Paul Nuttall The Andrew Neil Interviews

In just ten days, voters will go to the polls in the general election

to decide who will represent them in Parliament and who

will lead the country.

So which of the party leaders has the best plan for the future

of the United Kingdom?

Tonight, I'm joined by the leader of Ukip, Paul Nuttall.

Paul Nuttall, Ukip was established in 1993, it was to get the UK out

of the European Union.

You won the referendum, your side, last year,

so instead of enduring this agonising decline in Ukip's support,

why not just declare victory and go home?

Well, we did win.

As you said, we were set up back in the early 90s to get Britain out

of the European Union.

With the referendum I'd say we have won the war,

what we've got to do now is win the peace.

The Prime Minister will only start at the negotiations

with the European Union later in June and Ukip has to be

on the pitch because if Ukip isn't on the pitch, then there's no real

impetus for the Prime Minister not to backslide and I believe, I worry,

that she may backslide with fisheries, or maybe

there will be a deal on the divorce bill,

or maybe there will be a deal on freedom of movement.

What we need is to ensure that Ukip is there so that we get the Brexit

that we voted for on June the 23rd.

But when you launched your manifesto last week, your main

focus wasn't on Europe.

It was on terrorism and extremism.

It almost looks like you are flailing around now,

trying to stay relevant, aren't you?

Well, no, not at all.

What we have done is we have led on the agenda of Islamic terrorism

and we launched our integration agenda about six weeks ago.

A lot of people within the Westminster bubble felt very

uncomfortable about it but we are saying things what people

are thinking and what we've got to do is we've got to get to grips

with this Islamist cancer within our midst, it needs to be cut

out because our worry if it isn't, Andrew, then what happened the other

night in Manchester may well become commonplace.

Except critics say that your desperation to try to remain

relevant is taking you into some unsavoury waters here.

One of your MEPs, Gerard Batten, has called Islam a death cult, Islam.

Do you agree?

No, it's language I personally wouldn't use but what I will say,

and I have openly called Islamic fundamentalism, or radical Islam,

a cancer within our midst, and I repeat that today.

But he didn't use "Islamism".

I wouldn't...

He said "Islam", one of the world's great religions,

he called it a death cult.

Again it's not language that I would use but I want to make it clear...

Should anybody use it?

No, not particularly.

He is your MEP.

Let me finish.

It's not language that I would use and the vast majority of Muslims

in our country are peaceful, they add to our economy,

they love this country.

However, there is a small number within that community

who hate the way we live, hate who we are and want to do us

harm and we need to do something about it.

And that's what you would call "Islamist" which is different

from Islam, but he didn't say "Islamist".

He also went on to say that Islam is a barbaric religion.

Does he speak for Ukip?

No, Gerard is not speaking for Ukip on that.

What we see is simply that "Islamism" and Islamic

fundamentalism is a problem.

It's not just a problem in this country, it's a problem around

the globe and we've got to come together and do

something about that.

And this is the candidate that your party has chosen to stand

against the Prime Minister.

He didn't make that distinction.

Well, I think he has got his terminology wrong and I'll

be open and honest about that.

What I will say is that we are the only party that put together

an integration agenda which I'm not saying, by the way,

is the answer to everything, but it's the beginning of an answer

and what we've got to do is bring the communities together to ensure

that something like this doesn't happen again.

Is Islam a religion of peace?

The vast majority of Muslims...

Absolutely, they are peaceful, they live in this country,

they love this country, they add to the economy.

The problem is there is a small number of people

who need to be sorted out, cut out of society altogether

and actually what we need to do is we need to ensure that we put

more police officers on the beat, and we are proposing 20,000

extra police officers, to ensure that these people

are caught and brought to justice.

But you want to ban the burqa?

Yes.

How would that cut out, to use your words,

this small minority?

How would that possibly stop atrocities like

the one in Manchester?

Well, there are a number of examples where the burqa has been

used in criminality.

You had, for example, the killing of the female PC back

in 2005 and the jihadist then escaped this country

wearing the niqab.

We had the 21/7 terrorist...

But he could have used another disguise too, couldn't he?

The failed bombing on 21/7, one of the people who tried to carry

out that act of terror escaped wearing a burqa and only

earlier this month in Manchester eight men were sent down

for carrying out raids in 2015 and 2016 wearing burqas.

It's about security and whether we like it or not,

Andrew, we are the most watched people in the world, OK?

There is more CCTV in this country than anywhere else on the planet

and for it to be effective you need to see people's faces.

But that is only the first part.

The next part is about integration and what we need to do is we need

to ensure that communities come together and I would argue that

to enjoy the full fruits of British society you need to be prepared

to show your face.

