31/10/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome

to the Daily Politics

Fixed odds betting terminals have

been blamed for a dramatic rise

in problem gambling.

Do Government proposals to cap

stakes on the lucrative

machines go far enough?

A no deal Brexit could cost

75,000 finance jobs -

so says the Bank of England -

but is the bank just getting

in the Halloween spirit

with more project fear?

The family of a British man,

captured by Kurdish forces in Syria,

say he is being tortured.

But should someone who has been

accused of supporting so-called

Islamic State expect assistance

from UK authorities?

And politicians are

constantly haunted by bad

decisions they've made

but are there real ghosts and ghouls

stalking the Palace of Westminster?

All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole

of the programme today is a woman

for whom the word "tsar" might have

been first appropriated -

in British politics at least.

Louise Casey was Homelessness Tsar

for Tony Blair, she then headed up

the Anti-social Behaviour Unit

and most recently she's completed

a review into community cohesion

and extremism in a report that

bears her name.

Welcome to the programme.

First this morning,

the Resolution Foundation think tank

has called for Government

to reduce the six-week wait

for Universal Credit payments

by 10 days.

The think thank that exists to

improve outcomes for people on low

and modest incomes, says the welfare

reform should not be abandoned but

that in its current form it is not

"fit for purpose in 21st century

Britain."

The report comes as the Government

prepares to reveal the details

of the changes Theresa May announced

to Housing Benefit at Prime

Minister's Questions last week.

Louise Casey, you said it is like

jumping over a cliff. Once we jump,

people end up in circumstances and

we don't want that happening, more

dire than we have seen in years. If

Universal Credit is rolled out in

the way the Government proposes, do

you still think that?

I do. I think

it is fund amentally flawed policy

when it comes to delivery. Everybody

agrees work should pay and that

everybody agrees in the overall

position but the fact of the matter

is, if you stake is somewhere like

Doncaster, over 50% of the

population are paid less than

monthly. It is all right for all of

us being paid monthly when you say

the Government dropping to four

weeks from six weeks, won't be good

enough. I feel strong lane the

Resolution Foundation and Lloyds

Bank have said people going on to

Universal Credit are the opposite of

people paid monthly, ie almost 60%

of those people are on less than

monthly payments. So everybody going

- oh, no, OK, monthly will be fine,

because that's what the vast

majority of us think that everybody

is paid, the cycles they are paid

on, will not work. My point is, it

is a flawed delivery. When things

are flawed, in terms of delivery,

it's really all right to say - we

are not getting the intention of the

policy right, we are going to change

it, but they have to change it

properly. The Government of course

says it has been piloted and worked

for a large number of people. You

gave me some statistics which sound

like the vast majorities of those on

low incomes don't work on a month

lay basis, are you saying it should

be shortened? I think it should be

proportionate to the money people

are paid on when they need benefit T

wouldn't be that difficult to do. If

people are paid weekly we should

help them from the week they are not

paid from. We are ending up with a

benefit system that is punitive. I

don't think we should have a benefit

system that should punish poor

people. We should have a benefit

system that supports poor people in

getting back into work.

What do you

say to the Government that says,

yes, a majority of people who have

jobs are paid on a monthly basis and

that's what other people should try

and aspire to do, manage their

finances and benefit on the same

basis.

That's all right when you are

in the Palace of Westminster and

paid monthly it is not all right on

the streets of places like Doncaster

and Manchester and Newcastle and

Sunderland, where people are not

paid on a monthly basis and that's

part of the problem here. With this

difference between essentially

Westminster politics and the

government not being in touch with

what they want that you are policy

to deliver. Theresa May said on the

door of Downing Street that she was

a one nation politician and she

would help the people that were

powerful and had no voice. This is

an example of where she could make a

change to deliver on that promise.

Why do you think they are not doing

it? They have constituents, they

have postbags, they will know, of

examples, maybe not so much in

places like Maidenhead, Theresa

May's constituency, but they will

know about these issues, why are

they not changing it?

I did 18 years

of working for ministers and for

Prime Ministers in Whitehall. Quite

often when a approximatelicy is set,

it becomes set in stone and then

people get into defending it and

then people want it to continue and

then they tribe find small

Amelliourations to it and it goes on

and on. The country is frayed at the

edges, the last thing we need to do

is punish the poor even more for

being poor.

You have said there are

things that are done around the

edges of policies set in stone, even

if in your mind they are not going

to be delivered properly. We have

had the helpline made free. The

guidance to job centre staff has

been updated on how people can

access emergency payments and of

course the U-Turn that the

Government is set, to drop plans to

cap housing benefit for people

living in social rented

accommodation. Is that enough?

No,

not when it Co comes to the specific

policy of Universal Credit. All of

those things are more than helpful.

They are great, particularly if they

change the housing benefit rules but

if you come back to this one

particular flagship policy - there

are two things that are a problem

with it, the people entering into it

are paid less than monthly, the vast

majority and the second thing,

hardship payments are not payments

they are loans. The line many

ministers and others are using, we

are helping people they can apply

for these loans, will mean that

people will still not get the right

amount of help. This is a country

that needs to take stock of the fact

that Westminster is out of kilter

with the vast majority of many

people in some of our poorer and

tougherers why. And this will be a

-- tougher areas. This is a symbolic

change that the Government has

listened?

Do you think they'll

shorten the waiting time?

I think

they will shorten it, but whether it

will be enough?

Now to something

different:

Time for our daily quiz.

