > 0:39:18cannot force somebody to resign from Parliament. There are no powers. We
0:39:18 > 0:39:22voted for that and parliaments agreed. There is nothing the Labour
0:39:22 > 0:39:26Party cannot do about that. The critical issue is whether he remains
0:39:26 > 0:39:30as a Labour MP. The test now will be very simple. Did he tell the truth?
0:39:30 > 0:39:33If there was these questions asked when he went as a candidate, did he
0:39:33 > 0:39:38tell the truth or did he lie? If they were not, is he telling the
0:39:38 > 0:39:41truth? He is either telling the truth or these two women are telling
0:39:41 > 0:39:49the truth and there is no middle ground grey area with this case.
0:39:49 > 0:39:51Let's move on to something us before we end this discussion which is
0:39:51 > 0:39:54about the EU withdrawal Bill. We have been told in the Commons today
0:39:54 > 0:39:57it will be back in Parliament on the 14th and 15th of November. As eight
0:39:57 > 0:40:01Leaver are you believed it is going to be progressing?I want to see it
0:40:01 > 0:40:05progressing and I want to see good amendments and proper debate.
0:40:05 > 0:40:11Frankly, we have had all sorts of politicking going on with strong
0:40:11 > 0:40:15views but not going into much detail.Is Keir Starmer your shadow
0:40:15 > 0:40:18Brexit said could treat one of those? He says the Brexit Bill is
0:40:18 > 0:40:23not fit for purpose.People who voted for remaining are coming
0:40:23 > 0:40:30closely together in wanting to see the will of the people being brought
0:40:30 > 0:40:33together in a way that is effective and that means Parliament having a
0:40:33 > 0:40:37proper say, that is a good thing. Wardy you make of the accusations
0:40:37 > 0:40:41that have been levelled at Davis that Parliament might not get to
0:40:41 > 0:40:49have a meaningful vote before the UK leaves?I think it is part of the
0:40:49 > 0:40:52general pathology which we have got which is we are not facing up to the
0:40:52 > 0:40:55fact that if we are going to leave the European Union we are going to
0:40:55 > 0:40:59leave it largely on the terms set by the European Union. You have an
0:40:59 > 0:41:03enormous of politicians dancing around telling the people the truth
0:41:03 > 0:41:06about that. We can all get involved in process, that is an easier thing
0:41:06 > 0:41:10to talk about. The hard thing to talk about is we are in a weak
0:41:10 > 0:41:12position and we are going to suffer pain in the short and medium-term as
0:41:12 > 0:41:16a consequence of the decision we have made.John Mann Andrea Wilson,
0:41:16 > 0:41:20thank you.
0:41:20 > 0:41:23-- and Rhea Wolfson.
0:41:23 > 0:41:26The Government has announced a major U-turn on its housing policy.
0:41:26 > 0:41:28At the start of Prime Minister's Questions yesterday,
0:41:28 > 0:41:31Theresa May said that she will no longer push ahead with plans to cap
0:41:31 > 0:41:34the amount of housing benefit given to people in supported accommodation
0:41:34 > 0:41:35and social housing more generally.
0:41:35 > 0:41:39The U-turn will cost the Treasury £500 million by 2020. The Prime
0:41:39 > 0:41:41Minister said a government consultation will be published on
0:41:41 > 0:41:43these issues next week.
0:41:43 > 0:41:44Let's take a look.
0:41:44 > 0:41:46This is something that we've been looking at very closely over
0:41:46 > 0:41:49the past year, since, in fact, my right honourable friend
0:41:49 > 0:41:51the First Secretary of State commissioned work
0:41:51 > 0:41:53on this when he was Work and Pensions Secretary
0:41:53 > 0:41:54in September last year.
0:41:54 > 0:41:57I can confirm that we will be publishing our response to that
0:41:57 > 0:41:59consultation on Tuesday 31st of October.
0:41:59 > 0:42:03It will look at a wide range of issues.
0:42:03 > 0:42:06We need to ensure the funding model is right so that all providers
0:42:06 > 0:42:08of supported housing actually are able to access
0:42:08 > 0:42:09funding effectively.
0:42:09 > 0:42:12We need to look at issues such as the significant increase
0:42:12 > 0:42:15in service charges that have taken place recently, making sure
0:42:15 > 0:42:19that we are looking at cost control in the sector.
