22/02/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

The Prime Minister's country retreat

is the scene for a gathering

of Theresa May and some of her key

ministers today,

as they meet

to thrash out

a negotiating position on Brexit.

Net migration to the UK has

fallen but is still well

above the government's

target at 244,000.

We'll be looking at the detail.

We know Michael Gove loves animals,

but which party is winning

the policy battle when it comes

to pets and animal welfare?

And text messages are old hat,

we'll be looking at the latest

must-have technology

for MPs who want to keep

their plots private!

All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole

of the programme today

is

Faiza Shaheen.

She's an economist, writer,

activist and director

of a think-tank called the Centre

for Labour and Social Studies.

Welcome to the show.

First today.

The EU Exit and Trade

(Strategy and Negotiation)

sub-committee is the snappy

title(!)

for the meeting of Theresa May's

cabinet ministers today

to hammer out an agreed

approach to Brexit.

Key ministers who don't always see

eye-to-eye on the issue,

like Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson

and Chancellor Philip Hammond, will

be closeted in the wood-panelled

Tudor splendour

of the Prime Minister's country

retreat of Chequers.

And there's clearly

something in the air.

Because we also hear this morning

that Jeremy Corbyn is planning

to set out Labour's new position

on Brexit at a speech

early next week.

Exciting times for people

like our assistant political

editor

Norman Smith.

I am sure you would like to be a fly

on the wall but will Unity break out

at the end of this marathon summit?

It may not be peace in our time but

there will have to be in agreement,

the option of no deal is so

catastrophic for the government, is

it would suggest divisions are so

profound, that any sort of agreement

is beyond Theresa May, and the

message it would send out to EU

negotiators is frankly, we are all

over the place and have not a clue

what we want, so there must be some

sort of arrangement, over the past

few weeks, gradually, slowly,

incrementally, she has been seeking

to whittle away the areas of

disagreement, to refine and refined

those areas where ministers are

seemingly locked in conflict. That

said, I'm pretty sure that at the

end of the day, it is going to be a

deal that involves some fairly high

wire verbal gymnastics to keep all

parties on fold. The gap is the

schism that we have seen since the

referendum, those that believe the

absolute priority in negotiations

must be trade and securing continued

access to the single market, without

vast amounts of border controls and

tariffs. And those who have

prioritised sovereignty, taking back

control, giving ourselves the

freedom to straight a trade deal,

that tension still remains. There

will have to be some form of

language to try to bridge that.

Let's talk about the labour

position, we have been told there is

going to be a speech by Jeremy

Corbyn, how much can we expect in

terms of a new line, a

clarification, on Labour's position

regarding negotiations?

Labour's

position is somewhat fluid is the

honest truth, and work in progress.

When you talk to Shadow Cabinet

members they all seem to be of the

view that gradually, slowly,

incrementally, the Labour Party is

heading off towards the land called

customs union, in other words, it

will end in a position where it will

back the customs union or a customs

union, the key difference between it

and the Conservative Party. They are

not there yet, key and and

influential figures like John

McDonnell do not like the idea, and

Jeremy Corbyn has not signed up on

the dotted line to that, but that is

the view that that is inevitably

where they will end up and why that

matters is, that is a position which

Tory Remainers could back, there is

plenty of Tory Remainers who think

it is daft of Theresa May to roll

out the option of a customs union

remaining in a customs union. --

rule out. If Labour backed a customs

union and Tory Remainers backed a

customs union, then Theresa May

could yet be defeated on the issue.

Thank you very much.

We're joined now by two MPs

with rather different view

of life after Brexit,

it's the Conservative

Peter Bone

and Labour's

Rupa Huq.

Let's look at the fallout from the

transition debate and what will

happen to EU citizens, what do you

think will happen to the status of

EU citizens who arrived in Britain

after we have left in March, 2019.

Good morning.

Good afternoon.

400

days until we leave this dreadful

European Union superstate.

We decided that anybody here before

the referendum has the right to

stay, and that we would have a new

immigration policy afterwards, now

it seems to transpire that it will

be people who arrived after the 29th

of March who will be subject to new

immigration policy which we have not

yet decided in Parliament what that

will be.

Theresa May has said that

it will differ, rights of those will

differ but the EU has rejected that

and is asking for full rights for

any EU citizens who arrive after

March, 2019. Would you accept a

climb-down?

A few things about the

referendum which we know work eat,

one of the top ones, ending free

movement, making our own laws in our

own countries, not giving billions

of pounds each year to the EU, if

any of those are broken, we have

lost faith in the British people. I

don't think that is the case, I

think the Prime Minister has said

there will be a registration scheme

and new arrangements will apply in

due course.

During that transition

period, that is what we are talking

about, a government source is quoted

as saying, expect the UK to back

down on different rights for EU

citizens who arrive after March,

2019, in the face of resistance from

Brussels. Would you accept and

expect a climb-down from the

government for EU citizens during

that period?

The government

spokesman... What has he said on the

record? A government source

quoted... Yes, and those things...

(!) would you accept a climb-down?

It is there then... They have voted

to end free movement. Yes we cannot

have free movement.

The transition

deal is one thing, the Labour

position, what are you expecting

Jeremy Corbyn to say when he gives

his speech on Monday?

I don't know

what will come from his mouth. There

will be a speech on Monday. A

transition period is responsible and

sensible, Labour called for that,

there has been a change overnight,

sneaked into the ministers red

boxes, now, the government wants a

different appearance... The EU has

rejected not only the freedom of

movement... The government is now

saying no changes to freedom of

movement, and they want 18 months.

The period of this transition is

changing. It shows how weak and

divided they are. The fact this away

day is happening at all is to bang

their heads together.

