30/10/2016 Sunday Politics South


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 30/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.


Theresa May says she wants to help people who are


"just about managing" - so should she reverse


George Osborne's cuts to benefits that are supposed to help people


Prominent London Imam Shakeel Begg is an extremist speaker,


says the High Court, after claims made on this programme.


So why is Mr Begg still being allowed to advise the Police?


Hillary Clinton fights back over the FBI's renewed investigation


into her use of a private email server - is this the boost


Donald Trump needed to reignite his chances of winning the White House?


Now it is just a question of building that runway with the


political problems that lie ahead. And haunting the studio


on this Halloween weekend, the most terrifying political


panel in the business - Tim 'Ghost' Shipman,


'Eerie' Isabel Oakeshott and First this morning, two


new models of car to be built, securing 7,000 jobs at the car plant


in Sunderland and a further 28, 00 The news from Nissan on Thursday


was seized on by Leave campaigners as evidence that the British


economy is in rude health This morning, the Business


Secretary, Greg Clark, was asked what assurances were given


to the Japanese firm's bosses Well, it's in no-one's the interest


for there to be tariff barriers to the continent


and vice versa. So, what I said is that our


objective would be to ensure that we have continued access to the markets


in Europe and vice versa, without tariffs and without


bureaucratic impediments. That is how we will approach


those negotiations. We're joined now from Newcastle


by the Shadow Business Welcome to the programme. Labour has


been a bit sceptical about this Nissan decision. Can we begin by


making it clear just what a great achievement this is, above all for


the workers of Sunderland who have some of the highest productivity in


the world, have never been on strike for 30 years, and produce cars of


incredible quality. This is their victory, isn't it? Andrew, you are


absolutely right. The Nissan plant in Sunderland is among the most


productive in the world. The workers of Nissan are amongst the most


productive as well. And it's really a victory for them and for the trade


unions and the business organisations, and everybody who


campaigned to make sure that the government couldn't ignore their


future. It's our future. I'm the MP for Newcastle. It makes a huge


difference to the region. We are a region that still likes to make


things that work. It is a huge part of our advanced manufacturing


sector. So it's really something we welcome as well as the job security.


I'm glad we have got that on the record from the Labour shadow


business secretary. But your Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, claims


the government is ignoring manufacturers and cares only about a


small banking elite. In what way is safeguarding 30,000 industrial jobs


in the North safeguarding a financial elite? As I said, we're


really pleased that the campaigning by trade unions and the workforce,


and business organisations, meant the government felt they couldn t


ignore Nissan workers. Let's also be clear that we want that kind of job


security for all of those working in manufacturing and in other sectors


as well. And sweetheart deals for one company, no matter how important


they are, that does not an industrial strategy make. Why'd you


say it is a sweetheart deal? Greg Clark told the BBC this morning that


what was assured to Nissan is an assurance he gives to the whole


industrial sector? I was really pleased to see Greg Clark felt he


had to say something, even though it's sad that we having our


industrial strategy, you like, or our approach to Brexit delivered


piecemeal to the media rather than to the British people and Nissan,


actually. But he want published the letter. He said he has told us what


is in the letter and that reassurances given on training, on


science and on supporting the supply chain for the automated sector. You


must be in favour all -- of all of that? We are in favour of an


industrial strategy. Greg Clark unlike Sajid Javid, cannot say


industrial strategy. I'm still puzzling to find out what it is you


disagree with. Let me put the question. You said the assurances he


has given to Nissan are available to the car manufacturing sector in


general and indeed to industry in general. What is your problem with


that? Two things. Let him publish the letter so we can see that, let


him have the transparency he's pretending to offer. But also, we


need an industrial strategy that values -- that is values based and


joined. He talked about electric cars and supporting green cars. That


was in regard to Nissan. At the same time the government has slashed


support for other areas of green technology. So what is it? That is


not to do with the Nissan deal. Labour implied at some stage there


was some financial inducement, some secret bribes, that doesn't seem to


be the case. You are not claiming that any more -- any more. Then you


claimed it was a sweetheart deal for one company. That turns out not to


be the case. What criticism are you left with on this Nissan deal? I


would be really surprised if all that Nissan got was the reassurances


that Greg Clark is shared with us. He didn't answer the question of


what happens if we can't get continued tariff free access to the


single market, if we are not within the single market or the Customs


Union. Do you really think a negotiator like Nissan, who are very


good at negotiating, they would have excepted making this significant


investment without some further reassurances? Do you think there is


some kind of financial bride and if so what is the evidence? I would


like to see the letter published and I would also like to understand what


would happen... There are 27 countries which need to agree with


the deal we have from Brexit. What will Nissan, how will Nissan remain


competitive? How will the automotive industry remain competitive? Greg


Clark says he reassured them on that. But how will that be so if we


do not get access? We haven't heard anything about that. He talks about


reassurances given to Nissan. We need to make -- to know where we're


going to make sure Brexit is in the interest of all workers, not only


those who work for a Nissan and not only those who can get the attention


of Greg Clark. He assured Nissan that Britain would remain a


competitive place to do business. That was the main assurance he gave


them. He would help with skills and infrastructure and all the rest


Since you are -- intend to repeal the trade union laws that have made


strikes in Britain largely a thing of the past, and you plan to raise


corporation tax, you couldn't give Nissan the same assurance, could


you? We could absolutely give Nissan the assurance that we will be, our


vision of the future of the UK, is based on having a strong


manufacturing sector. Repealing trade union laws? As we have seen at


Nissan, the industrial sector is dependent on having highly trained,


well skilled workers. -- highly skilled, well-trained. You don't


have that by getting -- having an aggressive policy and trade union


laws or by slashing corporation tax and not supporting manufacturing


investment. Remember, the last government took away the


Manufacturing allowances which supported Manufacturing and slashed


corporation tax. That is their solution. It is a low tax, low skill


economy they want. Thank you. Sorry I had to rush you.