The question for today is:

it's Halloween, or All Hallow's Eve,

the scariest day of the year

but which ghost is said to haunt

Number 10?

Is it A, The Lady in White

who wonders between

the state dining rooms.

B, the Ghost of Humphrey,

former Downing Street cat?

C, the Phantom Policeman,

who keeps watch over

British Prime Ministers?

Or D, the spirit of

Jean Claude Juncker?

At the end of the show Louise

will give us the correct answer.

you haven't been a tsar for that

long without knowing who the ghost

is.

This morning, it emerged

that the Bank of England believes

that up to 75,000 jobs could be lost

in the UK's financial services

sector after Brexit,

particularly if there is no deal

between Britain and the EU.

And ministers are also preparing

for battles in Parliament -

where opposition and Conservative

MPs are tabling hundreds

of amendments to the Government's

Brexit legislation.

For many people who voted

to leave the EU, it amounts

to an attempt to derail Brexit.

Let's take a look.

In the view of the Bank of England,

the loss of 75,000 is a "reasonable

scenario", especially

if there is not a deal

covering financial services.

Meanwhile, ministers have revealed

a list of the 58 sectors

of the economy in which they have

assessed the impact of Brexit

but they're resisting calls

to publish the results

of those assessments.

And yesterday chief

Brexit negotiator,

Michel Barnier, took time to meet

three senior anti-Brexit

British politicians.

"The Rebels" - as they called

themselves - included the former

Conservative Chancellor, Ken Clarke,

and former Liberal Democrat

leader, Nick Clegg.

In Parliament, the Government's

flagship piece of Brexit

legislation, the EU Withdrawal Bill,

will be back in the Commons

in exactly two weeks.

Ministers will then have to tangle

with a huge number of possible

and Conservative MPs.

The total is currently 347

amendments.

And the Withdrawal Bill is just one

of eight Brexit bills

that the Government

wants to become law.

But it's not just those Brexit bills

that could be amended.

Yesterday, the Government appeared

to be facing defeat in the House

of Lords with a Labour amendment

seeking to include part of the EU's

Charter of Fundamental Rights

in the Data Protection Bill but in

the end the amendment wasn't moved.

And joining me now is

the Culture Minister, Matt Hancock.

Let's start with the issue of the

data protection bill, which you are

responsible for. Now we reported

yesterday Labour wanted part of the

EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights

put into the bill and it was thought

you could be facing defeat. It was

then withdrawn. Are you breathing a

huge sigh of relief?

I think we won

the argument. Labour put forward

this amendment. I know you discussed

it on the programme yesterday. The

amendment would've had some very

serious negative repercussions. We

thought carefully about this bill

and bills before Parliament and I'm

glad we decided at the last minute

not to push the amendment. Part of

the parliamentary process is looking

at the amendments tabled and seeing

if any has any merit and if you

think that some are damaging, then

pushing back and winning the argue

um.

Do you see that Brexit is now

going to impact on the wider

legislative agenda and actually the

opposition will take opportunities

to make life more difficult for the

Government with bills like data were

text. I mean it is not even one of

the Government's eight Brexit bills?

No, I suppose the data protection

bill shows that Parliament is

getting on with delivering important

legislation as well as Brexit. Of

course the withdrawal bill is a

serious piece of legislation and

will take significant amounts of

parliamentary time it properly be

scrutinised and, of course by its

nature. But, therein, the biggest

piece of legislation in front of

Parliament at the moment is the data

protection bill and it is bringing

our data rules into the modern age

and preparing us for this enormous

digital transformation. So, it shows

that we are getting on with

preparing the country for other

things, and improving in other

areas, in this case giving people

more privacy, but also allowing

people to use this amazing new

technology. You claim you won the

argument yesterday and certainly it

went through. But these sorts of

skirmishes, and we discussed it

yesterday, are nothing compared to

what we are going to see when it

comes to something like the EU

withdrawal bill, which of course a

mayiour.

The major Brexit bill. How

worried are you by the numbers of

Conservatives rebels who'll team up

with the opposition parties like

Labour, and in this case table 347

amendments between them?

Well it is

normal there are a lot of amendments

on bills.

Not 347.

Clearly a lot

here. Clearly there will be a

debate. There has already been an

enormous debate about it. But I'm

pretty confident of getting it

through. The reason is this - the

fundamental feeling of Parliament is

that the result of the referendum

needs to be respected. So people, no

matter how they Veet voted more than

a year ago in the referendum believe

we have to deliver.

You accept

different interpretations of that.

So I say again, how are you worried

by the perhaps 15 to 25 Conservative

rebels who are saying they are

prepared it team up with the

opposition parties to defeat you?

I

think we've got the - the Government

I think has won't argument on the

core principle, which is that you

have to respect the result of the

referendum no matter how people

voted.

Why are there 347 amendments?

You have not won any argument when

it comes to the EU withdrawal bill.

How will you deal with that?

Amendment by amendment:

Is that why

it is delayed?

No they get groups.

You deal with groups. Some will be

highly technical. Some will be show

boating and others will be serious

amendments on the issues. This is

the process of Parliament. Afterall,

one of the great things about having

a parliamentary system like this is

that everybody in Parliament can put

their amendments down and then we go

through them...

So it is legitimate

parliamentary scrutiny, in your

mind, by your colleagues, here, or

do you think this is a large group

of pro-Remain MPs who are still not

reconciled to Brexit happening and

are trying to thwart it?