On that basis,

what... What is Labour's position?

We are not fixated by an exact

number of months or time period but

we think it should be as long as

necessary, I think it should be as

long as necessary, businesses want

certainty.

The customs union, should

Labour be saying clearly, Britain

has to stay part of a customs union

if not the customs union.

We want

something that replicates the

benefits of a customs union, I would

like it to be the customs union, but

the leadership position is that we

want something that is the

benefits...

Saying you want the

benefits of remaining part of some

sort of alignment with the EU is not

the same as saying we want to remain

and would negotiate to remain with a

customs union, John McDonnell has

said all options will be open.

Cutting off our nose to spite our

face, these options are still on the

table... Yes, same with the single

market, we want to retain the

benefits of that.

Retain the

benefits, would you like the Labour

leadership to say we should be part

of the single market?

Personally,

yes, there are some technicalities

about whether we go down the EFTA

route or not, the minister replying

in the debate yesterday said that

they will not change course, they

will not consider alternatives even

if there was no deal, so they are

carrying on with this crazy position

that we have which is quite unclear.

You are close to the leadership,

would you like to hear Jeremy Corbyn

and John McDonnell state clearly on

Monday or at some point soon, that

Labour will back strain in the

single market and the customs union?

I think the place where we start on

this is what it means for people and

inequality between regions and jobs

and in that case, the customs union

makes a lot more sense. The single

market is tricky, we will not have a

seat at the table, there is a big

issue about people voting to have

more control. It is more of a tricky

issue but the customs union, in

terms of the impact on people's

lives, and I am glad that Jeremy

Corbyn has come out and said the

support of a customs union as well

but I think it is completely

practical and logical to think about

what is the end point, and that is

what the Labour leadership is doing

right now.

You would not accept

Britain being part of a customs

union, with the European Union, but

to go back to that transition period

before we get back to the end state,

what did you make of the phase, --

phrase, transition will take as long

as it takes.

We might like to call

it a period of implementation.

How

long should it take?

The Primus has

said that the implementation period

will be time limited but if it can

be shortened, so be it. If we can do

things earlier, and it suits us and

the European Union...

If it goes

over two years?

The Prime Minister

has said that it will be

time-limited.

It could still be over

in a two-year period?

I think it

will be the end of the budgetary

period, the end of 2020, which is

what the EU once, if we can do it

earlier, fine.

If you were at

Chequers, what would you be saying

to the Prime Minister?

I would be

congratulating them on what they are

doing and I would tell people to be

a little more upbeat and cheerful.

The Chancellor, for example, he's

such a dour, sort of fellow, trying

to get all of the figures right. He

should be much more upbeat and

saying, this is a great thing for

Britain, he coined the phrase, we

are all Brexiteers now. A little

more upbeat.

If you think the Prime

Minister has done well, why hold a

summit?

It is quite a good idea,

when you have cabinet government, to

involve the government(!) and get

agreement? And move things on. I

know that we are on the 21st

revision of the Labour Party policy,

you cannot even...

We have been

clear!

Credit to Jeremy Corbyn, he

has resisted those people that want

to try to rerun the referendum, the

situation is, what the government is

doing, all its timescales, made the

first agreement.

Why the summit, if

it is all going so well, and if

there has been so much progress, why

is there a summit where ministers

will be locked in together all day

until...?

It is going to go on late.

When you have a cabinet, you talk

about things, it might not be... Why

not at Chequers, nice house, give

them tea and Puffy, they will be

very happy. Will you be disappointed

if Jeremy Corbyn does not set out

how to stay in the customs market on

Monday, what will you do? -- give

them tea and coffee, they will be

very happy.

At the moment, what we

have, we are not in government, we

have the worst of all worlds, if you

are leave, these arrangements have

been lengthened and lengthen, and we

were not really that much in the EU

in the first place, not in the

single currency, only 60% in. It is

the worst of all worlds, if you are

a remain, they have sold out the

European principles.

What other

soundings you have had that there

will be a shift?

They're already has

been a shift, we are opposing the EU

withdrawal bill, it gives carte

blanche, it is a rubbish piece of...

You are stopping EU laws being made

into British laws, to come into

effect immediately after we leave

the EU, trying to block the current

legislation from coming in, that was

an absurd position, did not make any

sense whatsoever. It was done by

you...

Party political reasons.

Let

her respond. Lord Carlile in the

Lords said, we are heading into the

non-impact assessment feature.

non-impact assessment feature. He

said that it is a suicide note, this

non-assessed impact future that we

are going into...

The Labour Party

view is that this is a suicide note?

62 of your colleagues supported

this. Holding a gun to her head, the

whole country, disturbing that it

was the government's anti-corruption

champion who headed that up.

Lord

Carlile is now a crossbencher.

Former Lib Dem... Just for

clarification. Thank you very much.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

The question for today

is all about reports that the group

messaging application WhatsApp

is falling out of a favour

among Conservative MPs

because their messages

are finding their way

into the papers.

Heaven forbid.

So what are some of them said

to be using instead?

Is it a) Invisible ink?

b) A pager?

c) A "military-grade

encyrption" app called Confide?

Or d) passing messages to each

other in St James's Park?

At the end of the show Faiza

will attempt to give

us the correct answer.

The latest migration figures have

been published this morning -

as usual, they tell a number

of different stories

about the number of people coming

to and leaving the UK,

so let's look at some

of the numbers.

This time last year,

net migration stood at 273,000.

Now, it's fallen to 244,000.

Now, it's fallen to 244,000.

But the decrease of 29,000

is classed by the ONS

as statistically insignificant.