0:42:19 > 0:42:22But I can also say today that, as part of our response
0:42:22 > 0:42:24to the review, we will not apply the local housing allowance cap
0:42:24 > 0:42:25to supported housing.
0:42:25 > 0:42:27Indeed...
0:42:27 > 0:42:29Indeed, we will not be implementing it in the wider
0:42:29 > 0:42:32social rented sector, and the full details
0:42:32 > 0:42:35will be made available when we publish our response
0:42:35 > 0:42:38to the consultation.
0:42:38 > 0:42:40Theresa May in the Commons.
0:42:40 > 0:42:44Joining me now is Kate Webb from the housing charity Shelter.
0:42:44 > 0:42:48Do you welcome the announcement by the Prime Minister?Absolutely. We
0:42:48 > 0:42:51were facing a situation where not only would people can often
0:42:51 > 0:42:54vulnerable and on a low-income, to not be able to pay their rent but
0:42:54 > 0:42:59also providers were saying they could not risk building. The
0:42:59 > 0:43:01supported housing sector was grinding to a halt where people
0:43:01 > 0:43:04didn't have faith they could build these properties.The change would
0:43:04 > 0:43:08have applied to supporting housing and people in social housing like
0:43:08 > 0:43:13council homes. Can you explain to viewers why it would have been wrong
0:43:13 > 0:43:17in your view to give those people the cinematic money as people get
0:43:17 > 0:43:20who are renting privately?Generally speaking people renting from a
0:43:20 > 0:43:23social landlord are receiving far less than private tenants because we
0:43:23 > 0:43:28all know private rents are more expensive. This was a quite odd way
0:43:28 > 0:43:33of comparing the two sectors. There was some groups of people it would
0:43:33 > 0:43:37have badly affected. Young people in the private rented sector are
0:43:37 > 0:43:40expected to live in shared houses, which in the private rental sector
0:43:40 > 0:43:44they can often manage to do. It still causes problems but that
0:43:44 > 0:43:47market exists. That was making it difficult for social landlords to
0:43:47 > 0:43:50work out how on earth they would housing younger people when they
0:43:50 > 0:43:55don't provide shared accommodation. The big problem was around supported
0:43:55 > 0:43:57housing because what the government was basically proposing is taking
0:43:57 > 0:44:02housing benefit levels that apply to the bottom end of the private rented
0:44:02 > 0:44:07sector, so often very poor quality accommodation. It was using that to
0:44:07 > 0:44:12set the standard for how much good quality social accommodation with
0:44:12 > 0:44:16support should cost. So they were comparing apples and oranges.Do you
0:44:16 > 0:44:20think this is a good thing?I think it is but the question you want to
0:44:20 > 0:44:23ask is why this scheme developed when it had flaws of this magnitude
0:44:23 > 0:44:27in the first place. The other thing is, this is one of a number of times
0:44:27 > 0:44:31where the government has had to bail out policies that don't look like
0:44:31 > 0:44:35they will work, which will presumably further restrict the
0:44:35 > 0:44:38Chancellor manoeuvring next week. There is a cost and to this and it
0:44:38 > 0:44:42is quite a hefty price tag, isn't it? As Matthew Taylor says there are
0:44:42 > 0:44:45already challenges for the Chancellor in his budget because he
0:44:45 > 0:44:49is being asked to look at Universal Credit, for example. Is there a
0:44:49 > 0:44:53trade-off to be made?This is the concern because what we have seen in
0:44:53 > 0:44:57the past is the WP, it makes these cuts without thinking through the
0:44:57 > 0:45:02consequences, which is why we have ended up with this U-turn -- DWP.
0:45:02 > 0:45:04Our concern is whether private tenants will be asked to bear the
0:45:04 > 0:45:08cost. At the same time you have a housing benefit system not covering
0:45:08 > 0:45:12the costs in the private rented sector. If that is forced to undergo
0:45:12 > 0:45:16more cuts when actually it needs improvement, then it is hard to see
0:45:16 > 0:45:19how the system will cope.This is a case of a policy that is coming home
0:45:19 > 0:45:24to roost for the Tories because it was one of George Osborne's policies
0:45:24 > 0:45:28when he took more and more money from the welfare budget, partly
0:45:28 > 0:45:33because no doubt he deemed it popular. But in fact, it has now
0:45:33 > 0:45:36been proven that it is laying a burden on those who can least afford
0:45:36 > 0:45:40it.
