26/10/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

They are calling it Care BnB -

NHS bosses in Essex plan

to discharge bed-blocking patients

to members of the public

with a spare room.

But is it an appropriate way

to treat these vulnerable people?

A hand-out from government

for everyone from the unemployed

to millionaires -

could a Universal Basic Income

for all really be a good idea?

Sheffield Hallam MP Jared O'Mara

is no longer a Labour MP,

as the party investigates

allegations he used abusive,

sexist and homophobic language.

But does the party have good enough

vetting to prevent unsuitable

candidates being selected?

And who's top dog in

the House of Commons?

We'll bring you Parliament's

premier pooch.

All that in the next hour,

and with us for the whole

of the programme today

is Matthew Taylor -

he was head of the policy unit at No

10 under Tony Blair and is now

the Chief Executive of the RSA.

The Royal Society for

the Encouragement of Arts,

Manufactures and Commerce

which describes itself

as "an enlightenment"

organisation - so we look forward

to being enlightened over the next

60 minutes.

By you!

First this morning -

up to 300,000 people with long-term

mental health problems have

to leave their jobs each year.

That's according to a report

commissioned by Theresa

May published today.

It also claims poor mental health

costs the UK economy up

to £99 billion each year.

The Prime Minister is asking NHS

England and the civil service

to accept the report's

recommendations and said it showed,

"We need to take action."

The question is - what action?

It sounds like radical action is

needed.

There is no question the

issue of mental health has moved off

the agenda and it is a bigger cause

for people to be absent from work or

even worse drop out of work

entirely. I undertook a review

earlier this year for the Prime

Minister about work. One of the

things I argued in that is we need a

more concerted approach to health

and well-being at work, bad work

makes people sick so part of the

reason people have mental health

problems is because we have too much

work which is stressful which

doesn't give people a voice autonomy

at work and I think this is a role

for local government. If city mayors

combined authorities and could take

the lead in bringing together

employers, the health service,

voluntary sector organisations and

say, what can we do to improve the

quality of health and well-being at

work, and make it easier for people

with mental health issues to get

back into work?

It is all very well

having reviews, recognising that

action needs to be taken, that there

is a serious problem, whether it is

with mental health, or more recently

the racial disparity audit the

government has carried out. But if

there is no real money behind it it

doesn't necessarily mean it is all

about money but if there is no real

money behind it isn't it just virtue

signalling?

It is obviously better

to be about lot of that money into

these initiatives but what I would

say about mental health and health

and well-being at work is often the

issue is the lack of joining up.

What we should be doing is more

preventative work, helping employers

to understand the conditions which

they need to create to make it

easier for people to maintain their

well-being but also to enable people

to talk about mental health issues

thoroughly on. That should be in the

interests of employers because they

don't want to lose good staff. It is

in our interests because those

people will stay in work rather than

falling back into the benefits

system.

What about people out of

work and trying to get them back in?

The figures of 300,000 for the whole

of the UK and there has been a cut

in mental health nurses working in

the NHS in England you will not get

those people back easily.

I make a

distinct and between that, this is

one of the number of a growing list

of funding challenges. There is

another issue which is simply about

raising awareness. I am an employer

on the RSA and we have thought hard

about mental health issues and

well-being with a well-being

strategy. If you do that kind of

thing you are less likely to find

members of staff who come in so

stressed and anxious that they drop

out of work. Actually, there is more

that can be done because there is an

aligned interest in terms of what

the public need, what people

themselves need and what good

employers need.

Thank you.

Now, the NHS in England

is increasingly struggling to deal

with the problem of patients who no

longer need hospital care

but are waiting to be discharged.

Last year there was a 40% rise

in people occupying hospital beds

who could be cared for at home

or in the community.

Well, one NHS Trust thinks it may

have found a solution.

Dubbed Care BnB, the idea

is to ask local residents

to with spare rooms to host patients

recuperating from hospital -

all for a little extra cash.

The scheme is part of an Essex trial

which would see 30 patients waiting

for discharge from hospital stay

with local residents

who have a spare room.

Health care start-up firm

CareRooms is recruiting

hosts near Southend University

Hospital who they say could earn up

to £1000 a month for taking

in a patient who is

ready to be discharged.

Hosts would be required to heat up

meals, supply drinks and offer

conversation and company.

This isn't the first controversial

measure that's been proposed by NHS

organisations in recent weeks

against the backdrop

of budget deficits.

Earlier this month three

Clinical Commissioning Groups -

or CCGs - announced plans

to ration non-urgent surgery.

Smokers in East and North

Hertfordshire CCG are to be

breathalysed to prove they have quit

before being referred for surgery.

And obese patients will also be told

they cannot have an operation

unless they lose weight.

NHS England has also been delaying

cataract surgery until people can no

longer perform daily activities.

And some CCGs have told patients

gluten-free food will no longer be

offered on prescription.

Well, earlier I spoke

to Dr Sarah Woolaston, the chair

of the Health Select Committee.

I started by asking her if the

scheme had her support.

If it is

something where you are bringing in

people who have experienced, former

carers who have an adapted home,

that might be something worth

piloting but that is not what is

being asked, this is just random

members of the public being asked if

they would like to make some extra

money. That is not the way forward

and my question for NHS England

would be, are these bodies going to

be registered with the Care Quality

Commission so that we can be putting

quality and safety at the heart of

this? I think that is a crucial

question here.

Would you like to see

the pilot end? You don't think they

should even be experimented with?

The idea that we do everything we

can to make sure we stop the

revolving door back into hospital of

people who are discharged home

Internet settings where they are not

managing, we should look at all the

options. But what we know from the

state of care from the Care Quality

Commission is the whole system is

under pressure. My big ask of the

government is to look at not just

social care but the NHS, look at the

whole system. When they bring

forward their consultation in the

green paper don't keep them as two

separate systems, they have to be

brought together and we need a

proper review of long-term

sustainability across health and

care.