Net migration from the EU

is currently at 90,000.

And from outside

the EU, it's 205,000.

A total of 52,000 British

nationals left the UK

in the year to September.

The new immigration statistics come

hot on the heels of a new release

showing a marked slowdown

in the final quarter

of 2017 in the growth of EU

nationals working in the UK.

But the figure still grew

by 101,000, to total 2.35 million EU

nationals working here.

By the last quarter of 2017,

there was an absolute fall of 53,000

in the number of working nationals

from the EU Eight countries,

like Poland, that joined in 2004.

And an absolute fall

of 68,000 non-UK and non-EU

nationals working here.

Well, to dig into these numbers,

let's talk to the BBC's head

of statistics, Robert Cuffe.

of statistics, Robert Cuffe.

Thank you for joining us. Can you

explain how reliable these figures

are?

They're based on a survey with

all of the uncertainties that it

includes. A migrant is somebody who

is going to stay in their new

country for at least a year and the

ONS ask people at random coming

through the airports and ports where

they come from, how long they plan

to start for and why they're coming.

So it is a survey, just like an

opinion poll, so there is a margin

of error, around us or -40,000 on

the headline figure. That is why the

degrees of 29,000 is not

statistically significant. There is

also a question of definition. A

migrant is someone who is going to

stay for a year. We ask them how

long they are planning to stay - and

plans change. The survey is checked

back against the census and national

insurance and visas and other

things. But it is still best not to

read too much into just one quarter

of data unless the number is really

striking or is consistent with a

pattern we have seen over while.

That basis, what Amir Khan we read

into it?

Well, there is no real

change in the headline figure, but

that is masking something more

interesting underneath. What we are

seeing is a different picture for EU

migrants and non-EU migrants. For EU

migrants since the Brexit referendum

we have seen a decline which is

continuing apace. It is down from

about 106 to 5000 to 95,000 net last

year. And that is statistically

significant. That is being slightly

masked by an increase in non-EU

migration, which is up by about

40000 and if you add them together

they cancel each other out a little

bit. But there is different things

going on for each of them. It is a

consistent pattern overtime for EU

migration but for non-EU, the ONS

say it came down a little bit last

year to do with rebel studying at

not being scrubbed up in the visas,

and is now back up to the level it

was at before, so it is hard to know

whether that is going to be a trend

into the future.

Thank you very

much.

We're joined now by Alp Mehmet,

the vice-chair of Migration Watch

UK, and of course my guest

of the day, Faiza

Shaheen is still here.

Her think-tank have just published a

report arguing Britain is an

overworked and underpaid nation.

This country has added a population

almost the size of a city of the

size of Southampton last year - is

that a problem?

It is really hard

for me to get involved in this about

the mum numbers because I think

there is a broader issue here of

immigration and immigrants being

scapegoated year after year for a

number of problems. We often hear

issues of wages blamed on

immigration, issues of housing...

And the truth is it has been bad

government policy and more employer

exportation of workers.

But do the

numbers matter, are they not

important, if you are a government

or even if you are a member of the

voting public, you want to see the

figures of what is going up and what

is coming down?

We have made the

numbers matter because we have told

people for so long that this is the

crown as to... If you stop

immigration, then other problems

will get sorted. So we have told

people they matter so we fixate on

them, so that is no surprise. It is

actually, attracting talent to this

country is possibly the sign of an

economy which is inviting people.

But the end point here is, we need

people in certain sectors. We have a

history in this country of both, and

it's looking in that historical

context.

context.

There has been too much

focus on the numbers and the

government has made it that way in

order to fit a political narrative -

should they be more focus on fixing

the problems of increasing

population numbers as a result of

immigration?

I would argue that

there hasn't been sufficient focus,

frankly. You can't ignore the

figures, a quarter of a million net,

which has come down from over

300,000. It is what that adds over a

period to population, an increasing

population at the present rate,

we're talking about another 10

million people in 25 years, 90% of

which will be the result of

immigration. You cannot go on that

way. Going back to the figures with

regard to EU nationals coming here

to work, yes, the scale has come

down, but there are still many more

arriving than are leaving. And in

fact, if you look at the numbers who

were given national insurance cards

last year, of half a million, the

fall is really where they have come

to look for work rather than come

for work.

And you want to turn

hundreds of thousands of them away?

I don't want to turn anyone away who

has not a right to be here, or

indeed doesn't qualify to come here.

I am not about closing the doors and

the gates and pulling up the

drawbridge.

But you want the numbers

to come down by hundreds of

thousands?

We want reasonable...

Even coming down by 100,000 we're

still way above where we were 15-20

years ago. If you look at the net

migration figure from the new, of

90,000, the latest one, that's

actually double - double - what it

was in 1997 overall.

Do you agree

with Diane Abbott that immigration,

and the debate around immigration,

she says, is still being used as a

euphemism for race?

No, no,, no. She

is wrong now and she has always been

wrong.

Why?

People like me, people

who take heart in your programme

daily, we're either first, second or

third generation immigrants.

Immigration will not stop. It is not

racist to be concerned about the

rate of migration.

That is not what

she was saying, though. I think the

point is that too often, the way in

which these immigration debates...

And we hear it, scaremongering,

these people are coming for abroad,

often these people are cooking and

cleaning and caring for our parents.

No-one is saying that, you are

saying that!

That is what we hear

just how would you explain, then,

around the Brexit campaign and

afterwards the uptake in the number

of xenophobic racist attacks, for

instance.

But there is not

necessarily the evidence to back

that up?

Actually there is a lot of

evidence... Is disputed.

But what I

would say... There is no evidence at

all, actually.