I'm grateful for you joining us I'm still struggling to see what is


left of Labour's criticism? Yeah, except for this. This was a valid


point she just made. What we know for sure is that Greg Clark could


say to Nissan, my aim is to get tariff free deal. There is no way he


could guarantee that. None of us know that. I don't think that was


enough. I think clearly there was a more detailed package involving


training and other things. He has acknowledged this, albeit we do not


know the precise mechanism. What I think is interesting about this is


if you reverse what happened this week, at a time when the government


says Britain is open for business and it is going to have an


industrial strategy, so far it is a bit vaguely defined. Nissan hadn't


made this commitment. Imagine what would have happened? It is an


impossible scenario. The government seems to me was obliged to make sure


this didn't happen. Let's not forget Nissan has invested hundreds of


millions in the north-east. It has been a huge success story. When I


spoke to workers from Nissan, they were so proud because they went to


Japan to teach the Japanese had to be more productive. The idea that


Nissan was just going to walk away from this given its track record,


its importance, wasn't really credible. The government had some


bargaining chips. Absolutely, of course they weren't going to walk


away. The majority of people in the area in which Nissan is braced -


based, voted for Brexit. Nissan knows it is in a powerful position


because it is an emotive sector Clearly the government didn't want


to have some big showdown. I honestly don't think this is a


smoking gun. The Labour Shadow minister really struggled to


articulate what exactly she thinks the government is hiding. I think


the reassurances were given were pretty anodyne, really. They were


anodyne and general. And what Greg Clark was setting out was an


objective and he made the right noises, and Nissan exercised its


right to sabre rattle. It does have a history of doing that. The one


thing that would now be clear given Greg Clark's performance this


morning on the BBC, is that if we were to discover some kind of


financial incentive directly linked to this investment, not more for


skills or infrastructure, that is fine, but some direct financial


investment, compensation for tariffs, which would be illegal


under World Trade Organisation rules, what you might call a


financial bride, the sect -- the business Secretary's position would


be untenable? He would be in a very difficult position indeed. Just


released the letter. There is nothing to hide. Put it out there.


The most revealing thing is that people are getting wildly excited


about the fact Greg Clark announced Britain's negotiating position would


be that we would like tariff free trade with Europe. This is regarded


as an insight into what this comment is doing and it says a great deal


about how little we have been told in Parliament and the media about


what they are up. Do you think it is exciting we are going for tariff


free trade? We're easily excited these days. We don't know. This is


where these things are at such a tentative phase. We don't know how


the rest of the European Union is going to respond to Britain's


negotiating hand. We know Britain once the best of everything, please.


It is a starting point. But that is not how it is going to end up. We


are getting wider than that. We have will have to see.


Now, Universal Credit, a single payment made to welfare


claimants that would roll together a plethora of benefits whilst


encouraging people into work by making work pay.


But have cuts to the flagship welfare scheme reduced work


incentives and hit the incomes of the least well-off?


Well, some of the government's own MPs think so, and,


as Mark Lobel reports, want the cuts reversed.


Theresa May says she wants a country that works


for everyone, that's on the side of ordinary, working people.


It means never writing off people who can work and consigning them


to a life on benefits, but giving them the chance to go out


and earn a living and to enjoy the dignity that comes


But now some in her party are worried that the low earners


will be hit by changes to Universal Credit benefit system


originally set up to encourage more people into work.


We also need to focus tax credits and Universal Credit


Concern centred on the Government's decision in the July 2015 budget


to find ?3 billion worth of savings from the Universal Credit bill.


Conservative MP Heidi Allen is working on a campaign to get MPs


in her party to urge the Prime Minister to think again.


I want her to understand for herself what the outcomes might


be if we press ahead with the Universal Credit,


Do you think Theresa May, right now, understands what you understand


To be fair, unless you really get into the detail,


and I have through my work on the Work and Pensions


Select Committee, I don't think anybody does.


Independent economic analysts at the IFS agree with Heidi Alan


that cuts to Universal Credit weaken incentives to work.


One of the key parts of the Universal Credit system


That is how much you can earn before your credit


As the Government has sought to save money,


both under the Coalition and now they Conservative Government,


both under the Coalition and now the Conservative Government,


that work allowance has been cut, time and time again.


The biggest cuts happened in the summer budget of 2015.


That basically reduces the amount of earnings you get to keep


It weakens the incentive people have to move into work.


What do changes to the Universal Credit system mean?


The Resolution Foundation think tank has crunched the numbers.


If you compare what would have happened before the July 2015 summer


budget to what will happen by 2 20, even if you take into account gains


in the National Living Wage and income tax cuts,


recipients will be hit by annual deductions.


Couples and parents would receive, on average, ?1000 less.


A dual-earning couple with two children under four,


with one partner working full-time on ?10.50 an hour and the other


working part-time on the minimum wage for around 20


hours a week, they would receive ?1800 less.


Hit most by the changes would be a single parent


with a child under four, working full-time


I think, if I'm honest, it is unrealistic, given


the economic climate, to expect everything to be reversed.


What I would like to see is an increase in the work


allowances to those people who will be hardest hit.


That is single parents and second earners hoping to return to work,


because they are the people we need to absolutely make


The Sunday Politics understands that about 15 to 20 Conservative MPs


are pushing for changes ahead of the Autumn Statement.


A former cabinet minister told us that they believed further impact


analysis should be done to find out if any mitigation measures


Former Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, an architect


of the system, now says the cuts should be reversed.


But his former department has told us that it has no plans to revisit


the work allowance changes announced in the budget last year.


What I would say to Heidi Allen and IDS, they got it right the first


time and they should stick to the vote they cast last year


because these reforms actually do make sense.


What interests me is the fact we are trying to move people


off welfare into work, we are raising the wages people


earn by massively increasing the minimum wage and this


People are coming off welfare and into work.


Campaigners are pushing for savings to come from other areas to relieve


The other thing we have to start looking at is the triple


Financially it has been a great policy, and it was absolutely right


that we lifted pensioners who were significantly behind,


for many years, in terms of income levels, but they have


I think it is time for us to look at that policy again,


because is costing us an awful lot of money.