Isn't this an innovative way

of tackling the bed blocking

problem, which is such an issue

within the NHS? Isn't it better to

actually send an old person out of

hospital to a warm home where they

are going to get a warm meal and be

looked after in the broadest

possible sense by another member of

the public, good one?

Well, I think

the term blocking is pejorative and

I think we should say Dimeck

transfer of care. It is offensive

for a lot of old people. -- delayed

transfer of care. Many people I have

come across who have been former

carers I have seen could provide a

wonderful way home, if you like, out

the fundamental underlying problem

here is the shortage of social care

Puvrez -- provision and social care

in the community and the whole of

the funding for health and social

care needs to be looked at to get

something sustainable for the

future. It is under huge pressure.

If there was a registration system

and of qualified carers would money

dumped my to patients online would

that be acceptable?

This is a pilot

that has been proposed and what

needs to happen now is we need to

carefully at the pilot and make sure

quality and safety are at the heart

of it. As a bare minimum this

company should be registered with

the Care Quality Commission. The

idea that we conduct a pilot isn't

something I would say that we

absolutely must do. Of course we

must continue to look at all of the

innovative solutions but I would say

let's go back a step and save the

fundamental problem here is the

shortage of care provision. We know

that care home providers are still

under enormous pressure, we are

losing many care home beds and the

workforce in social care is really

at breaking point.

How much more

money should be spent by the

government?

We know that in the

short term by 2019-2020 we're

looking at a funding shortfall in

social care of around 2 billion.

What we don't have in the NHS and

social care is a body looking over

the horizon at the long-term giving

us good quality data about all of

the demographic challenges we face

and what the needs and costs are so

that we can properly plan for it.

Magath health and social cake

together. We keep on having dysuria

funding of health and social care.

What about depriving surgery to

patients who haven't quit smoking?

Is that a good idea?

You have to

look at it from the clinical point

of view, if you are a smoker having

a routine operation and can stop

smoking before that that is in your

best interests.

That is not what is

being suggested, they are saying

let's deprive that surgery as a

proposal going forward to the people

have not given up smoking and until

they do give it up we will not

perform the operation, is that

right?

I think if it is being done

purely as a rationing measure I

don't agree. If it is being done as

a way of saying we can give you a

better outcome of your surgery if

you stop smoking than I think that

is worth trying. If it is routine

and there is no urgency at all about

it and you have three months to give

up smoking before you have surgery,

that is absolutely going to be in

your best interests, it shouldn't be

a rationing measure.

It has been put

forward partly as a rationing

measure as well as improving

outcomes, in the same way that

people who are overweight or obese

are being told they must lose weight

before they have an operation. Would

you support that?

It wouldn't be

right to deprive people of the

surgery they need because they are

overweight. But again, if there are

opportunities to improve outcomes

before they start and it is not

urgent of course that is in their

clinical interests but should not be

used as a rationing measure.

The

other suggestions are delaying

cataract surgery until people can no

longer perform daily activities. Is

that justifiable?

That is not

justifiable and there have been

announcements on that recently and

Simon Stevens also commented on it.

That is unacceptable. And of course

it means we sometimes end up with

greater costs in the long term in

the NHS because of people are

becoming more and more disabled at

home because of low vision had more

likely to fall that in itself has

serious consequences not just for

them as individuals but it can add

costs to the NHS.

But this is the

reality for many local NHS trusts.

They are doing this because they

just haven't got the money to

perform all these operations. Do you

have sympathy with them?

What we

need to look at, and it's something

I race with Simon Stevens when he

came to the health committee, is

this idea that what has to give? The

system is under huge pressure. What

is going to give? Is it going to be

waiting times for routine surgery?

He indicated that is part of the

system that will slip. We have seen

that already, increasing waiting

time through routine surgery, and we

are seeing all the other markers of

pressure in the NHS is starting to

flash warning lights now. But as I

say, we have to take a step back,

look at sustainable long-term

funding and the workforce for NHS

and social care.

In the meantime, do

you think rationing is going to

become the norm?

I think we have

always had that to a certain degree

in the NHS, let's be clear about

that. But what we know is waiting

times are likely to be increased as

the service comes under increasing

pressure. And I say again, we need

to have an honest discussion with

the public about all the options for

long-term sustainable funding in

health and care.

Including raising

taxes?

Yes, no political party has a

monopoly. We have to look at the

whole spectrum working together in

the best interests of the public.

Would you support an increase in

income tax to support improved

funding in health?

We have to look

at what they have done in Japan and

Germany where people over a certain

age start to pay an increased

precept towards their social care

costs. Pulling the risks of social

care. There are lots of things that

we could do to get more money into

the total system. There are things

we could do going back and looking

again at benefits for wealthy

pensioners. Should we tax those

benefits? We know the manifesto

proposal is not going to be

supported by the DUP. There are

things we know that our political

realities that we can't get through

Parliament. And that's the trouble,

we're kind of court now, I think for

ever, for manifestos, with nobody

sitting at honest truth is for the

public. This is the only stage of

the political cycle where we can

realistically get political parties

to sit down together, think about

what the options are, stop looking

at this from a sort of party

perspective of how am I going to get

the highest number of MPs by not

being honest with people? Set out

all the options and come to a

conclusion about how we are going to

fund this, because otherwise I'm

afraid the public are not going to

have any respect for politicians if

we can't get to grips with this.

Dr

Sarah Woolaston. We asked for an

interview with a spokesperson from

Southend University Hospital but

nobody was available. Matthew

Taylor, is on the idea of Care BnB a

disaster waiting to happen?