As it

happens, I think it is questions on

the detachls I think the fact that

we got the timetable through for

this Bill, in September. There was a

vote in September, which means that

this will be done in an organised

way in Parliament, not all through

the night sittings, as there have

been on bills in the past. That

shows that people are serious about,

yes, having the parliamentary debate

and enough parliamentary time to

have the discussions, but also,

coming to a reasonable conclusion.

Is it also legitimate then,

parliamentary screw the no I have

your colleague, Dominic Grieve to

table an amendment to insist a

no-deal scenario cannot happen and

this should be written into the bill

s that legitimate?

I don't happen to

agree with him on that but MPs can

put down their amendments on all

sorts of things. Ultimately we will

have a lot of debate and then the

bill will go through and then we'll

leave and that will help us to leave

in the most orderly pay possible.

Ultimately, you know, people - the

people on that side of the argument

don't want a cliff edge, any more

than I do. And legislation is

critical to ensure we have an

orderly departure.

Is it reasonable

of the Bank of England, who today

have said up to 75,000 jobs could be

lost in financial service, following

Britain's departure from the

European Union?

The bank is independent and they can

say what they think.

Do you think it

is likely to happen?

I think we will

get a good deal so it is

hypothetical but also Britain and

the City of London will succeed

after Brexit. We have seen that

after the referendum decision, huge

amount of investment decisions into

the UK and more than I expected at

the time.

So the Bank of England is

wrong?

I think Britain will be

hugely successful.

You don't think

75,000 jobs could be lost, they

could expect job losses even with a

trading deal so are they just

scaremongering?

I used to be an

economic forecaster and one thing

I've learned to do is never make

economic forecast! The last couple

of years have strengthened that

position but I will say that Britain

is an incredibly strong country and

we have had some excellent

investment into the UK since the

referendum and we will make a

success of it and I am confident we

can be an incredibly successful

country both in financial services

and more broadly, in the tech area

that I look after we have had

investment from almost all the major

companies.

And you can do that even

if the UK loses its special

passporting right, banks can grow

and the city will thrive?

I'm

confident we will get a good deal.

And when we look at your area, there

are assessment being done at the

moment, have you seen the assessment

for the digital area post Brexit?

There is not a specific one around

digital, it obviously affects huge

swathes of the economy.

Had you seen

any of the assessment?

I have seen

some as advice to ministers and we

get advice all the time and that is

an important part of the

decision-making process that civil

servants can give me advice and know

that it will remain private. If you

don't have that private space, you

can't have a genuine discussion

between civil servants and

ministers.

If that you are basing

your positive outlook on, that

government assessment?

On all sorts

of things, on internal assessments,

on the decisions that have been made

by international investors

everywhere from Apple, Google,

Facebook, Amazon, IBM, they are all

made significant and overall

multi-billion dollar investment

decisions since the referendum.

You

will not publish those assessments

but if they are that positive why

wouldn't you?

Because I am not going

to get into publishing advice that

is given to me as a minister. I

would incredibly closely with civil

service.

What about transparency?

They are some of the most brilliant

minds in the country and they give

me a full and frank advice and so

they should. But if they thought

their advice might in future be

published, they would be tempered

and how they would write it down. I

need people advising me to be

completely frank and open with me

knowing that they can be frank in

advice to ministers because it will

be respected and kept private and

not accidentally part of the wider

debate.

Since Matt Hancock has asked

for your agreement in terms of the

advice that civil servants get, do

you think it is what we do not see

these important assessment about how

British industry and various

departments will look in their

analysis post Brexit?

I think it is

absolutely, I was listening to the

conversation and thinking that part

of the problem with this is that the

country does not know who to believe

and whether we are coming or going

and most of us are worried about

housing, whether the kids can pay

their rent, if jobs will go out of

the window because of Brexit or if

more jobs will arise because of it.

It is hard to see what the truth is

behind that and there must be true

in some of it. Some will be right

and some wrong. I personally think

it would be a very good idea if the

government and others gave more

information in a much more

transparent way about how to go

forward, whether that is private

ministerial advice... Sometimes you

think, you can you trust. The

Institute for Fiscal Studies, the

government, Keir Starmer? It is hard

to get to the bottom of it and

sometimes there is a role for

independent advice to say that these

are the different stages we can take

going through Brexit. What I do know

is that I think the bickering has to

stop, which is what it feels like,

it feels like a constant,

pro-Brexit, anti-Brexit, Remain, we

are tired with all of that but we

want to help the negotiators through

something that does not make people

poorer and worse off. Those are the

people who might be worst affected.

Louise Casey thinks you should

public those assessments.

That's not

quite what she said.

You could

publish more information to help

make the argument otherwise why

should we believe you?

A good

example of this, over the summer we

published over a dozen papers on

where we wanted to get to in various

different areas. And we did one in

data protection.

I have read a few.

We do publish...

Those were not

assessments, that was a wish list.

It is part of the negotiating

strategy.

That is not the same as an

assessment of how Britain would look

post Brexit. Would that help people

be convinced that it would be a

positive thing?

I have said it I

think it will be. I think asking

officials to write advice to a

minister in private and

after-the-fact demanding it is

published is unfair on officials and

crucially makes decision-making

harder.

Was it wrong of Michel

Barnier to meet Nick Clegg, Ken

Clarke and Lauda Denis Grachev he

can meet who he likes but what he

needs to know but what he needs to

know is that is not the centre of

gravity in British politics -- Lord

Adonis.

The British people made a

decision and we need to get the best

possible deal.

Would he have more

clarity meeting them than David

Davis?