The evidence about

that is disputed. Are you choosing a

political narrative that fits a

policy, you agree with Diane Abbott

that immigration is a good thing for

this country and should continue at

the levels that we have now? She

said yesterday that in some

political quarters, it is used,

concern about immigration, as a

euphemism for race - do you agree

with that?

Yeah, sometimes I think

some people, not all people, use it

as a way, the Nigel Farages of the

world, as a way to play in and get

to people's prejudices and to stoke

that up. And that is not OK. The

conversation we should be having is,

given that we have shortages in some

areas, given them a graphic changes,

an ageing population, is how the

demographic is of our society will

change and how they have changed up

to today and the positives of that,

a multicultural society and

something which reflects the Empire.

Because the reason that people like

me are here because of those

historic links. So, this is not a

conversation about being precise

about this number or that number of

that think about what this country

needs, and work from that.

That is

exactly what we're saying just what

we are also saying, though, not at

the present scale, that is not in

any one's interest. And I have to

say that what Diane Abbott is saying

is a device that has been used all

along to close down debate on

immigration. And that cannot happen.

I mean, are you thinking about, for

instance, and I have done research

on this, the ways in which Eastern

European immigration was exploited

by employers who would play them off

amongst the existing population -

that was not the fault of the Polish

people coming in, that was how

temping agencies were using this

device. So, what can we do about

employers, agencies, allowing this

exportation to happen?

When the

Romanians and Bulgarians were going

to have free access to our

employment market, that we were told

would be a small number coming in,

as we were in 2003. In fact, we

forecast around 50,000, which is

exactly what it is at the moment.

You cannot say it's not going to

happen, not plan on it and then when

it does happen... Of course. And

then say, oh, but it is a good

thing.

Looking at the scale, you say

that immigration can't continue at

the scale it has been at, but what

do you say about the figures? They

are mixed I accept about the number

of nurses and health workers from

the EU, they have fallen - are those

not people that we need?

There are

also have people that we need,

including nurses, and there is no

reason why they should not continue

to come.

But the number is falling

the number of EU nurses and health

workers?

Not because anybody is

sending them away.

You were talking

about whether we need immigration -

do we need that number of nurses?

We

should also be thinking about

training our own nurses and doctors

in a way that we haven't done.

Is it

prejudice, Faiza, to want any

restriction on immigration?

No, we

are not in a situation where we can

suddenly have open borders, given

the inequality in the world more

people would come here, and we have

to manage that. But my point is that

we fixate on a particular part of

the equation, the evidence shows

that the reasons why wages have been

driven down in some sectors, why we

have issues of housing, immigration

is not the number one reason for

that. And even people doing the

research at the OECD or the World

Bank will tell you that again and

again.

Migration plays far more into

that then we have been given to

believe.

No, it is the lack of

building houses.

That has been

successive governments. How do

governments plan for large numbers

of people which you can't predict

necessarily coming to Britain to

work, how could you build all of the

schools and hospitals in time for

waves of immigration?

I agree that

they didn't expect so many people to

come after access they planned for

that quite badly. And then they made

the migration impact fund, which was

the right thing to do to help those

communities. We know that people

were coming and paying in quite a

lot in taxes but the communities

were not ready with the schools etc.

But that impact fund was cut by the

Conservative government, and that is

exactly the sort of thing that we

need to do. But over time, even if

we leave the EU, when we make trade

deals with China and India at such

a, we're still going to have

immigration.

No impact fund would

ever be sufficient to cater for the

sort of numbers that are coming in

at the moment.

Briefly, do you think

there has been a Brexodus since that

vote?

That is one thing which very

clearly HASN'T happened. Some have

left but that was always happening

anyway. When you look at the

figures, more in fact are arriving

than are leaving. If you look at

those who are applying for British

citizenship, at the moment it is

something like 45,005 and 50,000

applying last year, so clearly

there's a lot of people who don't

want to leave.

As you're a viewer of this show,

you're probably very observant,

so you might have noticed in recent

months that the political parties

have been talking quite a bit

about animal welfare.

So, is there a pattern to these

pet-focused policies?

Here's Ellie Price with her guide.

There's a new turf war happening

in British politics,

and it's furry and cute.

The Tories have been talking about

this sort of thing rather a lot

since the election, looking at

whether a ban on third-party puppy

sales would be a good idea.

Meaning you could get

a dog directly from a

breeder or a dogs' home,

but not from a pet shop.

The party also announced tougher

sentences on those who

abuse animals...

As well as cameras in

every UK slaughterhouse.

And a new bill to ensure that

animal sentience -

the idea that animals feel

pain and suffering -

is considered in all

include wild animals.

areas of domestic policy, and does

include wild animals.

Labour was accused of playing

catch-up last week when it

announced 50 policies

it hoped would appeal

announced 50 policies it hoped

would appeal to people

who owned cats and dogs,

but not necessarily

their own home.

The party would look at plans

to allow tenants to keep pets

in rented accommodation as a given,

unless landlords said there was

evidence that the animal

is causing a nuisance,

and that might include

some care homes, too.

It would also look

at ways of helping people on low

incomes with vet bills, and require

motorists to report an accident

where an animal had been injured.

Oh, and one more thing

that could hit some

voters in the stomach -

a total ban on foie gras.

Both parties have a raft

of other measures dealing

with wild and farm animals

that our furry and feathered

friends might be very

grateful for - who said dog whistle

politics was a bad thing?

DOGS BARK

Boom boom!

We're joined now by

the Conservative MP David Amess,

he has a long track record

of campaigning on animal welfare.

And Luke Pollard, who is part

of Labour's shadow environment team.