0:45:40 > 0:45:44It is a badly designed policy, and there have been far too many, and to
0:45:44 > 0:45:49be fed to this government, Theresa May has inherited quite a few not
0:45:49 > 0:45:53very well-designed policies.Would it have changed it if it was not in
0:45:53 > 0:45:56the situation it is with a minority government?Policy change happens
0:45:56 > 0:46:06for a number of reasons, and no question that Shelter are to be
0:46:06 > 0:46:09commended for helping ministers understand the scale of the problem.
0:46:09 > 0:46:12If you look at recent weeks, we are beginning to see a new way of
0:46:12 > 0:46:17dealing with social housing from the Government. Under George Osborne,
0:46:17 > 0:46:20the assumption was it was not going to be part of the solution, whereas
0:46:20 > 0:46:25now Sajid Javid is making a really strong case in Cabinet.He has
0:46:25 > 0:46:31called for more borrowing to build. You can't be serious about the
0:46:31 > 0:46:36housing crisis without accepting that role.Do you suggest it was a
0:46:36 > 0:46:40popular policy to trim the welfare budget overall?We fully accept
0:46:40 > 0:46:44that, but what people often find is that whilst in principle they are
0:46:44 > 0:46:47supportive of those cuts, they get squeamish about the consequences.
0:46:47 > 0:46:51No-one wants to see more people becoming homeless, but that is the
0:46:51 > 0:46:55consequence we are having as a result of these cuts. So it is the
0:46:55 > 0:46:59classic way to get a cheap headline when you announce them, and then
0:46:59 > 0:47:02years down the line the chickens come home to roost and they are
0:47:02 > 0:47:08forced into these U-turns. Meanwhile, the human cost is more
0:47:08 > 0:47:11people becoming homeless.Thank you very much.
0:47:11 > 0:47:13Over the weekend, the Foreign Office Minister Rory Stewart made headlines
0:47:13 > 0:47:16when he said that British citizens who have gone to join the so-called
0:47:16 > 0:47:19Islamic State in Syria should be killed "in almost every case".
0:47:19 > 0:47:21It's thought that over 800 Brits have gone to join
0:47:21 > 0:47:23the terrorist organisation.
0:47:23 > 0:47:25But dozens of British citizens have also gone to Syria
0:47:25 > 0:47:28to fight against Isis,
0:47:28 > 0:47:30normally with the Kurdish force, the YPG.
0:47:30 > 0:47:32Many of those people are arrested under the Terrorism Act
0:47:32 > 0:47:34when they get back to the UK.
0:47:34 > 0:47:36The Conservative MP Robert Jenrick doesn't think they should be
0:47:36 > 0:47:40prosecuted, and it's an issue he put to the Defence Secretary
0:47:40 > 0:47:43in the Commons on Monday.
0:47:43 > 0:47:46Mr Speaker, my constituent Aiden Aslin has just returned
0:47:46 > 0:47:51to Newark after fighting with the Kurdish Peshmerga
0:47:51 > 0:47:53and helping to defeat IS in Syria and northern Iraq.
0:47:53 > 0:47:58He's one of hundreds of British citizens who have done the same.
0:47:58 > 0:48:00Would my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary
0:48:00 > 0:48:03note the contribution and bravery of these British citizens,
0:48:03 > 0:48:06but also strongly dissuade other young people from taking
0:48:06 > 0:48:10this extremely dangerous course in the future?
0:48:10 > 0:48:13Well, I certainly note that, and I would advise any British
0:48:13 > 0:48:17citizen intending or wanting to go to fight against Daesh-Isis,
0:48:17 > 0:48:21the way to do that is to join our Armed Forces
0:48:21 > 0:48:24and get the professional training that is necessary
0:48:24 > 0:48:29and the respect for international humanitarian law that goes with it.
0:48:29 > 0:48:32I'm now joined by Robert Jenrick in the studio
0:48:32 > 0:48:35and by a British man who goes by the name of Macer Gifford.
0:48:35 > 0:48:38He's been fighting against the so-called Islamic State in Syria,
0:48:38 > 0:48:44and he joins us from there now.