With just over three weeks to wait until the Conservative leadership's


new economic plan is unveiled in the Autumn Statement,


its top team is under pressure from within its own ranks to use it


And I'm joined now by former Work and Pensions Secretary,


Welcome back to the programme. Theresa May said she is on the side


of the just managing, the working poor. But they are about to be hit


from all sides. Their modest living standards are going to be squeezed


as inflation overtakes pay rises, they will be further squeezed


because top-up benefits in work are frozen. Incentives to work are going


to be reduced by the cuts in universal benefits. So much for


being on the side of those just managing? Theresa was right to focus


on this group. The definition has to be the bottom half, in economic


terms, of the social structure. It doesn't look good for them? This is


the point I am making, it is an opportunity to put some of this


right. One of the reasons I resigned in March is because I felt the


direction of travel we had been going in had been to take far too


much money out of that group of people when there are other areas


which, if you need to make some of those savings, you can. The key bit


is that the group needs to be helped through into work and encouraged to


stay in work. There was a report done with the IFS, when we were


there, at Universal Credit. It said Universal Credit rolled out, as it


should have been before the cuts, people would be much more likely to


stay in work longer and earn more money. It is a net positive, but


that is now called into question. Let's unpick some of the detail but


first, do you accept the words of David Willets? It says on the basis


of the things I read out to you that the just managing face a significant


and painful cut in real terms if we continue on the way we are going. I


do, in essence. That is the reason why I resigned. I felt Heidi raised


that issue as well, that we got the balance wrong. It is right that


pensioners get to a certain point, when they are on a level par, doing


the right thing over five years Staying with that process has cost


us ?18 billion extra this year, in total. It will go on costing another


5 billion. Then there is the issue of tax allowances. I want to remind


you and viewers what David Cameron told the Conservative conference in


2009. If you are a single mother with two children, earning ?150 a


week, the withdrawal of your benefits and the additional taxes


that you pay me on that for every extra you earn, you keep just 4p.


What kind of incentive is that? 30 years ago, this party won and


election fighting against 98% tax rates for the Rex richest. I want us


today to show even more anger about 96% tax rates for the very poorest


in our country. Real anger, and effective rate of over 90%.


Universal Credit reduces that. Some will still face, as they lose


benefits and pay tax, a marginal rate of over 75%. That is still too


high? Yes, it is the collision between those going into work at the


moment they start paying tax. A racial Universal Credit is set at


65%. You can call that the base marginal tax rate. 1.2 million will


face 75%? That is the point about why the allowances are so important.


The point about the allowances which viewers might not fully understand


is that it was set, as part of Universal Credit, to allow you to


get certain people, with certain difficulties, as they cross into


work, to retain more benefit before it is tapered away as they go up in


hours. A lone parent, who might have various issues, you want her to have


a bigger incentive than a single person that does not have the same


commitments. It is structured so that somebody who has difficulty


going to work, they all have slightly different rates. What


happened is that last year a decision was taken to reduce tax


credits, and, on the back of that, to reduce allowances. I believe


given everything that happened now, we need to restore that to the point


where it helps those people crossing over. You say a decision was taken,


it was a decision by the former Chancellor George Osborne in the


summer budget. Other decisions were taken in successive Budgets to raise


the Universal Credit budget, which resulted in the disincentive being


higher than many people wanted. Do you accept that has been the


consequence of his decisions? I was in the Government, we take


collective responsibility. I argued this was not the right way to go,


but when you are in you have to stay with it if you lose that argument.


There was another attempt before the spending review last year to


increase the taper, so the marginal rate would have gone up. I managed


to stop that. I'm Sibley saying what we made as a decision last


year, given the circumstances and given that the net effect of all of


that, I think it is time for the Government to ask the question, if


we are in this to help that group of people, Universal Credit is


singularly the most powerful tool. One of the Argentine aid in the


paper published on Thursday, we are set going on doing two more races of


the tax threshold, taking more people out of tax. That has a


diminishing effect on the bottom section. Only 25p in that tax rate


will help any of those. Most of it goes to middle income? You and I


will benefit more from that. With Universal Credit, every pound you


put into that will go to the bottom five tenths. That is why I designed


it like that. He pressed the button and immediately start to changed


circumstances. Should the cuts in Universal Credit that Mr Osborne


introduced, against your argument, should they be reversed? I believe


so. I believe you can do it even if there is concern about spending I


don't believe you need to go through with the continuing raise the tax


threshold. Cost is dependent on inflation, but give or take. It is


in the Tory manifesto? Has more than doubled. What is in the manifesto,


and Lasse Prime Minister made this clear in conference, we want to


improve the life chances of people. Today's announcement on the Green


paper is what I wrote over the last two and a half years. Big changes


necessary to how we deal with sickness benefit. That can now be


done because of Universal Credit, because people can go back to work


and it tapers away their benefits. It is the most powerful tool to sort


our people that live in poverty Universal Credit. We need to make


sure it lands positively. If Mr Osborne's cuts were reversed, what


you and some of your backbench Tory colleagues want to do, how would


that improve the incentives of the working poor, as they try to get on


in life? They have to pay more tax, they lose some benefits. How would


it improve it? Would many still face a 75% rate? The key question is


first and foremost, as people move through income to the point where


they are getting taxed, that group will be enormously benefited by the


re-emergence of these allowances at the right level. That is what the


IFS have said, that is what the Resolution Foundation are saying,


and the Centre For Social Justice is saying. You have to get that group,


because they are most likely to be drifting into poverty and less


incomes are right. Would it help those who face a 75% margin? We


don't face that. Exactly right. People much poorer than us do. I


would love to get the marginal rate down to testify percent, and lower,.


-- down to 65%. It is a balance of how you spend the money. I would


prefer to do that rather than necessarily go ahead with threshold


razors. I think the coronation of the marginal reduction of 65%,


getting it down to 60%, plus more allowances, will allow Universal


Credit to get to the group that is going to be, and the report written


by the IFS and ourselves, it shows it is going to be the most dynamic


and direct ability of a Government to be able to influence the way that


people improve their incomes in the bottom five deciles. Would you take


on extra work if you knew you were going to lose 75% of it? Even 6 %?


This has been my argument all along. Universal Credit can help that


enormously. One point that goes missing, 70% of the bottom five


deciles will be on Universal Credit. Whatever change you make to


Universal Credit has a dramatic and immediate effect I am arguing,


genuinely, it is time to rethink this. The Prime Minister wants to


make this a priority. I am completely with her on this. I think


she made a really good start. To deliver this, we need to... You have


a lot of work to do to deliver it. Because it is a manifesto


commitment, or because they want to do it, stopping increasing the


personal allowances are not acceptable, what about bringing to


an end, by the end of the parliament, the pension triple lock


that pensioners enjoy to improve and put more money to the working poor?