No, I think it is a great idea.

There is a charity called Shared

Lives which provides adult foster

care, it encourages people to treat

vulnerable people as members of the

family, it provides a support

services, you do not have to stick

with it if it is not working, and I

think that model can work in this

case. Look, there are millions of

empty bedrooms in this country, and

millions of people who are generous

people who would like to be able to

support other people, and wouldn't

all of us much rather be receiving

care in a family home with people

that we know, rather than being in

hospital, which, as we know, is a

bad place to be if you are sick?

But

these are not necessarily people you

would know, the suggestion is

elderly people would go into the

home of the people they do not know,

no medical qualifications, and

surely there risk attached to that.

There are risks attached to

everything, and if you have a

culture of avoiding risk, you will

never get anywhere. Of course, you

need to get this right, any family

would need to have basic training,

not terribly sophisticated, basic

health training, they would need to

know they get the support they need

by simply making a phone call. But

as long as you put all that in

place, the idea has got a compelling

logic to it.

You say it is

innovation Daesh isn't it

desperation on behalf of NHS trusts

who are so strapped for cash and

cannot deal with the revolving door

of elderly patients?

I make a

fundamental distinction between some

of these ideas that we are

discussing, the rather crude

rationing, which is desperation, and

this, which is a good way of saying,

if you are elderly and frail, you

would rather be in a nice bedroom, a

nice house with people who know your

name and how many sugars you like in

a cup of tea, rather than being in a

hospital where you are likely to

pick up an infection and which cost

a lot more. Essex is right, pilot it

with 30 people, find out how it

works, but to suggest that you

should not even explore it...

So

Sarah Wollaston is wrong.

I think it

is completely wrong to say that you

should not even explore the idea. If

there are fundamental flaws, it will

be discovered at pilot stage.

Just

briefly, before we end, what is

wrong to saying to someone that you

have a better outcome if you stop

smoking or lose weight before an

operation?

If there is a clinical

basis for it, that is to say, if you

don't change or habits, the

treatment is not going to work, I

agree with that. But when it gets

into the business of morally judging

people, I don't know where the end

of that is.

Now, universal basic income.

The idea: Give every

citizen a wodge of cash,

regardless of how rich

they are or whether they have a job,

and then you could do away with most

of the benefits system.

It may sound a bit far fetched,

utopian even, but it's gaining

support across the political

spectrum, and four councils

in Scotland, with the backing

of the Scottish Government,

are looking into piloting the idea.

Ellie has been finding out more.

Broadly speaking,

the way it works at the moment,

the more you earn,

the less you get in benefits.

If you don't have a job,

you can expect welfare payments.

But what if everyone

got given the same,

from millionaire hedge-fund manager

to unemployed single parent?

A wodge of cash

regardless of income,

resources or employment status.

It's an idea that's been

catching on too,

with countries as diverse

as Canada, Kenya, Finland

and India all trying out versions.

And now Glasgow City Council

want to have a go too.

In fact, four councils

in Scotland are now

actively looking at the idea,

and they're in the early

stages of designing pilot

schemes to test it out.

Empowering people and actually

changing the relationship between

the state and the individual,

and giving people

the opportunity to have space

in their life to not have to worry

about whether or not

they're going to be able to feed

themselves that week or the next,

I think people start

to make different decisions,

people start to take...

Maybe they would take a chance

on starting a business,

but it might be they choose to work

to help in the community.

Here's where we keep

most of Derek's medication.

Lynne Williams is a full-time carer

for her husband Derek.

She says UBI is a no-brainer.

I mean, when I gave up my full-time

job, what I get back from the state

is effectively £62 a week,

that's what carer's allowance is,

and it says that, effectively,

you're worth about £1.70 an hour.

To be given a basic income

that says, you know,

"We value what you do,

what you do means something,"

I think that, at a time

when services are struggling,

when benefits are being consistently

attacked, for me it's just something

that says we value what you do.

ARCHIVE:

It tells you what

the new National Health Service is

and how you can use what it offers.

Supporters of the idea admit

it would be as revolutionary

as the inception of the NHS and

welfare state after World War II,

something that, at the time,

critics said was unaffordable.

There is money there -

we have to choose how we spend it.

But a basic income itself would

be brought in and would include

using money that's already

in the system, to a large extent,

so that would include personal tax

allowance that we already receive

that technically is this idea

of free money for everybody,

although you don't see

it directly yourself.

It would bring in some

of the existing welfare state,

so child benefit, for example,

would be rolled into that.

Some areas would still

be kept separate.

We sometimes look at

the costs in isolation.

However, if this led to increased

physical and mental well-being,

with therefore less need of

the NHS and other support services,

if it led to increased businesses

being created, new jobs,

actually, we could see substantial

savings and finances brought

in through those avenues as well.

I'm told the sort of figures

being suggested for recipients

in the pilot areas could reflect

current levels of jobseeker's

allowance, so roughly £73 a week.

But the scheme is very much

in the planning stages

and isn't likely to be rolled out

for at least a couple of years.

We're joined now by

the Labour MP Karen Buck,

who opposes the idea

of universal basic income.

Our guest of the day,

Matthew Taylor, supports it.

Matthew Taylor, why do you support

it?

I think it is a response to the

kinds of challenges people face in

the 21st century, the growth of

insecurity, precariousness, people

moving between work. It is also a

response to the fact that success of

welfare reforms have failed to

address, they just move around the

problem of poor working incentives,

and the great thing about UBI, if it

is done in the right way, is that it

means poorer people, when they get

jobs, they don't lose their

benefits, it strengthens work

incentives, and if they have gaps

between work, rather than going

through a cumbersome process of

signing on and all the problems with

the loss in that, they have

continuity. No-one is talking about

a lot of money, we're talking about

having the basics of sustenance.