No, David Davis is doing an

excellent job.

Do you think Ken

Clarke should have done that at a

sitting Conservative MP?

It is

perfectly reasonable for Michel

Barnier or whoever to meet who they

want to come I'm in favour of

talking to people that you agree

with and disagree with but the

crucial thing is for the negotiators

on the other side to know that that

does not represent the core of

British politics and what we

actually want to do is get on and

get a good deal that is good for us

and good for the EU and make a

success of it.

Stay with us for a moment, Matt,

because the Government has announced

a review of regulations on gambling.

A 12-week consultation will cover

online gamblers, the protections

of minors and advertising.

But most of the attention this

morning has focussed on the 34,000

fixed odds betting machines,

on which a punter can lose up

to £100 every 20 seconds.

A Church of England bishop today

called on the maximum

stake to be capped at £2.

Do you agree that it should be

capped?

I don't know. I think

introducing any form of regulation

that deals with addiction, when that

addiction is literally pouring money

out of a family and into the

property at somebody else, that can

only be a good thing. One thing I

did think about listening to some of

the coverage of this, was if anybody

had asked the addicts what they

think the amount should be set at,

rather than those who are not

addicts having views on what happens

to poor people.

Should it be set at

£2?

I think we want to hear the

evidence, that is why we published

the consultation.

If you think that

£100 is particularly bad for people

who are addicted to that sort of

gambling £50 did not going to make

that much difference.

We want to

have a debate on that and this paper

has sparked that off. I agree with

Louise that we need to have all of

the views of the people affected by

this right across the board. We have

a 12 week consultation and we

purposely ensured it is broad so we

can get the views of people on what

to do.

I do think it should be

incredibly low, I would not rule out

£2, because the type of gambling

this is dealing with it so fast and

repetitive. £50 would be a disaster

because it is such a lot of money to

people in this type of position.

Again and again, I welcome us doing

something about this and the Church

of England is right to set it in

could be low, because this is all

about something that has happened

within three years and it should

never have gone as wild in terms of

licensing around betting but we are

where we are and it is trying to now

get the genie back into the bottle

which will take radical change.

Ministers should be brave at the end

of this consultation about being

very serious with dealing with the

human beings on the receiving end of

that type of marketing.

Thank you.

Now, discussions are going

between Brussels and London

about when the next round of Brexit

negotiations will take place.

The aim is for a deal to move

onto the next stage of the talks

to be in place before EU

leaders meet in December.

But the EU's chief negotiator,

Michel Barnier, was busy yesterday,

when he met three leading

Remain campaigners.

Hello again.

Gentlemen, what brings

you here today?

We're going to see Michel

Barnier and a few other

people in the European Commission.

Are you here to stop Brexit?

LAUGHS

If only it were that easy.

No, no...

We're here to talk cricket.

We're here just to get a better

understanding of what's going on.

Ken, are you allowed to be here,

this isn't Government policy,

is it?

Government policy,

not visiting Brussels?

What will you be asking Mr Barnier?

I'm joined now by a Finnish deputy

minister, Samuli Virtanen.

I hope I pronounced your name

correctly. The three rebels, Nick

Clegg, Ken Clarke and Lord Adonis,

do you think Michel Barnier should

have been meeting them?

It is up to

Michel Barnier who he wants to meet.

He is a nice man and I have seen him

several times and he is able to beat

anybody.

Do you think it will help

the negotiations?

That is another

thing. -- he is able to meet

anybody. I think it is perhaps not

ideal at this point of the

negotiations.

You have previously

alluded to divisions within the UK

Cabinet as one of the main

problems...

Not the Cabinet.

In the

government and the EU knows that

Theresa May has a slim majority so

is the EU actively trying to

undermine Theresa May in these

negotiations in your mind?

Let me be

clear what I said in Luxembourg and

elsewhere, that at the moment it

seems that the EU 27 is more

unanimous. I did not refer to the UK

Government. The ministers I have met

all got the same message, what I

have heard that the speech Theresa

May gave in Florence, it was

analysed and gone through by the

inside Cabinet.

Although you have

said it is difficult to see what

Britain wants from these

negotiations.

That's true, because

we basically know what the

government wants come they want to

have a good deal.

Everybody wants a

good deal.

We also want that. But

I'm here on a more or less

fact-finding mission for two days,

trying to understand what Britain as

a country wants. When you read the

British newspapers, the media,

following the discussions in the

Parliament here in Westminster, you

get an idea that, OK, the majority

of the British people want to leave

the EU, but it seems that there are

some saying that perhaps we should

cancel the whole thing.

Does that

mean that if there were to be an

increase in the number of meetings

between Michel Barnier and the UK,

that it might help the negotiations?

Do you think the EU has been quite

inflexible in terms of broadening

the remit so that trade talks could

be discussed as part of the divorce

settlement, and that they should

meet with more frequency?

Basically

I think that when we get around the

negotiating table we should have two

equal partners. When Michel Barnier

gets there, he knows he has the

back-up of 27 countries, but it is

quite difficult for the UK

Government, because we get one

message from the government and then

there are messages coming from

London saying that, actually, we

could do it in another way. I have

met people in Helsinki and Brussels

and Luxembourg who have said to me,

you know, perhaps they will cancel

the Brexit.

Do you believe that is a

possible scenario?

No. I believe

that Brexit is going to happen.

Is

it not just about the money from

your side? Britain is a net

contributor...

Like Finland.

And

when they leave there will be a hole

in the budget and Emmanuel Macron

made it clear that Britain is only

halfway there so it comes down to

euros and pounds four U?