What about that? Well, you are absolutely right that there is now


the danger, I think, of a mess balance between the generations


Quite rightly at the beginning, when we came in, we have a commitment as


a Conservative Party in a manifesto to get pensions back onto earnings.


It was moved to a triple lock that guaranteed a minimum. What about


ending up now? I understand it is a promise through the Parliament, but


after 2020? I am in favour of getting it back to innings and


allowing it to rise at reasonable levels. Moving from earnings to the


triple lock has cost ?18 billion this year. Here was a high, under


pressure, as the Government was scratching around to pay more money


out of working age areas, when the budget was almost out of control on


the pension side. I'm in favour of helping pensioners, but now they are


up to a reasonable level, at a steady rate, that can be afforded by


Government, which takes the pressure off, working age people have to pay


for that. In years to come, time to end the triple lock


and use the savings to help these people we have been talking about?


As part of a load of packages, yes. It would also help with the


intergenerational fairness argument. Thank you for being with us.


Now, a prominent London Imam called Shakeel Begg -


who is Chief Imam the Lewisham Islamic Centre - is an extremist.


That was the verdict of the judge in a libel action that Mr Begg took


against the BBC, after we described him as an Islamic extremist


Mr Begg had complained about a short segment in an interview in November


2013 with Farooq Murad, the then head of the Muslim Council


of Britain, an organisation which claims to represent British


In that interview, we described Mr Begg as an extremist speaker


who had hailed jihad is the greatest of deeds.


From his base of the Lewisham Islamic Centre, Mr Begg has been


involved in a number of community organisations, including


the Police Independent Advisory Group in Lewisham,


Lewisham Council's Advisory Council on Religious Education


and as a volunteer chaplain at Lewisham Hospital.


But in his judgment, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave called


Mr Begg a Jekyll and Hyde character - a trusted figure in his local


community, but when talking to predominantly Muslim audiences


he shed the cloak of respectability and revealed the horns of extremism.


The judge cited one speech made by Mr Begg at a rally


outside Belmarsh Prisonm- the high security prison that houses


terrorists - as particularly sinister.


The judge said the imam was expressing admiration and praise


Following Friday's judgment, the hospital trust have told us that


Mr Begg's status as a voluntary chaplain has been terminated.


We have been told by Lewisham Council he is no longer


on their Religious Education Committee.


The Metropolitan Police have confirmed that


Mr Begg remains a member of their Independent Advisory Group


in Lewisham, as well as the borough's faith group.


I am joined by Haras Rafiq, chief executive of the Quilliam


Foundation. Welcome to the programme. I have here in my hand a


statement from the trustees of the Lewisham Islamic Centre. They reject


the judge's ruling as fanciful and say they are unequivocal and


unwavering in their support of Shakeel Begg as their head imam


What do you make of that? To be honest, it doesn't surprise me. At


the end of the day he is only the imam of that mosque because he


belongs to the same theological fundamentalist views that the mosque


would portray. If they were to say he was an extremist, they would be


saying in fact that they have allowed extremist preaching and


extremist theology within their walls. I think this is a very


important decision and a very important judgment by the judge


First of all, these people like to operate in a linear, under a veneer


of respectability. When that veneer is taken away, there are a number of


things that can happen. First of all, the BBC did very well to stand


by their guns and say, we're not going to be intimidated by somebody


who is threatening to taking -- to take us to court for potential


libel. Many other media companies have done that in the past and


people have capitulated. Also, this has exposed him. Legally now, here's


some deal can be classified as an extremist preacher, somebody who


promotes religious violence. I think the mosque really needs to take a


step back and say, how we part of the problem that we are facing


within society? Or are we going to be part of the solution? It really


concerns me. The High Court judge says that Mr Begg's speeches were


consistent with an extremist Salafist is the most worldview. What


is Salafist is and how widespread is it in UK mosques? -- mosque. It


comes from the Middle East. It is from Saudi Arabia. The enemy for


them was the old colonial Ottoman Empire. There is the quiet Salafist


to get some with their lives, lives outside society. There is a


revolutionary who tries to convert other people to their worldview And


then there is the Salafist jihad ease. People like Islamic State etc.


We have seen of increased in recent decades because of money that has,


growing from the Middle East. When that is mixed with a political


ideology, it becomes potent. Do we have a political -- particular


problem in Britain with this in our mosques? Absolutely. Without the


theology that says hate the other, hate other Muslims, that


excommunicate other people, that says it is OK to fight and is good


to fight when you have got an enemy, we wouldn't really have a jihadi


problem. Really that is something we have to tackle. The number of


mosques and institutions supporting Salafist and Islam is has been on


the increase. Do we have a problem with what the judge called Jekyll


and Hyde characters who hide their extremism except when they are


speaking to specific groups? Absolutely. One of the things we


have focused on in the past, a number of hate preachers now in


prison, people like Anjem Choudary, and everybody focused on them. But


there is a range of people operating under that level. People who will


show one face to the community because they actually need that for


a respectability. They need that for a legitimacy. They need that to


operate. When they are behind closed doors and talking to their


constitution, that is when you will see the real face of what these


people believe. It is an increasing phenomenon. We are seeing it more.


And we're going to carry on seeing it. Not just has the Lewisham mosque


stuck by him, but given the clarity of the judge's ruling, are you


surprised that the Metropolitan police would wish to continue with


Mr Begg as an adviser? I'm absolutely shocked that that


decision. What Uzzy going to do Advise them on how to deal with


extremist preachers and promote religiously motivated violence? I


don't know what he's going to advise them on. Because we now have a judge


that has ruled against him and actually classified him as an


extremist and somebody who promotes religious violence, we actually have


a possibility for the CPS to actually prosecute him. There is a


law that has been in place since 2005 called religiously motivated


violence. If he has been classified as somebody who promotes this, there


is a potential for the CPS to prosecute. I want to called into


question other organisations, interfaith organisations, other


Muslims groups, who say they want to fight extremism, I call on them to


say, this guy is an extremist preacher, we should cut our ties


from him. This was a very high risk strategy by the BBC. The exposure


could have been over ?1.5 million of licence payers money. Will this make


it more difficult for Jekyll and Hyde characters to behave as Mr Begg


has behaved? Absolutely. It will do. One of the things they will now have


to make sure is that they are a lot more careful. Careful with what they


say to their own constituency. It won't solve the theological problem.