0:48:44 > 0:48:47Welcome to both of you. Robert Jenrick, you think British people
0:48:47 > 0:48:52who are genuinely gone to fight against Isis should not be pursued
0:48:52 > 0:48:56by British police.We want to get away point where people who have
0:48:56 > 0:49:00been out there for any reason apprehended and questioned so the
0:49:00 > 0:49:03police and stand what they have done at there and can assess whether they
0:49:03 > 0:49:07are a danger to the public or not. The Government priority has to be
0:49:07 > 0:49:11keeping the population back home safe, but the individuals who have
0:49:11 > 0:49:15gone to fight with our allies, with the Kurdish Peshmerga and others,
0:49:15 > 0:49:22against IS, there should be a high bar before those individuals are
0:49:22 > 0:49:26prosecuted, their lives put on hold while they are investigated, and
0:49:26 > 0:49:30ultimately sent to jail.Macer Gifford, I understand you have made
0:49:30 > 0:49:35three trips to Syria since 2014, what have you been doing there?I
0:49:35 > 0:49:41have been doing a number of things. I first went in 2014 just to fight.
0:49:41 > 0:49:45Since then, I have worked as a combat medic, I have set up a
0:49:45 > 0:49:50medical unit, been a commander in the YPG, and I have campaigned for a
0:49:50 > 0:49:53long time for more support for the people on the ground fighting
0:49:53 > 0:49:56against Islamic State.What motivated you to go in the first
0:49:56 > 0:50:04place?Really, the images on Sinjar mountain, the fact that kabaddi was
0:50:04 > 0:50:09surrounded, the Kurds were under siege from Islamic State, and as
0:50:09 > 0:50:14someone who loves democracy, that believes in secular values, I wanted
0:50:14 > 0:50:17to go out and stand in solidarity with the people who were suffering.
0:50:17 > 0:50:22I really wanted to embarrass the British Government to push them or
0:50:22 > 0:50:27into helping people on the ground, because at that time, in 2014, not a
0:50:27 > 0:50:32huge amount was being done.As you understand it, are people who go to
0:50:32 > 0:50:37fight in this way against IS committing any crimes in British
0:50:37 > 0:50:40law?Well, it is very, catered, as you might imagine, there is no clear
0:50:40 > 0:50:47law on this. -- it is very complicated. There is an historic
0:50:47 > 0:50:50law which outlaws going to fight in foreign wars, but it is not
0:50:50 > 0:50:54currently used by police. Terrorism offences to make it difficult for
0:50:54 > 0:50:58individuals to go out and fight abroad. What happens to individuals
0:50:58 > 0:51:03now is that, upon their return, they tend to be arrested under the
0:51:03 > 0:51:06terrorism act, interviewed, bailed, and then left in a sort of legal
0:51:06 > 0:51:09limbo for a long period of time, because there is so little evidence
0:51:09 > 0:51:14to determine what they did or did not do at there. Generally they are
0:51:14 > 0:51:16released back into the general population but with a cloud hanging
0:51:16 > 0:51:20over them for many years to come potentially.Are you worried what
0:51:20 > 0:51:27will happen to you when you come back to the UK? Hugely.I have been
0:51:27 > 0:51:30here three times, I have not been arrested in the past, I have been
0:51:30 > 0:51:36stopped under the Terrorism Act, which I wholly support. Robert is
0:51:36 > 0:51:39absolutely right, we should be stopped and questioned about what we
0:51:39 > 0:51:43have been doing, but at the end of the day, the vast majority of us are
0:51:43 > 0:51:46former servicemen, and I can speak for them in saying that we are
0:51:46 > 0:51:54largely patriotic, very patriotic from my point of view! We believe in
0:51:54 > 0:51:57democracy, we believe in secular values, we are fighting against
0:51:57 > 0:52:02Britain's enemies, and having this over my head is not particularly
0:52:02 > 0:52:07pleasant, particularly if there is not a guarantee, or what is the
0:52:07 > 0:52:10word, particularly as there is no chance of them successfully
0:52:10 > 0:52:15prosecuting me. If they were to arrest me, it goes on my record, I
0:52:15 > 0:52:19can't is goodbye to any visa to America or Australia, so it is a