That may be true, but it would not make any difference in the fight

against terrorism, would it?

Well, it's a step towards integration and one of the ways

that we will win, one of the ways that we will beat these

Islamic fundamentalists, is by bringing communities together.

One of the ways you bring communities together

is you integrate people into British society and if you show your face,

it allows you to communicate better, it allows you to enter certain

spheres of employment which they are precluded

from at this moment in time, so it's about integration.

It could, though, be seen as a knee jerk reaction.

Let me suggest another one.

You now say that where a victim of a grooming gang is of a different

race or religion to the offenders, it should be an aggregating

factor in the prosecution.

What are you on about?

Well, it's obvious their race and their religion is a factor

and you only have to look at the 1400 girls who were

victims in Rotherham.

You have to look at the girls who were victims in Rochdale

and the vast majority of these girls are white, they are Christian

and they were basically groomed by Pakistani men.

But why does in the end the race or religion matter?

I think we can agree it is hard to imagine a worse crime

than the sexual assault of a child and what happened in the cases

you have just given, but why race or religion?

Surely whoever does this, they should just be slammed up

for a very long time regardless of race or religion if found guilty.

Yes, they should and I would make sentences longer.

However, race is already an aggravating factor when it comes

to prosecutions and I think in these cases in terms of grooming,

for example, it is quite clear that the race of these young girls

has been taken into consideration by the perpetrators.

But the law as it stands is if race was a motivating factor,

if you did something bad and race was a motivating factor...

I think it is a motivating factor.

But you are simply saying if they are of a different religion

or race, that should be an aggregating factor,

not their motivation, just the very fact that they are not

white, they are not Christian.

But it obviously is a motivating factor because these guys

are not grooming girls from within their own community,

these girls are being picked because they are white

and they are Christian.

Except the courts would have to prove that and that is

the law at the moment.

But I think it is obvious when there are 1400 of them in Rotherham.

You also said that you would like to see the death penalty

returned for terrorists and child killers.

Well, that's my own personal view, that isn't Ukip policy.

You have even said you would act as the executioner yourself.

I was asked that question by the Mail on Sunday straight out.

They said, "Do you support the death penalty?"

I said, "Yes."

For people like the killers of Lee Rigby where it is quite

obvious these perpetrators of that crime they are wandering around

with that man's blood all over their hands and this

was a British soldier who was pretty much executed on a British street

by a British citizen.

As far as I am concerned that is treason.

And people like Ian Brady who only died last week,

it has cost us 10 million in taxpayers' money

to keep that man alive.

And you said you would be prepared to do the death penalty yourself.

Well...

Do you want to be an MP or an executioner?

Well, I don't want to be Albert Pierrepoint

when I'm out of politics.

What I will say is that they asked me that question and if I am

prepared to stand up and say that I believe in the death penalty,

then, you know, maybe I would pull the lever on people like Ian Brady

in the past.

So you do want to be an executioner?

I don't want to be an executioner but I believe people like Ian Brady

who committed awful crimes against children, I don't see why

British taxpayers have to pay so much money to keep someone

like that alive.

You recently said you are also OK with water boarding

as an interrogation technique.

No, I used the example when I was talking about

if you were in a situation where there was an immediate

terrorist attack on the horizon and we had to get information

which would save people's lives in this country,

then I would basically I would use harsh methods.

You would be OK with it?

I would use harsh methods.

You actually said I would probably be OK with it.

These were your words.

Let me make this point, I would put the lives of British

families over the human rights of any jihadi any day.

Including water boarding?

Including water boarding.

Is that party policy?

No, it's not party policy.

It's your policy?

No, look, I just said if we were in a situation

where there was going to be an immediate attack and people's

lives were on the line, I would want to see

British families protected.

I would put their lives over the human rights of any jihadi.

You know these are almost never the circumstances

in which torture is used.

That is not what water boarding has been used for.

It has been used to get intelligence and information out of people.

Yes.

Are you in favour of that?

No, and I didn't say that if you listen to

the whole interview.

No, I am just finding out if you were.

No, I'm not, but if you listen to the whole interview I used

the example if there was an immediate terrorist threat

to a place like this in London, I would always put the lives

of British people over the human rights of a jihadi.

Do you agree with another of your MEPs, Roger Helmer, he says,

quote, it is time to think the unthinkable and just lock up

suspected terrorists.

When you read this morning that there is a suspected 23,000

jihadis who could be living amongst us, obviously MI5 are stretched

to capacity at this present moment in time.

I think we've got to look at ways of ensuring our people are safe...