Wouldn't that be a way of replacing

what is still a fairly complicated

welfare system, even with universal

credit, which, as we know now, is in

the middle of huge rows between

political parties in Parliament?

Only it wouldn't do away with those,

because the floor with UBI, with

that idea come is that you would

still be required to have something

that helps you... I'm sorry.

I do

not know if you will be able to

continue.

One more go, you would

still have to tackle the problems of

people with disabilities.

I will

come back to you, Matthew. Isn't it

also a problem about spreading your

resources to thinly, that actually

it would be better to concentrate,

on, as you say, the working poor,

people who either do not earn enough

from their jobs or who are out of

work altogether?

So I think the

important thing about UBI is to

understand that it is a concept

rather than a policy, and views

about and vary from futurists who

see it as a passport to a post-work

society, through to much more things

from the RSA advocacy, which sees it

as welfare reform. Some say that

higher rate taxpayers would not get

it.

You can understand why.

But the

point is, by providing it to a

reasonably broad section of the

population, you address work

incentivising. The design has got to

address housing costs and disability

costs, and that is one of the most

difficult issues to deal with, but

nevertheless we need to start from

the failings of our current welfare

system. A lot of money and time has

gone into universal credit, and it

is not going to improve things.

And

it is about increasing the incentive

to work, I can see how some people

would see a UBI as a disincentive to

work, but wouldn't it encourage

them?

It depends very much on what

level you are setting it at, but the

couple are getting factor is that

people are simply... There is a risk

that it will put a downward pressure

on wage negotiations, which is one

of the reasons that trade unions are

concerned.

You would want to do it

in the context of the living wage,

so you would need to make sure it

did not become a way in which

working families come like tax

credits, it became a way of

subsidising poor pay. It has to be

part of an overall approach, and I

do not think it would be ready to be

introduced for a decade, but in

Scotland, Finland and other places,

there are ways of testing it.

But

there is opposition to it in

Finland, for the BBC is that Karen

has set out, the trade union

movement are not happy with the idea

because of what it does to wages. --

for the reasons that Karen has set

out.

We are seeing a theme here,

people being averse to

experimentation. What we will find

out are DBA Birrell consequences. We

don't know whether it does

incentivise people to work. -- the

real consequences. We need to

understand the payroll consequences.

In the systems that have had

something like a basic income, it

seems to broadly speaking

incentivise people to work, although

it does reduce incentives to work

for women with young children. And

maybe that is a reflection of the

fact that do not want to work.

We

know you cannot design a perfect

system, but wouldn't it and fraud,

as well as persuading people that

work is better?

Well, there are

advantages to doing this... This is

ridiculous.

Go on, then I will let

you go.

There are advantages to

doing it, but I think the

disadvantages doesn't deal with all

the complexity within the system. I

think there is a real problem about

the risk of this engaging people

from the workplace.

We both agree it

needs to be piloted, there is a lot

more to be learned about how it

works, but one thing we should not

miss out - Karen will know this as a

brilliant constituency MP - a number

of people have difficult experiences

with the welfare system, so one

advantage is you get the state out

of the system of regulating people,

oppressing people, and into the

business of supporting people to

make choices, and that is a big

gain, if we would like to make

people feel more positively about

covenant.

But you can do many of

those things without going for a

grant scheme.

£73 a week, does that

sound about right?

I would started

very modest. Not enough to live on,

but enough to keep your head above

water, so we don't have what we are

talking about now, people destitute

because they are waiting for their

benefits.

I will let you go and rest

your voice, Karen, thank you for

persevering!

The spotlight was turned on Labour

MP Jared O'Mara this week

when the Guido Fawkes website

published offensive comments

that he had made

online as a younger man.

On Tuesday, this programme heard

from one of his constituents,

Sophie Evans, who alleged

that Mr O'Mara had used

sexist and abusive language

towards her earlier this year,

before he was elected.

He strenuously denies

those allegations.

Yesterday, Labour announced

that the MP for Sheffield Hallam

had been suspended from the party.

The case has led to criticism

of the vetting procedures

that candidates undergo

before being selected.

Last night, the grassroots

Momentum group in Sheffield

reacted to the news that

Mr O'Mara had been suspended.

Very, very ashamed at the way

in which this has been covered.

Shouldn't he have been

interviewed for the position?

The Labour Party have

confirmed tonight

that he wasn't interviewed

to be a candidate in the election.

Well, I mean that just goes to show

how poor the selection process is

and how undemocratic

the selection process is really.

This is why we need

mandatory reselection.

From what I know, the

Sheffield Hallam constituency

didn't really fund it too well.

They weren't really sure

of who to stand, there weren't many

people there willing to stand.

So I think lessons need

to be learned, obviously.

Jared actually came

to the University of Sheffield

and obviously, based on one meeting,

you can't really judge him too much,

but he seemed like someone

who is progressive.

So I would really like to make sure

that the investigation done

into what he has said is thorough.

The views of Momentum activists in

Glasgow.

I'm joined now from Glasgow

by the Labour NEC member

and Momentum activitst Rhea Wolfson,

and here in the studio

by the Labour MP John Mann.

Welcome to both of you. Rhea

Wolfson, the journalist and Jeremy

Corbyn subordinate Paul Mason says

the Jared O'Mara debacle shows why

they need Labour Party members to

select candidates and not backroom

fixer is. Mandatory reselection for

all. Do you agree with that?

We have

to remember the context of the last

elections, snap general election.