0:52:19 > 0:52:25punishment outside of the law if they do arrest me.But can you
0:52:25 > 0:52:29understand why you are arrested, or could be arrested, I should say,
0:52:29 > 0:52:36others coming back to the country, because the authorities need to
0:52:36 > 0:52:41ensure that your story stands up, and it is very difficult to verify
0:52:41 > 0:52:45that story? You have chosen, voluntarily, for all the virtuous
0:52:45 > 0:52:51reasons you have set out, but we have your word for that - shouldn't
0:52:51 > 0:52:57you go through due process when you return?Well, the legislation is OK
0:52:57 > 0:53:01as it is. I mean, being stopped under section seven is the right not
0:53:01 > 0:53:06to remain silent, whereby I get an opportunity to express what I have
0:53:06 > 0:53:12been doing, who I am, and I have had to present my phones and all my
0:53:12 > 0:53:20passwords. There is no reason why they don't let us into the country,
0:53:20 > 0:53:23and then they can still do all the processes and interviews they like
0:53:23 > 0:53:28later on. It doesn't have to be an arrest. That seems way overboard in
0:53:28 > 0:53:34my opinion.Just briefly, it is difficult, isn't it? We have just
0:53:34 > 0:53:41listened to Macer Gifford talking about going up to fight with British
0:53:41 > 0:53:46allies, but there are other organisations which are prescribed
0:53:46 > 0:53:49terrorist organisations, it is not straightforward, is it?The first
0:53:49 > 0:53:54thing to say is that we do not want any British citizen, really, to do
0:53:54 > 0:53:58this, because it is extremely dangerous. I have worked with my
0:53:58 > 0:54:03constituent and his mum and his grandmother, and there is a very
0:54:03 > 0:54:06real risk you lose your life if you do this. I would strongly discourage
0:54:06 > 0:54:11people from doing this. But if they do do it, they should be a clear
0:54:11 > 0:54:14policy from the Government as to how it is handled. We are closer to that
0:54:14 > 0:54:18than over the previous two years, because the Attorney General has
0:54:18 > 0:54:21said it is not in the public interest to prosecute these
0:54:21 > 0:54:26individuals.Robert Jenrick, Macer Gifford, thank for joining us.
0:54:26 > 0:54:29Now, we've almost come to the end of the two-legged
0:54:29 > 0:54:30guests on the programme.
0:54:30 > 0:54:32Who wrote this?!
0:54:32 > 0:54:34I say almost because our next guest, the winner of this year's
0:54:34 > 0:54:36Westminster Dog of the Year competition,
0:54:36 > 0:54:37will be accompanied by his owner.
0:54:37 > 0:54:40Before we reveal the identity of the prized pooch,
0:54:40 > 0:54:45here's Emma with details of all the canine rivalry
0:54:45 > 0:54:49as Westminster's finest doggies howed off.
0:54:49 > 0:54:50Normally we chase politicians for their policies,
0:54:50 > 0:54:53but today it's all about their pets.
0:54:55 > 0:54:57Rocky is a fantastic dog.
0:54:57 > 0:55:01Rocky the wonder dog.
0:55:01 > 0:55:04He is seven years old, he is a chocolate lab,
0:55:04 > 0:55:06and basically he is the glue in our family.
0:55:06 > 0:55:08Alice is a seven-year-old cavachon, and she's a
0:55:08 > 0:55:10very, very warm, affectionate, friendly dog and a great companion
0:55:10 > 0:55:15to my wife and I am very much part of the family.
0:55:15 > 0:55:17Come on then!
0:55:17 > 0:55:19As well as having to navigate this,
0:55:19 > 0:55:21the judges have also been looking at the relationship
0:55:21 > 0:55:25between politician and pooch.
0:55:28 > 0:55:30How did you get on with the course? Was it challenging?
0:55:30 > 0:55:33Not too bad. Not very good with the tunnel.
0:55:33 > 0:55:36I mean, he loves red as I'm a Labour politician, but he was much
0:55:36 > 0:55:37better on the jumping.
0:55:37 > 0:55:40Obviously he could walk over those at his height.
0:55:40 > 0:55:45But, yeah, he did really well.
0:55:45 > 0:55:49Now then, which MP's dog is this? It's Maria Miller. How are you?
0:55:49 > 0:55:51Very well, thank you.
0:55:51 > 0:55:53How is he getting on in the competition?
0:55:53 > 0:55:54Really enjoying it.