But it will actually stop other people from operating in this manner


and allow other media organisations to have the confidence to expose


them when they do. Haras Rafiq, thank you for joining us.


It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now


Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead.


Welcome to Sunday Politics South - my name's Peter Henley.


On today's show: Taking domdstic DIY waste to the tip used to be free -


until councils across the rdgion started charging for the prhvilege.


But just this week one council says it may rethink the plan


because of confusing signals from the government.


Let's meet the two politici`ns who are going to be here. Mirial Kennet


was the Green Party candidate in Reading of the last election. Conor


Burns is the Conservative MP for Bournemouth West. You've bedn


involved in this Nissan dechsion. There were written guaranteds given


to this company, which everxbody else is going to be king for, aren't


they? Well, I saw quite a lot of the conversations that were had with


Nissan. They are a long-terl investor in the United Kingdom.


Their core reason for investment is the scale of their workforcd in


Sunderland. They obviously `re concerned as to what a potential


European trade arrangement looks like. Of course the Governmdnt


reassured them and the motor Manufacturers that motor manufacture


and free trade in that is a very important thing for us. So BMW would


want a slightly different reassurance in Oxford? They will be


lobbying Angela Merkel, as well folks like. Because they ard very


important export markets on the continent. -- Foxfire gun.


wanted in the service area. Let us wanted in the service area. Let us


go back to Nissan. This is ` huge vote of confidence in Britahn. Lots


of people said things during the referendum, but have turned out not


to be true. We have the Chancellor of the Exchequer extolling the fact


this week that in the third quarter we are growing at more than 5%. --


03 point -- three -- 0.3%. I understand there has been a growth


in GDP at the moment, but no growth in manufacturing at all. Evdn the


thought of Brexit has ruined sterling.


It makes the Valley of the pound in our pockets so much less, it makes


UK plc so much less. -- the value of the pound. Nissan feel comfortable


enough may be looking a bit ahead, but everybody surely is going to


come to Greg Clark and you, saying what can we have? They want to know


what can the Government achheve in the negotiation? The Prime Linister


says she wants the fullest `ccess for British companies to thd single


market, compatible with our ability to control our own borders `nd make


the laws that apply in the TK in the -- in the UK. But the trouble is we


are going to go straight out of the EU... You don't know that.


You argued we would go into a single market probably after the


referendum. There is a diffdrence between access to the singld market


and ambition of the single larket. But BMW would want freedom of


movement for staff? We think freedom of movement is important, it is a


cornerstone of a democracy. There is nothing about free movement that is


the cornerstone of a democr`cy. The ability to set your own laws in your


own country is the cornerstone of democracy. By the way, that does not


mean no immigration. Immigr`tion is a very good thing. The right skills,


the people coming to our cotntry. But we need to decide in thhs


country how many, from word... Skilled workers will be abld to move


back and forwards in Oxford. We re not sure. My neighbour wrotd to


their MP and ask for a guar`ntee for people from the EU. The spokesman


from the Government said thdy can't guarantee it. We are very clear we


want to guarantee the rights of EU nationals living in the UK. But we


also want to do that at the same time as we get the same guarantees


for people living in the UK. So, this week we finally got


the much-trailed and much-ddlayed announcement of where the government


wants to build a new runway And possibly to nobody's grdat


surprise it was to stick with the recommendation


of the Davies commission and build Locals in the Prime Minister's


constituency of Maidenhead , just one of many around London to be


affected by the decision - When it comes to the economx, it is


a good idea. But it will cole at a cost to the locals. I think it would


do Maidenhead good. Something needs to happen here and bring thd place


up a little bit. The third runway will bring a lot of business to this


area, a lot of new jobs, whhch is important.


The other option of course had been Gatwick, where campaigners


were understandably breathing a bit of a sigh of relief.


We don't wish airport expansion on anybody, but we do not belidve


Gatwick will go away. Gatwick residents may not bd


entirely in the clear just xet a ban on night flights at Hdathrow,


which was one of the condithons for the go-ahead on its exp`nsion


plans, could mean more night flights A win for Heathrow was of course


a loss for Gatwick - and although local residents


in West Sussex may have been pleased at the result, local


businesses were less so. Jeff Alexander is Executive Director


of the Gatwick Diamond Inithative, bringing together businesses


and local authorities in thd area. You're not so happy about G`twick


missing out on something? Wd think it's the wrong decision both for the


national economy and our local economy. Not just for our


businesses, but the people that live here. A lot of our people are


dependent on Gatwick Airport in terms of their jobs. You thhnk it


might go backwards as a restlt of losing out in this conversation I


wouldn't want to say that, because Gatwick is making huge investment.


It is in the middle of a ?2.5 billion investment plan that has


nothing to do with the second runway. So by 2001 it will have made


that investment. That has enabled them to grow to 43 million


passengers per year, and 50 long-haul overseas routes. So it is


an enormously economic asset for the region, for the country. And it will


remain that. But nevertheless it is disappointing


eventually by this decision. Do you eventually by this decision. Do you


think part of the reason whx Gatwick did not get there was because there


way that the maybe I'm not with way that the maybe I'm not with


Heathrow, and the infrastructure, problems with rail, it is nothing


like the same as Heathrow? We would always argue for more investment in


course, but we need to remelber that course, but we need to remelber that


Gatwick is extremely well connected by public tra nsport. 43% of


passengers get to the airport by public transport, far higher than


Heathrow. Within a year or 250 million people will be withhn one


know it is difficult to be positive know it is difficult to be positive


about it with the current problems with the rail, but there is light at


the end of the tunnel if yot look at the investment in London Brhdge the


investment in Thameslink. Wd're going to get a brand-new Gatwick


station that befits an international so there is a lot we can look


forward Gatwick continues to expand, that was something people whll be


saying, we don't want that? The starting point has to bd that


successive develop -- Government is determined then it up to be airport


expansion in the south-east, and then it is a case of but looking


forward to more noise and pollution if Gatwick continues to exp`nd, that


was something people will bd saying, we don't want that? The starting


point has to be that successive develop -- Government is determined


then written to be airport dxpansion in the south-east, and then it is a


case of looking at the from a noise and environmental impact pohnt of


view, Gatwick was way better than Heathrow. If Heathrow gets bogged


down with legal challenges `nd the rest of it from a noise and


environmental impact point of view, Gatwick was way better than


Heathrow. If Heathrow gets bogged down with


legal challenges and the rest is Gatwick going to jump into H cannot


say it will definitely happdn, but we have seen the sorts of pdople


that are going to be involvdd in challenges. But Gatwick is


definitely ready to go, and it has said it can deliver a I think it


definitely will. I cannot s`y it will definitely happen, but we have


seen the sort of people that are going to be involved in challenges.