George Orwell wrote a whole book

about when animals get involved with

socialism(!)

about when animals get involved with

socialism(!). Did not end well.

It

can do if politicians make the right

choice, my postbag is full of animal

welfare, it is right that we have

combines a policy that looks at the

full range of animal welfare

concerns raised by members of the

public, that is what we are

consulting on at the moment.

Is this

vision of Jeremy Corbyn for cats, if

we could call it that, free

veterinary care for the poor, is it

kind of a feline NHS?

It is about

recognising there is an awful lot of

people that cannot afford basic pet

care, that is leading to animal

suffering.

-- Corbynism for cats.

We

are trying to find out what can be

done to make it more affordable, pet

care, especially those on low

income, so that we do not see animal

suffering baked into society.

Should

the Conservatives support this? I

celebrate that after 35 years, at

long last, parliamentarians are

genuinely interested in animal

welfare. Were they not interested

before?

Not consistently, it was a

small group of people, now, I am

very glad that we are focusing, not

just turning up for photo

opportunities.

There has been a

Damascene conversion... Is that

because Labour has been setting the

agenda?

For 13 years, Tony Blair who

took the money from the animal

welfare organisations in 1997, he

promised an animal commission, a

Royal commission, he promised so

much, the only thing I reckon he

ever did, in his life, was banned

fox hunting.

So it is you who has

been playing catch up?

Labour has

been the party of animal welfare

since... Come on! Look at what has

happened since the election, last

eight years, we have seen headlines

but no consistency since the

election, is publishing a full,

comprehensive animal...

That is not

true.

We published it on the Labour

Party website and had 1600...

When

was it published?

Think of February,

last week...

The Conservatives say

they have been doing this since the

election, they may have...

They have

been killing badgers.

Come on,

badger culling, come on.

INAUDIBLE

Micro bees have been banned, ivory

has been banned.

We are doing

something about puppy farming, and

the Labour Party are catching up and

because they do not want to leave

the European Union they are not

going to be able to do all the

things they are telling people. --

microbeads.

What about the badger

cull, can you ever be a

compassionate Tory party when it

comes to animal welfare if you

continue with this?

I'm not in

favour of the Carl, Lorraine Platt,

Conservative animal welfare

foundation, she has actually been

changed perceptions in general. --

badger cull.

The right to own a pet

in rented property, is that about

falling home ownership or something

more it is a recognition, it is

harder and harder to buy homes, that

ownership is reserved for those that

can afford their own home and so

what we have said is that we will

work with accommodation providers,

and look at under what circumstances

there can be a pet accommodation, if

damage is done it should be paid by

the tenant. How have landlords

reacted?

And awful lot of landlords

want pets in their accommodation.

Have you had any response from

landlords?

Landlords Association?

Correspondence are in favour and

against, they have said all these

things, I think, when Michael Gove

gets in trouble, new Nancy 's animal

welfare policy, to make the

headlines. We have published this to

ask for opinions. -- he announces

animal welfare policy. We will have

a good cross-party consensus about

animal welfare...

Michael Gove does

not have to promise anything, he is

a Secretary of State who is

delivering and if the Labour Party

is genuine about animal welfare,

they should not partisan reasons

oppose everything he does, they

should get behind him. It is

fantastic what he is doing, after 35

years, I am glad that the House of

Commons is focused on this, we

should not be partisan about animal

welfare, for goodness sakes, many

people out there, animals are

everything, animals are faithful,

and they ask for nothing, other than

a bit of love.

Would you support

tenants rights to own pets?

I very

much supports tenants owning pets,

we can all think of examples where

someone moves out of property and

cannot take their dog with them, for

people on their own, animals are

everything.

Do you think that is the

case, action on lobsters, Foy Gras,

fur farming, the rearing of game

birds, do you think that is all a

bit class war? -- Foie gras.

We are

an animal loving nation, it makes

sense, the thing is, the main thing

that we take from the Conservative

Party, because of the manifesto last

year, is that they were going to

potentially bring back fox hunting,

and that is the big thing people are

hearing right now, it is

interesting.

Huge mistake, and over

60 of my colleagues would have

opposed it.

So it was a mistake to

make it part of the manifesto?

Absolutely.

Talk about class war,

that sent a big signal.

What about

the pet passport with Brexit?

That

is one of the uncertainties, we

simply do not know at the moment.

What you think should happen to the

pet passport?

I think it has been

incredible, allowing people to be

able to take their pets and animals

over borders, something we should

look at keeping but actually, quite

a lot of the detail that matters

around animal welfare, pushed over

by this government, we need to get

into the detail.

Tell us about

animal centres, in what way do the

Conservatives say they did not

recognise it?

They did not want to

include it in the EU withdrawal

bill, cross-party levels of support

for including animal sensor in the

withdrawal bill, hastily published

animal sentence bill has been

criticised by the rural affairs

committee, which is led itself by an

MP. We need long-term comprehends it

policy. -- animal sentience.

That is

why Tony Blair supported animal

testing when he was Prime Minister,

as far as animals healing pain, of

course they feel pain, but it was a

Labour trick to amend a bit of

legislation to make this stick you

need primary legislation and that is

what the Conservatives are going to

do, primary legislation.

Was that

entire sentience debate clumsily

handled?

I don't want to attack the

colleague who dealt with it at the

time, perhaps he was not feeling

right, in hindsight, we made it

crystal clear that we need primary

legislation and that is what we are

going to get.

Does Labour look as if

it is using animal rights for

political capital?

Animal welfare is

an issue that all members of

Parliament are concerned about to an

certain extent.

You brought it out

only in February.