Money is

one of the biggest issues is not the

biggest, but we have a long way

ahead of us still to find the

solution and agreement which works

for everybody.

But why should

Britain pay more than what it those

in the minds of the EU into in the

budget until 2020? There is no legal

obligation on Britain.

No, rights

and opposition must be balanced, I

think that is what the EU has said.

But 20 billion euros is what has

been intimated by Britain, is that

not enough?

That's something that

belongs to the negotiating table.

But you would like to see more money

on the table?

I want to see a deal

which is fair for everybody.

Which

would be? In terms of Euros?

I'm not

going to name any summer.

Are you

confident there will be a deal by

March 2019?

-- any amount. I

certainly hope so, time is ticking

and we don't have time to waste at

this point but I definitely hope we

will find a good deal and that is

also partly why I'm here, because

Finland, we are part of the 27 of

course, but we also, one of our best

allies in the world and in Europe

and you are one of our biggest

trading partners and very important

to European security and defence

policy. We want to have that

excellent relationship with you, and

the British people decide themselves

which international organisation

they want to belong to or not, that

is up to you. We just hope that we

can intensify and strengthen the

relationship.

Now, there are more stories

on the front pages of the newspapers

today about inappropriate behaviour

by MPs at Westminster.

They have come to light in the wake

of the Harvey Weinstein

scandal in Hollywood.

No substantiated allegations

of that seriousness have

yet to emerge here,

but yesterday the Leader

of the House, Andrea Leadsom,

with Theresa May by her side,

sought to show that the Government

was on the front foot

in dealing with the issue.

As Members of Parliament,

our constituents will be rightly

appalled at the thought that some

representatives in Parliament may

have acted in an entirely

inappropriate way towards others.

These reports risk bringing

all of our offices into disrepute.

I know this is an issue of great

concern to you, Mr Speaker,

and I know that you will do

everything you can

to tackle this issue.

And I know that members

from all parties will want to work

alongside you to investigate every

claim, provide the right support

in the future, and make sure this

never happens again.

Mr Speaker, it is a right,

not a privilege, to work in a safe

and respectful environment.

These plans will ensure

that Parliament takes

a zero tolerance approach.

Andrea Leadsom updating

the Commons yesterday.

And this morning The Sun's front

page led on Defence Secretary

Michael Fallon's confession

that he repeatedly touched a female

journalist's knee during a radio

interview 15 years ago.

But Julia Hartley-Brewer,

the journalist in question,

insisted she was not a victim

and responded to the story

this morning by tweeting

a picture of her knees.

She said, "Full medical check up

this morning and, yes,

both of my knees are still intact.

Get a grip people."

I'm joined now by former MP

and whip, Rob Wilson.

What did you make of the story of

Julia Hartley-Brewer and the Defence

Secretary, Michael Fallon?

The first

thing to say this is no bigger or

smaller problem than in other walks

of life. There are plenty of

companies, probably organisations

including the BBC where you have had

men putting their hand on a woman's

knee. Now the question in this case

is - was it inappropriate or in the?

Now clearly Michael Fallon has said

it was inappropriate and has

apologised. It did happen a long

time ago, although that's no excuse

and obviously Julia Hartley-Brewer

has made her feelings clearer on the

case.

Should it be taken any

further?

I don't think in this case,

neither of the participants in that

want it to be taken further.

What is

the bedge mark of behaviour in your

mind that should trigger some sort

of sanction or an MP being sacked? .

It is not really in my mind that

counts. It is in the mind of the

people involved in the incident.

Now

you know...

But someone has to make

a judgment.

There are judgments in

employment law about how people

should be treated. That's the bemplg

mark we should try and use. If you

have made laws, as Members of

Parliament, you should be trying to

keep those laws and uphold them and

that means also in situation whereas

you are dealing with your own staff,

but whereas when you are dealing

with other people's staff. There are

certain standards in public life

that are set out quite clearly.

Right, but who do you go to at the

moment within the Palace of

Westminster? If MPs are

self-employed and also then

employers, you don't go to the MP

who allegedly is harassing you, and

say - you are harassing me, you want

to go somewhere else, you can't. Do

you go to the whip? . This is one of

the big problems that there is in

Westminster, and I acknowledge this.

I think anybody with a brain would

acknowledge this. The whole human

resources system, the way it is set

up in Westminster is wrong. It

should not be that MPs are employing

their own staff and responsible in

that way for their staff. There

should be a proper, human resources

department that has the teeth of any

organisation whether it is the BBC,

the NHS or any other organisation

has, to investigate and if

appropriate, to bring the police

into the matter as well.

Should the

trade minister, Mark Garnier, who

asked his secretary at the time to

buy sex toys and then used a

demeaning phrase to describe her,

should he be sacked while he is

investigated?

Well, that's difficult

one because there are obviously

contrasting interpretations of that

story. I have seen both sides of the

argument. He says he hasn't done the

same things that the ex-secretary

has accused him of. So, it would

need a proper investigation first, I

think.

It was about context, I think

rather than the comments weren't

made.

If I had been Mark Garnier, I

certainly would not have asked a PA

to go and buy a sex toy and I

certainly wouldn't have called her

by the name he used.

There is

context to what happened there, but

do you think while he is

investigating, he should be

suspended, or at least have the whip

taken away?