But Gatwick is definitely rdady to go, and it has said it can deliver


stands ready to do Miriam, xou are stands ready to do Miriam, xou are


not happy about runways the choice is. The Prime Minister is about to


or less aviation. The Prime Minister is about a climate to I helped there


is Marrakesh coming, and thdre is Marrakesh coming up that colpatible


with a BA -- more aviation. How are with a BA -- more aviation. How are


we going to make that compatible with AV -- hospital where pdople


have lots of lung there are such health issues already. I went to a


lung diseases the people who lung diseases the people who


obstruction. The people to from it often have is really a big `round


with oxygen, it is really a big that we don't have much more of that in


that there are good to be. Hf we have electric cars, can't wd find a


technological solution? App`rently aviation is already I think it's 9%


of green house gases, 50% of CO , and it is predicted by 2050 that it


will be a huge amount, I thhnk 5% of all our CO2. So it cannot do that


unless the rest of the country cannot have unless there ard


cutbacks in other ways. If we have electric cars, can we find


technological solution? App`rently technological solution? App`rently


aviation is already I think it's 9% of green house gases, 50% of CO ,


and it is predicted by 2050 that it will be a huge amount, I thhnk 5%


of all our CO2. So we cannot do that unless the rest of the country


cannot have made a decision. We need extra airport capacity, but is in


that use of CO2. Theresa Max knows that use of CO2. Theresa Max knows


that, because in 2009 she s`id it is a devastating decision by the Labour


she does not believe it herself she does not believe it herself


Have we come a long way frol 20 9? The devastating decision wotld be


not to make a decision. I al pleased we have made a decision. We need


extra airport capacity, but is in by is agreed by not want to sed the mud


of damage to the environment increased as a result but you do not


want to see the might of dalage to the environment increased as the


environmental impact was looked at and reassurances were constraints.


One of the things Nissan were looking at is growing the electrical


we are confident we can do this within environmental constr`ints.


One of the things Nissan were looking at is growing the m`rket


enormously. The Business Secretary has made it clear the Government


wants to invest in supporting need to show we are open for bushness,


and trade alliances with thd so lots of ways we are looking to rdduce


emissions -- emissions in other places. We need to show we `re open


for business, and trade allhances with in the prose Brexit world. The


disagreement should be open for business? No, but making quhck to be


no, we've had it and Hinklex Point, we've had it at Heathrow, on Nissan.


There seems to be no you cannot say that Nissan is a well, it is in the


sense of think it was a hasty decision?


Was a well considered busindss does not like this... Do you think it was


a hasty decision? Was well, 80 years, I think. I wouldn't can be


accused of like that. I don't think the Government can be accusdd of


would not think a hasty one. And there is one more year ahead of us


in terms of public consultation An awful lot can and I am sure will


happen in that I think they can be accused of the wrong decision, but I


would not think a hasty one. And there is one more year ahead of us


in terms of public consultation An awful lot can and I am sure will


happen in that you will be hnvolved in do you think it could Boris


Johnson says? Well, two important issues. Health impact and


environmental when the bulldozers arrive as Boris Johnson says? Well,


two important issues. Health impact and from the two in terms of


emissions. The Davies Commission bid and involve calculation on health


costs arising from the two H think the Heathrow option was calculated


at costs of ?25 billion compared to ?1.5 billion for see you in court as


they say let us see what those calculations -- how those


calculation is stacked up in court. See you in court as


Not an acronym that trips off the tongue, they're


Household Waste Recycling Cdntres, or council tips to you and le.


And like every other local `uthority service nowadays they're under


pressure to make savings, so many have started charging


to take what they call DIY waste off your hands -


things like plaster board, rubble, old sinks.


We sent our Hampshire and Isle of Wight reporter Jess Parkdr


to find out if people think that's a straightforward money-savhng


-- see you in court, as thex now, it could cost you depending on what you


bring. New charges are in force in


Hampshire for what is known as DIY waste a trip to the tip. But now, it


could cost you depending on what you bring. New charges are in force in


Hampshire for what is known as DIY it has taken Adam by drop off some


soil and I just turned up to drop off some soil from our out there is


a charge. What are you going to do a charge. What are you going to do


with it all? I'm not to find out there is a charge. What are you


going to do with it all? I'l not it cost Adam ?15. These new feds offer


items like domestic soil, rtbble and have now been brought in across many


areas of the South. Councils say they can do this, as these htems are


waste an expensive day's work on the waste an expensive day's work on the


garden? Yes! Charges the so,called DIY waste have now been brotght in


across many areas of the Sotth. across many areas of the Sotth.


Councils say they can do thhs, as these items are technically charged


as non-household I believe ht is a tip tax, I think residents will feel


their pain twice. They are `lready paying for a service for thdir waste


collection and waste no, we have accepted that waste previously, and


your normal household waste will not your normal household waste will not


be charged for. But we do h`ve to charge for the waste, which


expensive to get rid of. People will see they because my budget has been


cut considerably, so I have to charge for that. With crushhng


pressure on council budgets, an increasing number of local


authorities are introducing these types of charges. So what is the


damage? In Hampshire a sack of rubble now costs ?2 50 to dhspose


of. In West Sussex, a bag of plasterboard will cost ?4. @nd in


Dorset, a car tyre will cost you ?5 Dorset, a car tyre will cost you ?5


paying for something, and now they have to. Yes, because my budget has


been cut considerably, so I have to charge for that. With crushhng


pressure on council budgets, an increasing number of local


authorities are introducing these types of charges. So what is the


damage? In Hampshire a sack of rubble now costs ?2 50 to dhspose


of. In West Sussex, a bag of plasterboard will cost ?4. @nd in


Dorset, a car tyre will cost you but some residents do not think these


fees are I've got four grow bags in to make them smaller and manageable.