We have created

together the policy, and published

more policy for publication, this

can range of approaches one that all

parties should adopt, I hope the

Conservatives will cut and paste, we

want to see a comprehensive...

Because the Conservatives now are

truly seen as a party representing

animal welfare.

Well... I like the

idea of cutting and pasting each

other's policies! LAUGHTER

Thank you very much for coming in.

Before working for the Class

think-thank, our guest of the day

Faiza Shaheen

used to work

for Save the Children,

which is in the headlines

at the moment following complaints

of inappropriate behaviour

by their senior executives

Justin Forsyth and Brendan Cox.

Save the Children has said it had

commissioned a "root and branch

review of the organisational

culture" of the charity.

An investigation by Radio 4's PM

programme makes uncomfortable

reading for the organisation.

One woman said...

"You start to hear

rumours about some

of the directors, but of course

until it happens to you,

which it did, you don't

really appreciate how hard

it is to deal with."

Another former employee

told the programme...

"The centre of this

crisis was not in Haiti or Chad.

It was in London.

Young professional women

at Save the Children felt unsafe.

They felt that their careers

could depend on ensuring

they responded

to unwanted attention

and to bullying."

You worked at Save the Children at

the same time as Brendan Cox and

Justin Forsett, what was your

spirits?

Definitely a sense that a

lot of people knew about these

rumours and for the most part knew

them to be true, it was a majority

of women working there, and it did

feel like there was predatory

behaviour about, and you had to keep

safe, certainly.

Justin Forsyth has

admitted that he made some personal

mistakes during his time at Save the

Children, Brendan Cox has said that

his behaviour was inappropriate, is

that enough, do you think?

There is

a real sense from the longer

statements, we know it was

inappropriate, but the truth is, for

a lot of people, so many

conversations, day after day with

people about this scandal, that was

happening under our very eyes, and

it was incredibly uncomfortable and

I think it made a lot of women feel

unsafe, not just those that were

directly assaulted. But all of us.

And I think, at least most of us,

and I think that culture, is

something very difficult to push up

against both because there was a

sense of collusion at the top,

protection, sometimes, and also

because Save the Children do amazing

work and there is great people

working for them, you don't want to

go against that good work, there was

a cultural problem.

As you say, it

is difficult because they are doing

this fantastic work, as

organisations, but does that mean

that those two people in question,

Brendan Cox and Justin Forsyth, have

done enough to actually try and

explain and apologise for the

behaviour that they carried out at

the time?

Look, I mean, they are

saying that now, it is a particular

time when people are coming out and

making these statements, hard to

know how genuine that is. After

Brendan left, we still all of us

still got an e-mail, even though we

should not have, and it is still

inappropriate things that happened

after he left. Which made me feel

like there was not a sense that this

was really wrong and I understand

and people understand when they have

abused their power. This is not just

Save the Children, we have been

speaking about this across several

sectors. There is a cultural

problem, I don't think, it was not

just misogyny or issues of abuse of

power, there is also race, I

constantly would be in ruins about

global campaigns and nobody from the

global South in that room and it

made me feel uncomfortable, heads of

offices in many different countries,

headed by white men, when there is

very talented local people that

could do the job. I support foreign

aid and Save the Children but it is

a really important time now to look

long and hard at the number of

practices that are happening and the

culture in those places.

Do you

think there is a crisis in the

sector as a whole?

I cannot speak

across the sector because I worked

only for Save the Children, to be

honest, it was not a great time, I

left after 17 months. I felt like

there was a crisis that had happened

and by moving on those people, those

people leaving, they thought that

was the end of it. I definitely

think that this is in a port in time

for the development sector to come

together and change their ways. That

may mean a change in the number of

people at the top because it is hard

for individuals to change behaviour.

Brendan Cox has checked -- Brendan

Cox has stepped back from his

charitable work, some female Labour

MPs have said it was the right thing

to do and showed he was willing to

face the things he is meant to have

done, do you think that was a strong

enough criticism of Brendan Cox, or,

fair enough, it is as Jess Phillips

says, they are friends.

I have not

spoken to Brendan for a long time, I

don't know how much of this was

forced, all this information was

coming out, this was not right, and

I need to step back, because I don't

want to sully the name of those

great in the juicing is. Set up in

Jo Cox's name. -- those great

institutions. We do not want to put

women from speaking, it was

atrocious what happened to Jo Cox

that is not a free pass from Rafael

anyone else to abuse their power and

assault women, that is never OK, we

have to be strong on that.

Brendan

Cox has denied any kind of sexual

assault, he said the behaviour was

inappropriate, let's leave it there.

Some important economic figures

were published yesterday,

they showed an unexpected rise

in unemployment, but also a rise

in average weekly earnings and signs

that productivity growth

is also increasing.

The government has talked a lot

about Britain's historically

low unemployment rate,

and Chancellor Phillip Hammond said

this was more evidence

that it is succeeding in creating

"an economy fit for the future".

That wasn't the view of shadow

chancellor John McDonnell,

who has been speaking about living

standards this morning.

Working people and those on low

and middle incomes especially

have suffered the worst decade

for living standards

for generations,

perhaps as far back

as the Napoleonic wars.

And the prognosis for the future is,

well, is similarly bleak, with at

best, marginal recovery, but for

many, stagnating living standards.

That was John McDonnell,

who has also endorsed a report

by the think-tank Class,

led by my guest of

the day, Faiza Shaheen.

It says that despite record

employment, many British

workers are "overworked,

underpaid, stressed and beset

with job insecurity

and wage stagnation".

It's conducted a survey of 2,000

people and says 80% of them

expect to be poorer over

the coming year.