Many others argued we should find a

way to include local Labour Party

members despite the short time

frame. That wasn't possible and it

didn't happen and ultimately it has

led to situations like this. I would

say the normal scrutiny might not

look back at social media presence

for the past 15 years. I have been

on record and still support

mandatory reselection but I don't

think that is this debate, it is

about local scrutiny and

accountability that comes from

mandatory reselection and looking

forward we should seek local parties

involved in selections and as we are

into selecting candidates for the

upcoming general elections they will

be.

John Mann, do you agree the

betting procedure failed in this

case? They said the regional

committee looked at Jared O'Mara's

CV and didn't even interview him. Is

that acceptable was in the Labour

Party's policy is to ask people if

they have anything in the background

that could bring the party into

disrepute or embarrass the party.

That has been the case for about 20

years. You are one of the candidates

in the last election. I don't know

if she was asked if anything in her

background would embarrass the

party. That is an important question

to ask because if you say no and

there is the non-beastly it's easy

for the Labour Party to do something

about it because you wouldn't have

told the truth. In Tambe's case if

he wasn't asked the question he

cannot tell the truth or not tell

the truth and that is it flawed

process. 20 years has been our

system doing that. -- Jared's.

The

fact it was a snap election, did

that affect it?

That is no excuse,

there aren't many seats that didn't

have people ready to go. Snap

election is just an excuse for that.

These procedures are straightforward

and standard. In this case the

Labour Party National executive and

Rhea is an elected member of it,

they impose candidates. If they

impose candidates because it is an

emergency situation they should be

following the party's rule book and

if they haven't done so questions

need to be asked about why they were

not doing so.

Rhea, what do you say

to that?

Nobody has suggested the

process was not followed and part of

the application process does involve

people saying exactly as John said,

anything in your history that will

embarrass the party. I agree with

John and whites swift action has

been able to be taken. I don't think

we are disagreeing at more scrutiny

must go into selection process is.

Again, I don't support in anything

but exceptions the NEC making

choices and choosing candidates. I

think local parties have to play an

important role in that.

But would

local party or local membership have

avoided what happened with Jared

O'Mara?

The investigation is ongoing

so I don't want to comment on

anything that is happening but I

don't want to prejudice that in any

way and Jared deserves to have a

fair process. Local parties play an

important role because they know

people in the community and how they

interact and if they are active.

They know if it is obvious in some

cases that they hold certain views

which might not be apparent because

they wouldn't have put it on their

CV, that does come out in local

party selections. It provides

important scrutiny.

Wouldn't that be

an important role for the local

party and local members to play, if

they could give to some extent

expert knowledge of the candidate

being put forward?

I am all for

local parties deciding who the

candidates are rather than Rhea and

her colleagues on the national

executive deciding. I think that is

good. But in this case it is totally

irrelevant. Jared has been an

activist, he has been a council

candidate before, and therefore, the

local party knows him as well as

anybody else. So you are going to

get situations where... Who knows

everyone? You cannot have a

selection process that's going to...

If you weed out everyone who can't

come forward and say, right, here is

all of my history for ever and I

have documented it. The only people

you would end up with are people who

have been around for 50 years with

an unblemished record as

councillors.

Was suspension the

right thing to do?

Of course

suspension was right after what he

did, of course, Labour had no

choice, it was right what they did.

The commentary from him is

grotesque. The allegations that from

this year are incredibly serious.

Although he does deny them.

He does

deny them but therefore suspended,

which is the due process, and

investigating him to see if he is

telling the truth or these women who

have come forward are telling the

truth, is important. Violence

against women, misogyny, has no

place in Parliament and no place in

the Labour Party.

Rhea Wolfson, is

it ever going to be possible to

ensure that every candidate's past

misdemeanours, or alleged unsavoury

behaviour, is investigated and

therefore dealt with before they are

selected as a candidate?

I think

more important than that almost is

what we do when there are issues.

Ultimately we have a process here

and I think we need to be careful

about what opportunities we are

giving to people to rectify

behaviour that no longer aligns with

what they believe. People have to

learn from mistakes and that is an

important process we have in place.

We need to be careful not to create

a generational gap. I am 27 and has

an online footprint that people will

not have if they are 30 years older

than me.

Do you think people's

online past needs to be taken into

account?

It does come absolutely but

we must have the process that says

you have said this in the past, do

you stand by it, or are you a

different person? That is what we

have seen here and I hope we will

see a constructive outcome in this

situation.

Listening to all of this,

Matthew Taylor, do you think the

selection process was at fault? That

there was some decision not to go

through due process because of a

snap election and there wasn't time,

and that actually having more local

membership involvement would be a

good thing?

I agree with John and I

say this as an employer, somebody

who interviews lots of people for

jobs. Either the question was not

asked and the question should have

been asked, however rushed the

process was, it is one of the most

basic. I have sat in on the

selection of candidates, last-minute

selections, when I worked for the

Labour Party. Of course you can ask

the questions. The question was

either not asked, a fundamental

failure of process, or it was and he

lied and if he lied he is bang to

rights, basically.

There is no other

possible outcome. Rhea Wolfson,

Labour is getting ready for another

election and the selection process

is under way for various target

seats and there is a major review

into party democracy over the next

12 months, which could include

mandatory reselection of MPs. But

aren't mandatory reselection is the

opportunity to get rid of potential

candidates who don't back Jeremy

Corbyn, which is something you have

wanted to see all along?

I want to

see mandatory reselection, not to

get rid of candidates who don't

support Jeremy Corbyn. Mandatory

reselection is a way to keep another

level of scrutiny and a level of

accountability for MPs. We do it for

cancer was. It is not a

controversial thing for councillors.

For elected representatives we need

a robust level of scrutiny for them

and I think mandatory reselection

plays an important part in that.

What do you say to that?