And they find they do not which I have cut in half to make thdm


find they do boot. What do xou think find they do boot. What do xou think


deplorable. We pay our -- they want deplorable. We pay our -- they want


to pound 50 for each of the bags. I wish you them in the boot. What do


you think of this charge? I think it is deplorable. We pay? George drives


of, to dump the soil in his own garden. But there are fears that


others will not be so law-abiding. The majority of people will get on


with it, and pay the charges, but it may encourage a few people hf it is


a little bit too much, just basically dump their waste `t the


side of the road. It is still illegal, still fly-tipping, but a


local authority would then have to pay to clear that waste. On farmland


near Basingstoke, we found this Incidents of fly-tipping have been


on the rise. ?15 million is the cost to local authorities in England last


year. Isn't there an issue when you make people pay a little bit more,


but they might be more likely to do fly-tipping? No, the evidence from


other authorities, are except there is a concern, but the evidence is


that people don't like change initially, but they accept we have


to keep our site is open. A slightly to keep our site is open. A slightly


more pricey trip to the trip may not seem like austerity, but it does


hate people's politics. -- pockets. For politicians, always a rhsky


strategy. Just a tip! Mirial, will we end up with more fly-tipping as a


result of this? Well, there is no such place as "Away". I was at a


recycling centre this week, and there was one of these plastic


razors. I had this image in my head of a poor fish in the seed having to


swim around that. We have got to deal with our waste, there hs no


place that is called "Away" were magically everything disappdars


They call them recycling centres. Not everything is. One of the things


the Green Party say is, recxcle repair, relax. There is a whole


industry that could be set tp from that. People could work on that


there is jobs in that. Somebody has to pay for it. No, but we are paying


the cost and health, the fish are paying... And what happens hs


society pays, all of us togdther, and people with more stuff" to us


more. So we need to have a strategy again, a plan, to think abott what


to do with our waste, and planned properly, everything we use either


is consumed or we have to ddal with is consumed or we have to ddal with


reuse it. Do you feel sympathetic reuse it. Do you feel sympathetic


for the council is caught in the middle? I am conflicted on this In


the 1970s and 1980s used to put everything in a single bin. Now we


separate batteries, plastics, food waste. We have come an enorlous


distance in how we support waste. But they were not talking there


about the environment, they were talking about council budgets. We


need to remember that so much of what councils do around adult social


care and children's are our statutory obligations put upon them


by central government. A sm`ll charge to take some waste to a


recycling centre, provided ht is not core household waste...? I `m


conflicted. But fly-tipping costs ?50 per incident to sort out. But


what is the state for, if you cannot look after its children? Thd state


and the council have to havd provision for this, and it hs really


important. I don't agree, btt they were talking about the pressure on


their governments. We are still borrowing in this country around ?85


billion per year more than we are bringing in in revenue. Therefore we


need to increase the real rdvenue. We have to get our public fhnances


after -- under control. One way is to make money from waste rather than


throwing it away. Now our regular round-up


of the political week Four out of ten councils ard


breaking political -- pollution limits. In Oxford, they are


considering banning all vehhcles except electric by the end of the


decade. It is the old peopld, it is children, and those with


pre-existing medical condithons Pollution is just one probldm for


people living on the streets. Councillors say a new Bill to help


the homeless will not help hn parts of the South where house prhces are


too high. In the new Forest, agricultural workers have bden


clobbered by a 40% rent risd. I do an honest day's work, and this is


how they repay you. The Fordstry Commission say they have too correct


historic anomalies. The Chancellor reignited a debate from the past,


backing new plans to build `t Dibden Bay. One development being


celebrated so, pound gorill`. The Queen dropped into Prince Charles's


design experiment to give it her seal of approval. -- pound brewery.


Do you like primary? -- Pundbury. -- Poundbury. It is important that


young people have some placd to live, and at the moment the prices


at so enormous, and there is so much speculation... The housing needs to


be affordable, for real people, but what tends to happen is hugd swathes


of land are given to foreign investors who are there to lake


speculation, for people who cannot put their money in the bank and just


use it as an investment. Hotsing is Helms, and we must remember that.


Begin to the results in the end Yes, I think this Government is


absolutely committed to building more homes. Are we going to seek --


are going to see results. Wd need local authority homes, for real


people, who cannot afford to get on the property ladder. There was new


social housing built in Bournemouth last year. Thank you to our guests


this week. Now back to Andrdw Neill. -- Andrew Neil.


Barely more than a week now until polling day,


and a new revelation rocks the US Presidential election campaign.


If it wasn't bizarre enough, it just got more bizarre.


The FBI have reopened their investigation into Hillary Clinton's


use of private email servers whilst she was Secretary


of State, after the discovery of further emails.


Though not on her laptop or even the State Department.


Donald Trump is saying that it's bigger than Watergate -


so could it swing the election in his favour?


We spoke to top US pollster, Frank Luntz.


The FBI investigation is happening so late in the election process


that it would be very difficult to derail a Clinton victory.


That said, if there is one thing that could keep Hillary Clinton


from the presidency, it's an FBI investigation.


But there's still only four states that really matter, Florida, Ohio,


Right now, Clinton has beyond the margin of error leads


This would have to have a truly significant impact for the election


There is a point about a week ago when I was prepared to say that


Clinton had a 95% chance of winning this election.


Based on what has happened in the last 48 hours,


It is still very likely, but I wouldn't bet on it.


I thought the 2000 election would be the best election of my lifetime,


And then I thought 2008 would be amazing, because we had two


challenger candidates and the first African-American President.


It is ugly, it's painful, it is as negative as anything


The public is angry, the country, overall, is frustrated.


But for entertainment value, these candidates probably should


have charged us money, because it's better than any movie


at ever seen, it's better than any TV show.


That was Frank Luntz. He may be right or wrong about Mrs Clinton


still having an 80% chance of winning. I would bet on an 80%


chance? Yes, absolutely. I spoke to a high-profile American pollster and


strategist last night and he took a rather different view to Frank


Luntz. He thought, and I think some other high-profile commentators


agree, that this is actually much more serious than some people


realise. There are an awful lot of undecided voters out there looking


for an excuse to vote Trump. They do not like what they see in either


candidate. But because this FBI probe is not going to conclude


before the election, the question, the doubt over Hillary Clinton,


gives them an excuse to back Trump. The thing that will play on the


minds of the voters is, could the 100 day honeymoon turning to the 100


day divorce? Which even be impeached? It may give some people


an excuse not to vote for Mrs Clinton. It could provide a problem


in terms of energising her base The battle ground almost matters more


than the polls. Florida and Pennsylvania have been trending to


Mrs Clinton. Mr Trump needs to win both. He does not get in without


both. He needs both. Just coming up in the latest BBC News, the


Washington Post tracking poll, Mrs Clinton is now only one point ahead


in the national poll. One point Even given my caveat that the state


battles are most important. That is incredibly close? It is. Polls


yesterday showed Trump nationally closing of. -- up. There is a clear


trend and movement. This has reinforced everything that people


who have a problem with Hillary Clinton know about Hillary Clinton.