Well, to discuss this,

we're joined by the Conservative MP

Kwasi Kwarteng,

he's an aide

to the chancellor Philip Hammond.

Take us through your survey and the

figures, 80% expect to be poorer,

does not mean that they will be.

There is something very important

about how workers feel and feel for

the economy and if it is working for

them, if after ten years of

historically poor wage growth, they

still don't think they will get an

above inflation pay rise, that tells

us something about their

insecurities, how much they might go

out and spend. Other statistics that

stood out for me, three in four

people do not feel the economy works

for them, 20% taking on a second

job, another 20% have considered it.

This is really... Lots of signs that

people are finding our labour market

incredibly precarious and perilous.

But finding it powerless is not the

same as saying they will definitely

be worse off in 12 months' time - do

you think you have misrepresented

the results by talking about how

people are feeling and confusing it

with what will actually happen?

No.

It is only right that the 31 million

workers, or 32 million, we have a

temper Jipcho on what they feel is

working for them, and we should be

listening.

The job figures speak for

themselves in terms of the numbers,

although there has been this rise in

unemployment for the first time in

many years. Do you accept that when

it comes to wages, if real incomes

are falling - and they have been

stagnating for ten years - people

feel worse off, they ARE worse off?!

I would accept that but there is a

context of. We have record people in

employment, I think the work you do

is commendable and the concerns of

people need to be addressed. The

Prime Minister herself, when she

became Prime Minister, mentioned the

fact about precariousness in

employment was an issue and there

was the Taylor review to look at

these sort of issues. But let's not

lose sight of some of the data.

We've had a national living rage

introduced for the first time in

2016 at £7 20, I believe. --

national living rage death that has

now increased by about 9%. We have

got record numbers of people in

employment, when any people

predicted that there would be a rash

of unemployment and unemployment

would spike. Thankfully that hasn't

happened. Rebel mentioned zero-hours

contracts, you haven't but people

do, but 2.8% of the workforce has

zero-hours contracts are, so that is

not something which is universally

felt across the piece. So, while it

is there enough for your think-tank

to look at some of the difficulties,

I think there is an overarching

story of considerable success in

this area.

Do you accept some of the

successful data?

No, I think a lot

of that data clouds what's really

happening. The headline employment

figures completely do not capture

the hardship that people face day to

day and the levels of stress. We

spoke to someone that told us about

half of mental health workers

themselves feeling that they've got

mental health problems and feeling

like failures. That's very serious,

it's a sign that the economy is not

working, we are not putting people

and our people's health first.

What

would you do?

Look, there's a number

of things we can do. Essentially it

is the minimum wages still, they

called it the national living rage,

but we need a real living rage

commission that actually does speak

to people's real costs. And we know

that people are in huge amount of

debt, they're finding it very hard

to make ends meet. And we need to do

something ultimately about power.

This is not something which has just

happened in the last few years since

Brexit or under the Conservatives,

this is a long-term thing, we've

seen workers having less power, less

say in the workplace and less

ability to barter with their bosses.

We need to do something to have

higher levels of collective

bargaining again.

bargaining again. And when we look

at countries that do have better

workplace environments, higher

wages, they are places which have

stronger trade unions and stronger

collective-bargaining, that is the

truth of it.

Let's go back to that

stress which is felt by people

thinking they just cannot afford to

make ends meet - how is the

government going to address the fact

that although wages have risen just

recently, they are still not keeping

pace with inflation, inflation is

not coming down at the moment. It

may come down in a year or two -

what are people supposed to do in

between?

I think what we are trying

to do in the medium term is to look

at productivity. Everyone knows that

increasing productivity is going to

be the key to getting better growth

and higher wages. We want to have a

higher wages economy. With respect

to the higher wages that people are

getting, we're looking at investing

in skills and apprenticeships, a

whole range of things. If you looked

at the figures...

Yesterday.

Actually those figures were

announced yesterday, they are the

most recent. It has been quite

sluggish, we accept that. The OBR

revised downward growth figures on

the back of that. I happen to think

that we are turning the corner on

that, but we will have to wait and

see.

Do you agree that productivity

is key? Jeremy Corbyn has talked an

awful lot about policies which

should focus on increasing

productivity for British workers,

and now these figures suggest that

is happening, do you applaud that?

There's

There's a couple of things you need

to do to make sure that productivity

goes up. What we haven't had is the

investment in recent years in

equipment and different things, and

that's public as well as private

investment, and that will help. But

sometimes productivity is used as a

bit of a get out of jail card. You

don't expect productivity in sectors

like care or hairdressing... You

don't know how that is going to

look. Productivity is a bit of an

old measure in economics. We have to

really look at the way we talk about

wage all. And when you look at the

evidence of, the number one thing

affecting wages is that fall in the

labour share which is to do with the

lack of power, the ability to say to

your bosses, you're not going to get

that pay rise, instead, we're going

to share it out in productivity you

may think is an old-fashioned

measure but it is absolutely

critical to the long-term future and

bases of growth.

But what what about

sectors where that isn't relevant?

The second thing I would say is that

you represent a think-tank. You're

saying that the answer is more

collective bargaining power and more

unionisation, that I would say is a

political debate. I don't happen to

agree with you, I don't think that

having huge amounts of trade union

power that we had in the 1970s is

going to be the answer to more

prosperity.

But that is clearly a

political view that you have. It is

actually just based on evidence,

though.

It is a function of your...

That is not of unsure of your

research, that's a political view

that you happen to take about the

merits of unionisation.

Faiza says a

policy is required which entitles

workers to extra compensation for

working. The majority of workers

told the report that they get no

extra pay - should that be dealt

with?

I have no idea, I haven't read

the report, I'm sorry about that.