Well, as far as I

understand he has admitted to using

the expression he used and admitted

to asking his secretary,

historically, to go out and buy sex

toys. My view is if he had any

common sense whatsoever, he would've

stood down until whatever

investigation goes forward but this

is all part of - I disagree with

you, the difference between

companies and other organisations is

they don't stand up in Parliament

representing our democracy, they are

not public servants, you know you

are not above the Nolan principles,

if you see what I mean and some of

this behaviour is above and not

right. The thing missing in all of

this, yesterday the Government,

rightly, good, has said - we are

going to put better procedures in

place, we want to review code of

conduct, what Harriet Harman said

and the Speaker said was fantastic

but the onus remains upon the

victims and women to have a bet

procedure. I think that is wrong.

Nobody is saying - what is going on

with our parliamentarians that this

is an institution this thinks n2017,

this is still acceptable, with MPs

yesterday saying - poor us we are

now a witchhunt. They've got to get

a grip.

Do you think it is a witch

hunt?

No, I don't think it is. There

are deleerly MPs that are behaving

very inappropriately and those

individuals need to be held to

account, taken to task, and if it

means they lose their ministerial

job, so be it.

Do you know - the

allegations have been made, you are

a former whip, did you have

information on individual MPs

relating to any sexual misconduct.

Clearly there is a flow of

information all the time into the

whip's off. Some of it will be to do

with things outside of sexual nature

and some of it will be to do with

sexual harassment and other things.

Now it is up to the Chief Whip then

to take the action that he deems

appropriate but it is not really -

the whip's system is not fit for

purpose in terms of dealing with

employee matters.

Except you have

had, then, information that could be

used.

If it's appropriate to report

that information to the police, I'm

sure the Chief Whip would do that.

Do you believe there is aaway list

of of names of MPs and ministers who

are of concern?

Yes.

Right. Final

word to you, Louise, before I move

on

Can I just say before I say that,

this is not something that is to do

with the Conservative Party or

Conservative MPs, this is across all

political parties and all aspects of

business in this country.

Well very

briefly. The key difference is - you

are parliamentarians that people go

out and vote for and you govern our

country, so your behaviours, as a

set of individuals, should be above

reproach and it has not been beyond

reproach.

I agree with that.

Thank

you for coming in. To make it clear,

since we are in the business of

accuracy, the knee-touching incident

didn't take place during a radio

interview, it was during a dinner.

Just for clarity.

Now, at the end of last year

Louise Casey produced a report

following her comprehensive review

of social integration in the UK.

She found, perhaps unsurprisingly,

that the gaps between different

ethnic and social groups

are still large and that

in some places ethnic

segregation is on the rise.

While women from certain communities

are suffering huge inequalities.

As part of her review she made

a number of recommendations,

and we'll be talking

to her about those in a moment,

but fist Elizabeth Glinka has been

to Birmingham to find out more.

September, 1985, in the Handsworth

area of Birmingham. Record levels of

unemployment and tensions between

disenfranchised black youths and

recently arrived Asian immigrants

spilled over into rioting. The

police force moves in with a massive

show of force. Two men burnt to

death in their shops. Many more

people are injured. The city is

divided.

White people keep in their

area and we keep in ours. We don't

go in their territory and they don't

normally come in our territory.

That's the way it works out really.

30 years on and this is the Soho

Road. It is a multicultural

community here with people of all

backgrounds living side by side. But

it is said this the the exception

and not the rule and that

Birmingham, like many towns and

cities is more divided. Desmond is a

community activist. He says despite

huge efforts over the last 30 years,

he recognises many of the findings

of the review. His concern is that

not enough action is being taken to

change things

It's very sad. I'm one

of the people that witnessed what

happened in 1985. In Handsworth,

particularly, you will see, you

know, when events are going on, etc,

everyone is there from all different

backgrounds but it is not reflected

acombroms. In terms of cohesion, you

have had a lot of reports done but

they have been put on a shelf and

never acted upon.

Across the UK,

people live in pockets of is he

regachlingts Blackburn, burn lane

Bradford all have wards where more

than three-quarters of the

population are of Muslim origin. It

means that some children are

attending schools with little

opportunity of meeting pew you ils

from different backgrounds. Just a

few miles south of Handsworth is one

of five wards of the vast majority

of Pakistani Muslims. For those

working to prevent segregation, it

is not hard to understand.

People

generally flock together, where you

try to find a sense of belonging and

identity and similarity. So from

then, I think what has happened is

that people have continued, and

rather than moving out, they are in

the pockets.

Are there particular

barriers for women?

Many feel - this

is what the women have said to me,

they feel it is not worth the

evident. It is not worth the battle

because we end up getting abused. We

are not supported. There is not

enough speaking out for us and we're

just beaten down. So they step back,

retreat and just carry on as they

have done over the years.

With

separation deeply engrained in some

migrant communities, for both social

and economic reasons, there is a

change when it comes to Bert

integrating our towns and cities. --

better.

And I'm joined now by Dr Amra Bone,

who the first female

Sharia Council judge in the UK.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. The

last time Louise you were on the

programme you said is he regracing

and exclusion were at worrying

levels -- segregation. And you

called for the government to work on

this. Your report called on Muslim

communities more than other

communities. Is that fair?

Yes, the

levels of highest unemployment for

women and men, in terms of the types

of jobs those communities have

access to are very different. The

issue about economic activity in

women, particularly in Pakistani

heritage and Bangladeshi heritage

communities, is significantly

different to other either religious

or ethnic minorities, and, for

example, English not being language

spoken in those communities is

greater T doesn't mean to say there

aren't issue in the other

communities and the 200-page report

makes that very, very clear but it

would be undeniable to say that we

have to give more help and reach

greater into those communities than

others.