We don't

have that for councillors in most

parts of the country, we have a

reselection process and that

reselection process exists. If

people want to get rid of their MPs

they can do and there are MPs who

have been got rid of. Most go

quietly if their local party says we

don't want you again, you are too

old. With the expenses scandal some

got pointed to the door and went

quietly. On the occasion like Bob

wearing in Liverpool Bay fight it

out and get voted out. We already

have a process. What we don't want

is a long winded process which means

for me, I have no fears about

somebody trying to stand against me

in the slightest but Dummett

representing 20 constituents on the

child abuse inquiry. Of that would

have clashed with the six-month

reselection process you cannot do

both so we would spend six months is

purely going around hundreds of

meetings, whereas the process we

have at the moment is short, sharp.

If my constituency members don't

like me they have the power to get

rid of me and they will.

What other

prospects of Jared O'Mara remaining

NMP?

If he has lied, none, telling

the truth, good. -- remaining an MP.

What is the process that will flow

from what is going on now?

I hope

the process is the Labour Party

brings in someone with expertise and

specialism in sexual harassment and

abuse to be advising the process

throughout so that there is a

professional advice, and therefore

we go through the due process. This

happens in the workplace.

He could

stay independent, couldn't he?

You

cannot force somebody to resign from

Parliament. There are no powers. We

voted for that and parliaments

agreed. There is nothing the Labour

Party cannot do about that. The

critical issue is whether he remains

as a Labour MP. The test now will be

very simple. Did he tell the truth?

If there was these questions asked

when he went as a candidate, did he

tell the truth or did he lie? If

they were not, is he telling the

truth? He is either telling the

truth or these two women are telling

the truth and there is no middle

ground grey area with this case.

Let's move on to something us before

we end this discussion which is

about the EU withdrawal Bill. We

have been told in the Commons today

it will be back in Parliament on the

14th and 15th of November. As eight

Leaver are you believed it is going

to be progressing?

I want to see it

progressing and I want to see good

amendments and proper debate.

Frankly, we have had all sorts of

politicking going on with strong

views but not going into much

detail.

Is Keir Starmer your shadow

Brexit said could treat one of

those? He says the Brexit Bill is

not fit for purpose.

People who

voted for remaining are coming

closely together in wanting to see

the will of the people being brought

together in a way that is effective

and that means Parliament having a

proper say, that is a good thing.

Wardy you make of the accusations

that have been levelled at Davis

that Parliament might not get to

have a meaningful vote before the UK

leaves?

I think it is part of the

general pathology which we have got

which is we are not facing up to the

fact that if we are going to leave

the European Union we are going to

leave it largely on the terms set by

the European Union. You have an

enormous of politicians dancing

around telling the people the truth

about that. We can all get involved

in process, that is an easier thing

to talk about. The hard thing to

talk about is we are in a weak

position and we are going to suffer

pain in the short and medium-term as

a consequence of the decision we

have made.

John Mann Andrea Wilson,

thank you.

-- and Rhea Wolfson.

The Government has announced a major

U-turn on its housing policy.

At the start of Prime Minister's

Questions yesterday,

Theresa May said that she will no

longer push ahead with plans to cap

the amount of housing benefit given

to people in supported accommodation

and social housing more generally.

The U-turn will cost the Treasury

£500 million by 2020. The Prime

Minister said a government

consultation will be published on

these issues next week.

Let's take a look.

This is something that we've been

looking at very closely over

the past year, since, in fact,

my right honourable friend

the First Secretary

of State commissioned work

on this when he was Work

and Pensions Secretary

in September last year.

I can confirm that we will be

publishing our response to that

consultation on Tuesday

31st of October.

It will look at a wide

range of issues.

We need to ensure the funding model

is right so that all providers

of supported housing actually

are able to access

funding effectively.

We need to look at issues such

as the significant increase

in service charges that have taken

place recently, making sure

that we are looking at cost

control in the sector.

But I can also say today that,

as part of our response

to the review, we will not apply

the local housing allowance cap

to supported housing.

Indeed...

Indeed, we will not be

implementing it in the wider

social rented sector,

and the full details

will be made available

when we publish our response

to the consultation.

Theresa May in the Commons.

Joining me now is Kate Webb

from the housing charity Shelter.

Do you welcome the announcement by

the Prime Minister?

Absolutely. We

were facing a situation where not

only would people can often

vulnerable and on a low-income, to

not be able to pay their rent but

also providers were saying they

could not risk building. The

supported housing sector was

grinding to a halt where people

didn't have faith they could build

these properties.

The change would

have applied to supporting housing

and people in social housing like

council homes. Can you explain to

viewers why it would have been wrong

in your view to give those people

the cinematic money as people get

who are renting privately?

Generally

speaking people renting from a

social landlord are receiving far

less than private tenants because we

all know private rents are more

expensive. This was a quite odd way

of comparing the two sectors. There

was some groups of people it would

have badly affected. Young people in

the private rented sector are

expected to live in shared houses,

which in the private rental sector

they can often manage to do. It

still causes problems but that

market exists. That was making it

difficult for social landlords to

work out how on earth they would

housing younger people when they

don't provide shared accommodation.

The big problem was around supported

housing because what the government

was basically proposing is taking

housing benefit levels that apply to

the bottom end of the private rented

sector, so often very poor quality

accommodation. It was using that to

set the standard for how much good

quality social accommodation with

support should cost. So they were

comparing apples and oranges.

Do you

think this is a good thing?

I think

it is but the question you want to

ask is why this scheme developed

when it had flaws of this magnitude

in the first place. The other thing

is, this is one of a number of times

where the government has had to bail

out policies that don't look like

they will work, which will

presumably further restrict the

Chancellor manoeuvring next week.