0:55:54 > 0:55:56Lots of dogs here, lots of people here.
0:55:56 > 0:55:58As a Cockapoo he loves dogs, he loves people
0:55:58 > 0:56:00so it's his idea of heaven.
0:56:00 > 0:56:02Is he particularly well trained, do you think?
0:56:02 > 0:56:04He's not very old, he was only born in January
0:56:04 > 0:56:10so he's only ten months old.
0:56:10 > 0:56:12How competitive is it getting here, though, really,
0:56:12 > 0:56:15between the MPs and their dogs?
0:56:15 > 0:56:18There's friendly competition, and I think as far as we're
0:56:18 > 0:56:20all concerned, it's a good opportunity really for us
0:56:20 > 0:56:21to mix and socialise.
0:56:21 > 0:56:24Coming in on the Tube was so interesting.
0:56:24 > 0:56:28Very humanising to have a pet on the Tube on the journey in.
0:56:28 > 0:56:31Suddenly people who wouldn't look at anybody,
0:56:31 > 0:56:33it's like, "Oh, a dog, a dog!"
0:56:33 > 0:56:34Suddenly Londoners become friendly! Yeah, exactly.
0:56:34 > 0:56:37I mean, I think it's great to see them walking through Parliament
0:56:37 > 0:56:40and just to see people smile when they see a dog there.
0:56:40 > 0:56:48Perhaps we should allow dogs in every day.
0:56:48 > 0:56:52What an adoring look!
0:56:52 > 0:56:55And we're joined now by the winning dog, Rocky,
0:56:55 > 0:56:59and his owner, the Labour MP Tracy Brabin.
0:56:59 > 0:57:06How do you feel as the winner?I am delirious, I feel like I have won
0:57:06 > 0:57:12Miss World or something! It is like an Oscar, it is amazing. I didn't
0:57:12 > 0:57:16think we stood a chance, some amazing dogs, really well-trained,
0:57:16 > 0:57:21some very cute dogs, some great crosses, Albert particularly
0:57:21 > 0:57:26adorable. I am just thrilled that people saw how amazing he is.What
0:57:26 > 0:57:32sort of personality has he got? Cheerful, upbeat, energetic, he is
0:57:32 > 0:57:37seven, but still really up for it and curious, soft as well, he loves
0:57:37 > 0:57:41a good couple. An amazing dog, great and the agility, that is down to my
0:57:41 > 0:57:46husband Richard, who is very good at training. Just really chuffed.What
0:57:46 > 0:57:53is the atmosphere like?Gently competitive, but I think it is great
0:57:53 > 0:57:57that it is cross-party, it is just all about, you know, the fun of it.
0:57:57 > 0:58:01But there is a serious element in that the Dogs Trust and the Kennel
0:58:01 > 0:58:06Club, they are working really hard to get a fair deal for animals and
0:58:06 > 0:58:11puppy farming, bringing that through Parliament. It does have more of a
0:58:11 > 0:58:15political underpinning.As you said, watched you think about the idea of
0:58:15 > 0:58:19bringing dogs to work? Would it be therapeutic, make people feel
0:58:19 > 0:58:24happier?I love dogs, I was disappointed, we wanted to have dogs
0:58:24 > 0:58:28at our workplace, but too many people had allergies, but I would
0:58:28 > 0:58:33love this a dogs at work. I have to say, it is great when you see these
0:58:33 > 0:58:36examples of MPs collaborating, some people say you should never speak to
0:58:36 > 0:58:40each other, the ideologically pure, but actually I think the public like
0:58:40 > 0:58:44it when they see that MPs of different views can have fun and
0:58:44 > 0:58:48raise important issues.And also quickly, about loneliness, if you
0:58:48 > 0:58:52are in the least bit lonely or be like you're not part of a group,
0:58:52 > 0:58:59just get a dog!Is that MPs you are talking about?! We feel your pain!
0:58:59 > 0:59:02They get you out, running with Rocky in the morning is good. So, and just
0:59:02 > 0:59:07a dog gets you out, people will always talk to you if you have a
0:59:07 > 0:59:11dog.See has been the best behaved best we have had for a while, he is
0:59:11 > 0:59:19even watching the programme! Thank you very much for bringing him in.
0:59:19 > 0:59:22Thanks to our guests.
0:59:22 > 0:59:24Bye-bye!