Do you agree with that

description of Muslim communities?

Muslim communities from my

experience are not very happy at

being singled out because there is a

number of factors here. It is not

just because they happen to be

Muslims. I remember growing up in an

area where there was white flight

and as a Muslim, you didn't chose to

be separated but it happened. Now

there is a change of pace and Muslim

families generally have more

children than others and I think we

have to understand the demographic

changes, what is going on, rather

than just because they happen to be

Muslims. And poverty is another link

why Muslims or people of particular

ethnicity tend to be in those areas

and I personally know that a huge

number of people have moved out into

suburban areas. There are plenty of

lawyers, doctors and engineering and

council r os that are working

themselves to support their own

children.

To go back to what you were saying,

is it an accurate picture of what is

happening because they are Muslims?

It is not necessarily because of

religion and, it could be because of

ethnicity and immigration patterns

and as you said, the fastest-growing

religious minority because of birth

rate is within that community. But

the fact is, where I think we would

agree, is that those communities are

poorer on the whole, living in poor

housing with less access to jobs and

not doing as well as other groups in

terms of universities. There are

plenty of examples and I met huge

numbers of people who have made it

through the system but if we were

talking about black young men for

example, and we do regularly, we

know that at the age of 11, black

young boys start trailing off in

school and the unemployment rate is

35% as opposed to their white

counterparts being at 17% and we

don't have a problem talking about

it, we don't do enough about it but

we don't have a problem talking

about it.

So why do you have a

problem with for example discussing

some Muslim women being denied their

basic rights as British residents?

I

think if we looked at women largely,

we have recently had a report come

out in the Guardian about women, 52%

being sexually harassed, groped,

even raped in the workplace and that

is a huge number and that goes all

across the board.

Do you think it

does not merit discussion even about

Muslim women?

I'm not saying that, I

do a lot of work in the community

where I highlight that God has given

dignity to us as human beings, men

and women equally, and we need to

respect each other's views and give

equality. I think what we're doing,

that fear that has been created,

people are playing into that. We

have a huge number of right-wing

extremists now, as Tim Farron

pointed out, because of the

government concentrating on Muslim

extremist they have largely ignored

the white extremists which is in

fact creating a ground for more

attacks.

Although the numbers of

course, although you are right,

there has been an increase in the

numbers of white extremists, the

numbers are still large larger in

terms of Muslim fundamentalists.

Your report, with women being held

back in progressive cultural

practices, what are those practices?

The fact that women are not able to

get access to being able to speak

English for example. I did not have

to work very hard in places like

Birmingham to find countless women

who, if they were not allowed out of

their home, they would only be

allowed out to go to various classes

that could not be around English or

indeed emancipation. I also have a

problem with some Sharia councils

and courts because they are

creating, I know that is a tough

thing to say to dip in your

position, but they are creating

alternative legal system that has no

standing in British society and a

woman thinking she is married when

she is not and does not have the

same right that I would have. I

think all of those things start to

subjugate women and to be fair, I

was quite shocked by that in terms

of those particular communities.

Why

does Sharia law have a place here?

As human beings everyone has a right

to practice their faith. Since

Christianity had no divorce, people

could divorce in the civil law but

Judaism and Islam has always had

this concept so people want to live

by their faith as well as the law of

the land. As a Muslim I should live

by the law of the land and I do, but

those who have a religious Marist,

they have no records to be civil

courts. Sharia councils are

voluntary, it is up to people if

they want to come -- religious

marriage. That is why they exist, to

help the women and if we want women

to be contributing in our society

and want them to be free of any

problems and issues they are having

within themselves, we need to have

that, marriage to be resolved and

dissolved and to move on and to be

full members and integrated in our

society pulls up and yet it seems

like Muslims cannot win no matter

what, they are castigated, they

integrate or don't.

I am going to

have to stop, thank you for coming

in.

The government is facing questions

over how it will deal

with the case of a 21-year-old man

from Oxford who has been captured

as an IS suspect in Syria.

Jack Letts travelled to IS territory

aged just 18 and was nicknamed

"Jihadi Jack" by British newspapers.

But he is now a prisoner of war

there, and could be handed over

to British authorities.

In a moment we'll hear

from Jack's local MP,

but first here's Emma Vardy.

When Jack Letts, a middle class boy

from Oxford, ran off to live in

so-called Islamic State he was

suspected of being the first white

British man to join IS.

Now, two-and-a-half

years later, he says

he's travelled all over IS territory

in both Syria and Iraq.

In May this year, Jack

Letts communicated with

the BBC, using the enscripted app

Telegram and claimed he'd fallen out

with IS.

I first I thought

they were on the truce.

And then I realised they weren't

upon the truthe, so they

put me in prison three times,

and threatened to kill me

and the second and third time

I actually escaped

from prison.

After leaving IS territory,

Jack Letts was arrested

by the Kurdish militia,

the YPG who've been fighting

against IS in northern

Syria.

Firstly, we were going to go

to the territories for a bit and

then continue to Turkey

and as soon as we got

here, we got arrested

and put in prison.

After that I was in solitary

confinement until now.

I still am.

Jack Letts' parents are due

to stand trial, accused of

sending their son money for

terrorist purposes, which they deny.

They've been calling for the British

Government to help get Jack

back to the UK.

He's been able to tell us

where he is and who he's

with, the group he's with and we've

been trying to contact the Foreign

Office to help us.