There is a cost and to this and it

is quite a hefty price tag, isn't

it? As Matthew Taylor says there are

already challenges for the

Chancellor in his budget because he

is being asked to look at Universal

Credit, for example. Is there a

trade-off to be made?

This is the

concern because what we have seen in

the past is the WP, it makes these

cuts without thinking through the

consequences, which is why we have

ended up with this U-turn -- DWP.

Our concern is whether private

tenants will be asked to bear the

cost. At the same time you have a

housing benefit system not covering

the costs in the private rented

sector. If that is forced to undergo

more cuts when actually it needs

improvement, then it is hard to see

how the system will cope.

This is a

case of a policy that is coming home

to roost for the Tories because it

was one of George Osborne's policies

when he took more and more money

from the welfare budget, partly

because no doubt he deemed it

popular. But in fact, it has now

been proven that it is laying a

burden on those who can least afford

it.

It is a badly designed policy, and

there have been far too many, and to

be fed to this government, Theresa

May has inherited quite a few not

very well-designed policies.

Would

it have changed it if it was not in

the situation it is with a minority

government?

Policy change happens

for a number of reasons, and no

question that Shelter are to be

commended for helping ministers

understand the scale of the problem.

If you look at recent weeks, we are

beginning to see a new way of

dealing with social housing from the

Government. Under George Osborne,

the assumption was it was not going

to be part of the solution, whereas

now Sajid Javid is making a really

strong case in Cabinet.

He has

called for more borrowing to build.

You can't be serious about the

housing crisis without accepting

that role.

Do you suggest it was a

popular policy to trim the welfare

budget overall?

We fully accept

that, but what people often find is

that whilst in principle they are

supportive of those cuts, they get

squeamish about the consequences.

No-one wants to see more people

becoming homeless, but that is the

consequence we are having as a

result of these cuts. So it is the

classic way to get a cheap headline

when you announce them, and then

years down the line the chickens

come home to roost and they are

forced into these U-turns.

Meanwhile, the human cost is more

people becoming homeless.

Thank you

very much.

Over the weekend, the Foreign Office

Minister Rory Stewart made headlines

when he said that British citizens

who have gone to join the so-called

Islamic State in Syria should be

killed "in almost every case".

It's thought that over 800 Brits

have gone to join

the terrorist organisation.

But dozens of British citizens

have also gone to Syria

to fight against Isis,

normally with the Kurdish

force, the YPG.

Many of those people are arrested

under the Terrorism Act

when they get back to the UK.

The Conservative MP Robert Jenrick

doesn't think they should be

prosecuted, and it's an issue

he put to the Defence Secretary

in the Commons on Monday.

Mr Speaker, my constituent

Aiden Aslin has just returned

to Newark after fighting

with the Kurdish Peshmerga

and helping to defeat IS

in Syria and northern Iraq.

He's one of hundreds of British

citizens who have done the same.

Would my right honourable friend

the Defence Secretary

note the contribution and bravery

of these British citizens,

but also strongly dissuade other

young people from taking

this extremely dangerous course

in the future?

Well, I certainly note that,

and I would advise any British

citizen intending or wanting to go

to fight against Daesh-Isis,

the way to do that

is to join our Armed Forces

and get the professional

training that is necessary

and the respect for international

humanitarian law that goes with it.

I'm now joined by Robert Jenrick

in the studio

and by a British man who goes

by the name of Macer Gifford.

He's been fighting against the

so-called Islamic State in Syria,

and he joins us from there now.

Welcome to both of you. Robert

Jenrick, you think British people

who are genuinely gone to fight

against Isis should not be pursued

by British police.

We want to get

away point where people who have

been out there for any reason

apprehended and questioned so the

police and stand what they have done

at there and can assess whether they

are a danger to the public or not.

The Government priority has to be

keeping the population back home

safe, but the individuals who have

gone to fight with our allies, with

the Kurdish Peshmerga and others,

against IS, there should be a high

bar before those individuals are

prosecuted, their lives put on hold

while they are investigated, and

ultimately sent to jail.

Macer

Gifford, I understand you have made

three trips to Syria since 2014,

what have you been doing there?

I

have been doing a number of things.

I first went in 2014 just to fight.

Since then, I have worked as a

combat medic, I have set up a

medical unit, been a commander in

the YPG, and I have campaigned for a

long time for more support for the

people on the ground fighting

against Islamic State.

What

motivated you to go in the first

place?

Really, the images on Sinjar

mountain, the fact that kabaddi was

surrounded, the Kurds were under

siege from Islamic State, and as

someone who loves democracy, that

believes in secular values, I wanted

to go out and stand in solidarity

with the people who were suffering.

I really wanted to embarrass the

British Government to push them or

into helping people on the ground,

because at that time, in 2014, not a

huge amount was being done.

As you

understand it, are people who go to

fight in this way against IS

committing any crimes in British

law?

Well, it is very, catered, as

you might imagine, there is no clear

law on this. -- it is very

complicated. There is an historic

law which outlaws going to fight in

foreign wars, but it is not

currently used by police. Terrorism

offences to make it difficult for

individuals to go out and fight

abroad. What happens to individuals

now is that, upon their return, they

tend to be arrested under the

terrorism act, interviewed, bailed,

and then left in a sort of legal

limbo for a long period of time,

because there is so little evidence

to determine what they did or did

not do at there. Generally they are

released back into the general

population but with a cloud hanging

over them for many years to come

potentially.

Are you worried what

will happen to you when you come

back to the UK? Hugely.