Trump is running this insurgent campaign. We have seen at here with


Brexit. If you are running an insurgent campaign, you want to be


against the ultimate establishment insider and that is what Hillary


Clinton is. I suggested it was bizarre. Fathoming the behaviour of


the FBI is interesting as well. This is a separate investigation into a


former congressman, Anthony Wiener, who had done all sorts of things. He


seemed to be sex text thing a minor. A 15-year-old girl. The FBI


investigate. They get his laptop to see what else he has been too. In


the course of that, his wife, now separated, the closest adviser to


Hillary Clinton, they find on the laptop e-mails involving the Clinton


server to her. And yet the FBI cannot, it needs now a separate


warrant to access these e-mails It hasn't got that yet. It has got a


warrant to do the congressman e-mails. On the basis of not knowing


the content, this has happened. Yeah. Who knows? He is a Republican,


this guy. Earlier this year he was being praised to the hilt by


Democrats. Absolutely. The timing is a nightmare for her. You described


the whole sequence. There is nothing definitive to doubt in this


sequence. All he is saying is he has discovered more e-mails in effect.


They are from the congressman's former wife. On Anthony Wiener's


laptop, which apparently she used sometimes. But what that shows is


that for all the scrutiny of modern politicians, they cannot escape


caricature. And as Tim was just saying, her weakness is perceived to


be secretive, elitism and complacency about that elitism. And


so just the announcement of a reopening of the investigation so


fuels that caricature, you have just revealed a poll giving her a 1%


lead. That must be related to what has happened. It is without a shred


of evidence that she has done anything wrong. You can see how


because people only see things encourage kids, that is deadly


serious. -- in caricature. An American friend of mine said we have


got our October surprise but we don't know what it is. The FBI must


surely come under massive pressure. It did its -- it did this against


the Justice Department. The difficulty the FBI had was that this


information, for what it's worth, it came to them. Were they not to have


said something and it worked to have come out later, they would have been


accused of a massive cover-up. They are dammed if they do, dammed if


they don't. There is still time for another surprise. And early November


surprise. Who knows if there might still be something that comes out on


Donald Trump? This is the first election where I can remember we


have had two October surprises already. There are is stuff about


tapes knocking around about Donald Trump saying racist things. The


Clintons have got a lot of friends. It would be a big surprise if we did


not see anything else in the next few days.


Just when you think it could not get more interesting, it has. There has


been plenty in the papers lately about the Ukip leadership saying


unpleasant things about each other. But what about Mr Farage himself?


What's he up to? Well, on BBC Two tonight we may


find out the answer. Well, I'm led to believe


she's very experienced. But I don't think Strictly Come


Dancing is for me. That is, unless, of course,


you fancy popping a cheeky zero No, I don't think Strictly


Come Dancing is for me. Well, you tell Mr Balls he has just


lost your programme one viewer. I might have nothing to do these


days but, realistically, Well, that wasn't Nigel Farage. It


is a BBC comedy on tonight. Nigel Farage gets his life back. A number


of runners and riders. Let's come straight down to it. Who would be


the next leader of Ukip? Probably Paul Nuttall. He is the favourite.


The one who has the backing, not very enthusiastic backing, is Rahim


Cassandra. And also Aaron Banks a big donor. The best of a rather weak


lot. I think Paul Nuttall should squeak through. I interviewed all


three of them this week. Mr Cassandra is a lively character and


he knows how to make a few headlines. With a bit of money


behind him, anything is possible. This is a guy who has been to the


States, who has literally studied what Trump has done. Pees on


secondment for the time being. The guy who is his line manager is one


of Donald Trump's campaign stop He is extraordinarily right-wing. I am


told he kept a picture of Enoch Powell by his bed. Barry Goldwater


is one of his heroes, for example. There are other candidates. I would


suggest, put out as a hypothesis, Paul Nuttall is Labour's worst


nightmare. They are more vulnerable in the North. Paul Nuttall is from


Merseyside, a working-class background, performs well on


television. He is a really good interviewee. He is one of the best


around in politics at the moment. However, I think whoever gets it has


a massive task. The clip of this Nigel Farage satire partly shows


why. His dominance was overwhelming. He, in many ways, did a brilliant


job at keeping the show on the road. The trouble for all new political


parties is keeping it going is tough. A very different party, the


SDP, with all those glamorous figures in it, lasted eight years,


something like that. I think they are in real trouble at the moment


because of the implosion we have been seeing in front of our eyes and


the ideal -- ideological splits Whoever gets it will face a tough


tussle. All three of the main contenders want to put Nigel Farage


in the House of Lords. They were falling over themselves to soak up


two farads. That is how you win this election.


Mr Aaron Banks, who is he putting his money on? He said he supports


Rahim. I know Mr Banks is utterly fed with the shenanigans in Ukip. He


thinks it is terribly disorganised, dysfunctional and doesn't want a


great deal to do with it for the foreseeable future.


It is not quite Trump the Clinton but it is interesting. That is it.


The Daily Politics is back tomorrow. And all of next week. Jo Coburn will


be your next Sunday because I am off to the United States to begin to


rehearse presenting the BBC's US election night coverage on the th


of November. It will be here on BBC One, BBC


world, BBC News Channel and BBC online.


Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.


He's a scientist, brilliant apparently.


But you may be bringing people over here who did things during the war.


I will not work for you. I will not work for the British Government


Let us not let the past haunt all of our actions.


You've got to do something! It's only you that can!


Andrew Neil and Peter Henley are joined by Iain Duncan Smith, Chi Onwurah and Haras Rafiq of the Quilliam Foundation. The Daily Mail's Isabel Oakeshott, commentator Steve Richards and Tim Shipman of The Sunday Times are on the political panel.

Download Subtitles