You know, get him out, really.

Jack's parents have also now

been in contact with

Amnesty International and say

they fear he's being tortured.

Well, Amnesty International

are concerned about

the reports that he has been kept in

poor conditions, he is not allowed

out to exercise and denied food

and medical treatment.

Jack Letts, like any prisoner,

should be afforded the

proper treatment that would meet

international standards.

Kurdish officials have

strongly refuted any

allegations of mistreatment, saying

they respect international human

rights and have treated Jack Letts

in accordance with the Geneva

Convention.

In a statement they've said

they are willing to hand over

prisoners of war to

their original country

but that for Jack Letts,

a dual British and Canadian citizen,

there had been no official request

from either the British

or Canadian governments.

The Foreign Office won't comment

on Jack Letts' case,

except to say it cannot

provide any assistance

to British nationals in Syria.

Last week, Foreign Office Minister

Rory Stewart said he

believed any IS suspects left alive

in Syria are dangerous and should be

killed, but other

ministers disagree.

They say the preference would be

for IS suspects to be returned

to the UK to face prosecution.

The case of Jack Letts

highlights the dilemma

facing authorities over what to do

about British citizens left in Syria

now that IS are being defeated,

and it is unclear what evidence

exists about the true nature

of Jack Letts'

activities in the war zone.

We're joined now by Jack Letts'

MP, Anneliese Dodds.

Should he be returned and face

prosecution here?

That is the big

question, I don't think it is

whether we should just let people

come back without any kind of

comeback when they are here, they

would obviously need to face

prosecution and we would need to

find out if he was indeed a fighter

as had been claimed. It is not about

impunity but ultimately jack is one

of a number of different people who

are either going to languish in jail

without any judicial process which

is effectively what is happening or

they will have to come back and I

think the government needs to bite

the bullet on this.

He went of his

own accord, is it not right that he

should face whatever judicial

process there is in the region?

I

think there are a number of

questions about what is going on

within that prison and whether there

is a normal judicial process that is

becoming but I think the expectation

of the Kurdish side there is that

the countries of origin will be

dealing with any prisoners of war,

and they have made quite clear last

weekend that they were expecting

Britain or Canada to make overtures

to them about and over and that has

not happened.

Should British

citizens, he has dual nationality,

but should British citizens have

their citizenship revoked question

of if we want to go down that road

it can be debated in Parliament and

the decision in Parliament.

The

problem with Jack Letts and his

situation is he is in a Catch-22

according to existing law. This came

up in the clip we heard, his parents

have been told that he is only going

to be able to be dealt with by the

British government when he leaves

Syria but he can't leave because he

is in jail. It is a slightly strange

anomaly.

Apart from Kurdish

officials are keen for him to be

returned.

But at the moment the

British state is not willing to

facilitate that.

Should they?

I

think there is a prima facie argued

for saying that we should...

But the

problem is that there is not always

enough evidence, or you cannot

gather enough evidence from a

conflict zone in order to prosecute

him in the UK. That's a problem.

And

ultimately that is a problem who

could affect people who have been

accused of different crimes in a

number of different countries, I

don't think it is unique to this

situation.

It is unique if you go

out and allegedly fight for IS

macro. What other comparison is

there?

Let's be clear, I am not

defending anything he may or may not

have done and I'm not standing in

judgment over him, I'm his

constituency MP and his parents MP

and they have raised a legitimate

concern which is that people like

him are caught in this limbo where

the expectation of the Kurdish side

is that the home country will be

asking for their citizens but the

British government has not done

that. I think there are legitimate

questions to be asked why the

British government has not asked.

Come back and tell us what happens.

Thank you.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was, which ghost

is said to haunt Number 10.

Was it...

A) The lady in white who wonders

between the state dining rooms.

B) The ghost of Humphrey,

former Downing Street cat.

C) The phantom policeman who keeps

watch over British Prime Ministers.

D) The spirit of

Jean Claude Juncker.

So, Louise, what's

the correct answer?

I think it is the first one.

And you

are correct, well done! There are no

prizes I'm afraid.

We're joined now by

the story-teller Naomi Paxton.

All the stories she tells

are entirely true.

There she is, dressed for the

occasion so tell us some haunted

tales about Westminster.

There are

very few tales about the actual

estate but ten Downing St is

particularly ordered, not only with

the lady in white but there is a

spectral girl in a basement, a man

with a top hat who walks through the

locked front door and even some

strange sound on the back rooms. The

other haunted place is the Norman

Shaw building which is now

administrative officers but used to

be where Scotland Yard was in the

1880s and the sight of the famous

black museum where apparently people

have seen a headless woman in a long

cloak room in the corridors!

Have

you ever seen anything in any of

these places?

Not personally but I'm

open to all experiences.

But you

believe it all?

I believe if the --

I believe it if it's fun!

There is

no doubt that the Palace of

Westminster is a perfect backdrop

for scary tales as well as number

ten, all of those dark corridors.

Give us a sense of what it is like

in terms of spookiness.

There are a

lot of doc corridors with wind

whistling through, the tall

buildings and the paintings and

statues and the ornate dressings and

soft furnishings. You can sometimes

turn around and wonder if you have

heard a footstep behind you to see

the severe face of a Prime Minister

from the past!

Are you very scared?

No!

Why not?! You have do play

along! That has ruined it. Thank you

for coming on and happy Halloween.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

Particularly to Louise Casey even if

she is not scared. Andrew will be

here tomorrow at 11:30am. By buying.

Goodbye.