I have been

here three times, I have not been

arrested in the past, I have been

stopped under the Terrorism Act,

which I wholly support. Robert is

absolutely right, we should be

stopped and questioned about what we

have been doing, but at the end of

the day, the vast majority of us are

former servicemen, and I can speak

for them in saying that we are

largely patriotic, very patriotic

from my point of view! We believe in

democracy, we believe in secular

values, we are fighting against

Britain's enemies, and having this

over my head is not particularly

pleasant, particularly if there is

not a guarantee, or what is the

word, particularly as there is no

chance of them successfully

prosecuting me. If they were to

arrest me, it goes on my record, I

can't is goodbye to any visa to

America or Australia, so it is a

punishment outside of the law if

they do arrest me.

But can you

understand why you are arrested, or

could be arrested, I should say,

others coming back to the country,

because the authorities need to

ensure that your story stands up,

and it is very difficult to verify

that story? You have chosen,

voluntarily, for all the virtuous

reasons you have set out, but we

have your word for that - shouldn't

you go through due process when you

return?

Well, the legislation is OK

as it is. I mean, being stopped

under section seven is the right not

to remain silent, whereby I get an

opportunity to express what I have

been doing, who I am, and I have had

to present my phones and all my

passwords. There is no reason why

they don't let us into the country,

and then they can still do all the

processes and interviews they like

later on. It doesn't have to be an

arrest. That seems way overboard in

my opinion.

Just briefly, it is

difficult, isn't it? We have just

listened to Macer Gifford talking

about going up to fight with British

allies, but there are other

organisations which are prescribed

terrorist organisations, it is not

straightforward, is it?

The first

thing to say is that we do not want

any British citizen, really, to do

this, because it is extremely

dangerous. I have worked with my

constituent and his mum and his

grandmother, and there is a very

real risk you lose your life if you

do this. I would strongly discourage

people from doing this. But if they

do do it, they should be a clear

policy from the Government as to how

it is handled. We are closer to that

than over the previous two years,

because the Attorney General has

said it is not in the public

interest to prosecute these

individuals.

Robert Jenrick, Macer

Gifford, thank for joining us.

Now, we've almost come

to the end of the two-legged

guests on the programme.

Who wrote this?!

I say almost because our next guest,

the winner of this year's

Westminster Dog of

the Year competition,

will be accompanied by his owner.

Before we reveal the identity

of the prized pooch,

here's Emma with details

of all the canine rivalry

as Westminster's finest

doggies howed off.

Normally we chase politicians

for their policies,

but today it's all about their pets.

Rocky is a fantastic dog.

Rocky the wonder dog.

He is seven years old,

he is a chocolate lab,

and basically he is

the glue in our family.

Alice is a seven-year-old

cavachon, and she's a

very, very warm, affectionate,

friendly dog and a great companion

to my wife and I am very

much part of the family.

Come on then!

As well as having to navigate this,

the judges have also been

looking at the relationship

between politician and pooch.

How did you get on with the course?

Was it challenging?

Not too bad.

Not very good with the tunnel.

I mean, he loves red as I'm a Labour

politician, but he was much

better on the jumping.

Obviously he could walk over

those at his height.

But, yeah, he did really well.

Now then, which MP's dog is this?

It's Maria Miller. How are you?

Very well, thank you.

How is he getting

on in the competition?

Really enjoying it.

Lots of dogs here,

lots of people here.

As a Cockapoo he loves

dogs, he loves people

so it's his idea of heaven.

Is he particularly well

trained, do you think?

He's not very old,

he was only born in January

so he's only ten months old.

How competitive is it

getting here, though, really,

between the MPs and their dogs?

There's friendly competition,

and I think as far as we're

all concerned, it's a good

opportunity really for us

to mix and socialise.

Coming in on the Tube

was so interesting.

Very humanising to have a pet

on the Tube on the journey in.

Suddenly people who wouldn't

look at anybody,

it's like, "Oh, a dog, a dog!"

Suddenly Londoners become friendly!

Yeah, exactly.

I mean, I think it's great to see

them walking through Parliament

and just to see people smile

when they see a dog there.

Perhaps we should allow

dogs in every day.

What an adoring look!

And we're joined now

by the winning dog, Rocky,

and his owner, the Labour

MP Tracy Brabin.

How do you feel as the winner?

I am

delirious, I feel like I have won

Miss World or something! It is like

an Oscar, it is amazing. I didn't

think we stood a chance, some

amazing dogs, really well-trained,

some very cute dogs, some great

crosses, Albert particularly

adorable. I am just thrilled that

people saw how amazing he is.

What

sort of personality has he got?

Cheerful, upbeat, energetic, he is

seven, but still really up for it

and curious, soft as well, he loves

a good couple. An amazing dog, great

and the agility, that is down to my

husband Richard, who is very good at

training. Just really chuffed.

What

is the atmosphere like?

Gently

competitive, but I think it is great

that it is cross-party, it is just

all about, you know, the fun of it.

But there is a serious element in

that the Dogs Trust and the Kennel

Club, they are working really hard

to get a fair deal for animals and

puppy farming, bringing that through

Parliament. It does have more of a

political underpinning.

As you said,

watched you think about the idea of

bringing dogs to work? Would it be

therapeutic, make people feel

happier?

I love dogs, I was

disappointed, we wanted to have dogs

at our workplace, but too many

people had allergies, but I would

love this a dogs at work. I have to

say, it is great when you see these

examples of MPs collaborating, some

people say you should never speak to

each other, the ideologically pure,

but actually I think the public like

it when they see that MPs of

different views can have fun and

raise important issues.

And also

quickly, about loneliness, if you

are in the least bit lonely or be

like you're not part of a group,

just get a dog!

Is that MPs you are

talking about?! We feel your pain!

They get you out, running with Rocky

in the morning is good. So, and just

a dog gets you out, people will

always talk to you if you have a

dog.

See has been the best behaved

best we have had for a while, he is

even watching the programme! Thank

you very much for bringing him in.

Thanks to our guests.

Bye-bye!