But I don't think that that is

necessarily something that the

government can legislate for.

But

the review did point to some of

those things, and the problem is,

the Taylor review has been done and

there is going to be more

consultations and this problem is

just being kicked down the road. And

in the meantime people are telling

is very strongly that they are

finding it very difficult, and when

you look at other indicators, like

household debt, which is back to

near record levels, that is not an

economy that is successful. It is

not working for workers, and who is

it working for?

Even if you look at

the data that is favourable, as you

would say, in broad macro terms,

unemployment... All of that, yeah.

But in the end, if people say they

cannot afford to live, are you

saying, you're wrong?

I'm not saying

that.

When will the Treasury be

prepared to embrace the fact that so

many people do feel that they are

not going to be better off in future

years?

I'm not going to sit here and

say it's a bed of roses and

everything is fine. Clearly people

are under a lot of stress, but

you've got to look at the direction

of travel. There have been huge

successes, as you yourself is

accepted and I think we're going to

improve. I think the productivity

figures are going to improve,

clearly the employment figures are

as good as... Let me put it the

other way. If for whatever reason we

had a serious problem with

unemployment, people like yourselves

rightly would be making hay about

this. And the fact is that we

actually have very good implement

figures.

Are you surprised by that?

That unemployment has been so low?

Not really, because what we've seen

over the years is a growth in jobs,

but the quality of those jobs hasn't

been questioned. That's really the

critical thing, because having a bad

job is bad for your mental health,

just as much as not having a job at

all. We can do better than this, is

my point. And we need to do better,

because people are on the brink

here, they are telling us, like I

say, that this is very, very hard

for them to manage. The big thing

which needs to happen is that the

public spending cuts need to end,

because public sector workers above

everybody else in this report were

shouting loudest about work

intensification, about how difficult

their workplaces have become.

We can

have a debate about the quality of

jobs and I think that is a good

debate to be having. In another

context we would be talking about

unemployment and we would be talking

about millions of people, as one of

the MPC members of the Bank of

England predicted, that there would

be 5 million unemployed.

It does not

have to be either raw, does it?

That

is a sign of the success we have

been having.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was, what are

Conservative MPs using to message

each other, instead of WhatsApp?

Is it a) Invisible ink?

b) A pager?

c) A "military-grade

encyrption" app called Confide?

Or d) passing messages to each

other in St James's Park?

So, what's the correct answer?

Well, pages seemed to me to be

pretty old school!

They really are,

even by my standards!

I don't know

much about Confides, but I'm kind of

thinking it might be that one!

And

you would be right! Apparently while

WhatsApp used to be the go to tool

for Parliamentary plotting, with MPs

of all parties using it, they're now

looking for other ways to

communicate which won't end up in

the papers.

We are joined now by a technology

journalist and by a Conservative MP

and former technology journalist.

Are you surprised that WhatsApp is

falling out of favour?

Not at all,

because one of the problems is not

that the encryption is not good but

it is because it can be screen grab,

and that is what we see making the

papers, screen grabs of

conversations.

So, is this the

answer for politicians?

Any app has

got issues. You have to measure your

threat level, if you like! Confide

is better than WhatsApp because it

can't be screen grab. There were

some problems with Confide last year

because this was the app which the

Trump staff were losing last year

and it had all kinds of problems,

which to be fair they say they've

fixed.

Warning alerts everywhere, no

doubt! So you don't think it is

guided by an to leaks?

People have

to remember what they have actually

sent, because you can't screenshot

it, the down shot of that is that it

does not hold onto the history of

the conversation. So, if you want to

hold your fellow Tory MP to

something they've said, it will not

be there to hold them to it.

Are you

part of these WhatsApp groups?

I

hate to break it to you but actually

WhatsApp is still very much the main

platform.

Oh, is it?!

And as Kate

said, these apps are only as secure

as the users, whoever it is. And we

all know from the Sunday papers that

what happens on WhatsApp is not

necessarily as encrypted as we might

wish.

And actually it's not the

technology, it's the personalities.

If people want to leak what has been

said, then that is what they will

do?

And that is true if it is a

conversation in the corridor on if

it is on WhatsApp.

I always say to

people, the weak point is the human

beings, not the technology.

So there

is not much reassurance, then, for

your colleagues?

I think everybody

is circumspect and yet it is in the

corridor on WhatsApp! And actually

we should bear in mind that some of

this stuff ends up in the papers big

because people want it to end up in

the papers.

But WhatsApp is very

appealing, isn't it? You can see the

attraction. Why wouldn't Tory MPs

join a group forgetting lines agreed

and getting the narrative, it has

been helpful?

Dug through the vast

majority of WhatsApp groups across

political parties are about making

sure that everyone is on the same

page and going in the same

direction. Every department will

have its own little support group

that is very straightforward. This

is what we are talking about at such

a juncture... I hate to say this is

not as exciting or as secretive in

most cases as it...

Yes, it is! How

many groups are you a member of?

I

haven't counted recently, but lots,

is the short answer!

Have you looked

from any of them?!

Almost all of

those groups are very prosaic, I'm

afraid!

Cake, do you think we could

go back to the good old pager, I

remember those beeping all the time

when we were meeting politicians?

You could do but that is not

actually an effective means of Jimmy

Nikki King. What is nice about

something like WhatsApp or Confide

is, it's happening all the time. I'm

a member working with pages and you

had to wait for people to ring you

back - that's old school!

It is! Are

you a member of a WhatsApp group?

Many!

Everybody says many but nobody

is telling me which ones!

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

Thanks to Faiza for being our best

of the day.

The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now.

I'll be here at noon

tomorrow with all the big