Jo Coburn is joined by Dame Louise Casey, the government's former social welfare adviser and author of the Casey Report into social integration.
Browse content similar to 31/10/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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
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
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
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?
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
Do you think they'll
shorten the waiting time?
they will shorten it, but whether it
will be enough?
Now to something
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
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
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
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
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
Michel Barnier, took time to meet
three senior anti-Brexit
"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
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
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
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?
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
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
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
So the Bank of England is
I think Britain will be
You don't think
75,000 jobs could be lost, they
could expect job losses even with a
trading deal so are they just
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
And you can do that even
if the UK loses its special
passporting right, banks can grow
and the city will thrive?
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
If that you are basing
your positive outlook on, that
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.
will not publish those assessments
but if they are that positive why
Because I am not going
to get into publishing advice that
is given to me as a minister. I
would incredibly closely with civil
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
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.
quite what she said.
publish more information to help
make the argument otherwise why
should we believe you?
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
I have read a few.
We do publish...
Those were not
assessments, that was a wish list.
It is part of the negotiating
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
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
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
The British people made a
decision and we need to get the best
Would he have more
clarity meeting them than David
No, David Davis is doing an
Do you think Ken
Clarke should have done that at a
sitting Conservative MP?
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
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
I think we want to hear the
evidence, that is why we published
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
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.
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
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?
If only it were that easy.
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,
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
Do you think it will help
That is another
thing. -- he is able to meet
anybody. I think it is perhaps not
ideal at this point of the
You have previously
alluded to divisions within the UK
Cabinet as one of the main
Not the Cabinet.
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
Although you have
said it is difficult to see what
Britain wants from these
That's true, because
we basically know what the
government wants come they want to
have a good deal.
Everybody wants a
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.
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?
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
Do you believe that is a
No. I believe
that Brexit is going to happen.
it not just about the money from
your side? Britain is a net
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?
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
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.
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
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.
would be? In terms of Euros?
going to name any summer.
confident there will be a deal by
-- 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
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?
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
Should it be taken any
I don't think in this case,
neither of the participants in that
want it to be taken further.
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.
But someone has to make
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.
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
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
It was about context, I think
rather than the comments weren't
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.
context to what happened there, but
do you think while he is
investigating, he should be
suspended, or at least have the whip
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
Do you think it is a witch
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
Except you have
had, then, information that could be
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?
word to you, Louise, before I move
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.
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
I agree with that.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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. --
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?
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
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
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
So why do you have a
problem with for example discussing
some Muslim women being denied their
basic rights as British residents?
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
After leaving IS territory,
Jack Letts was arrested
by the Kurdish militia,
the YPG who've been fighting
against IS in northern
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
Apart from Kurdish
officials are keen for him to be
But at the moment the
British state is not willing to
think there is a prima facie argued
for saying that we should...
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.
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
It is unique if you go
out and allegedly fight for IS
macro. What other comparison is
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
you ever seen anything in any of
Not personally but I'm
open to all experiences.
believe it all?
I believe if the --
I believe it if it's fun!
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?
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.
Jo Coburn is joined by Dame Louise Casey, the government's former social welfare adviser and author of the Casey Report into social integration. They discuss social integration in Britain today. The programme also includes an interview with former government whip Rob Wilson on sexual harassment claims in Westminster.