Let me finish, whether that is a return to control orders,

whether that is tagging these people, who knows?

In the future maybe a return to internment.

A return to internment?

Look, we are in a situation now where we are being told

there are 23,000 possible suspects on our streets who

want to do us harm.

Now, if you consider that it costs roughly ?1 million a year to have

24/7 surveillance on these people, we are talking about

vast amounts of money.

Maybe, Andrew, we are just living in a different society.

I am not saying now is the time to return to this, but I wouldn't

rule it out in the future.

So you wouldn't rule out internment perhaps of thousands

of British citizens.

You are aware that when internment was introduced in Northern Ireland

in 1971, it was the biggest recruiting sergeant of the IRA ever.

You do know that?

Well, look, what I am saying is in the future, not now,

maybe we can target these people now, maybe we can return to control

orders, but I wouldn't take anything off the table in the future.

Because as I say, look, unless we get a grip on this,

what happened in Manchester the other night, which is part

of my constituency, could become commonplace and that is the last

thing we want to see.

Let's just take stock then of what you've told us so far

and what we've discussed.

Ukip candidates calling Islam barbaric, banning the burqa,

calling for the death penalty, water boarding in certain

circumstances, now internment.

In your desperation to be noticed in this election

you are becoming pretty extreme, aren't you?

Hang on, the vast majority of those are not Ukip policy.

They are your views.

Hang on, we are not looking to be noticed.

We are leading the agenda in many ways on this.

We came back with our integration policy about six weeks ago

and the Westminster media, the Westminster bubble,

they all felt very uncomfortable about it so what they did

is they mocked us and they came up with stupid suggestions saying

beekeepers would be banned, or bridal-wear would be banned.

The fact is we are the only ones who are coming up with an agenda

to try and improve integration in this country.

I would suggest this to you, it is beyond the Westminster bubble

that people watching this may feel uncomfortable about the idea of

locking up suspects without trial.

Well, let me put it to you this way.

Firstly, I'll quickly move back onto the burqa thing.

Polls show time and time again that people agree with me on this.

Internment is the issue I raised, which is much more serious.

It is far more serious and as I said we are not

at that point yet but, I tell you what, if people

were asked if it would save lives, then people would agree with me

on that too.

Let's look at immigration, it's a subject very important to Ukip.

You propose a one in, one out policy, so to let somebody

into this country as a migrant somebody else would have to leave.

That is just a gimmick, isn't it?

I don't think it's a gimmick at all and no one is talking about putting

up the drawbridge here.

The other day when the immigration figures were released it showed that

339,000 people left this country which means that we would roughly

allow the same amount of people to come in again,

but then beneath that there would be an Australian points-based system

like we have pretty much around the world, except in countries

within the EU, whereby if you've got the skills that this country needs

and there is a gap in our economy, please come here and work.

So the skills system would be on top of the one in, one out?

We could still have more than one in and one out, then?

No, that's over a five-year period, so it gives us a lot

of wriggle room here.

As I say, we need to get control of immigration in this country.

The other day it was announced that last year alone,

a city the size of Hull came to this country.

If we carry on along this road, if we carry on letting a city

the size of Birmingham in every four years, we will end up

with a population of 80 million by the middle of this century,

which is simply unsustainable.

But just think how this would work.

We may, in the years to come, have a desperate need for more

doctors, more skilled medical people, or for

high-tech specialists.

Everybody wants to turn this into a great high-tech country as well.

But we couldn't bring these skills in from overseas unless somebody

was prepared to leave the United Kingdom as well.

Well, look, 339,000 people left this country last year.

It was 323,000 the year before.

We're not talking about pulling up the drawbridge

and not letting anyone in.

I'm sure that number of skilled people can be incorporated

into the amount of people that leave the country and then come back in.

But we cannot bring in 100,000 skills unless at least 100,000 other

people are prepared to leave.

But we're not in that situation, are we?

Because there's over 300,000 people virtually every single year

leaving this country.

That's at the moment.

You don't know what it'll be like in the future.

Your immigration policy will be determined by the number

of people prepared to leave.

But in the meantime, in the meantime, what we need to do

is to train our own people.

We need to train our own nurses, our own doctors, our own teachers.

Therefore you can reduce the amount of people that have

to come in to fill skills.

But that takes time, as you know.

Of course it takes time, but we're saying this would work

over a five-year period.

But did you just pluck this policy out of thin air,

because even your own candidate in Derby North, he said

the idea was "Stupid".

We got this idea...

The first people to put this forward were Frank Field

from the Labour Party, Nicolas Soames from

the Conservatives.

They are talking about balanced migration here, because we have

realised that somebody has to get a grip on the population

because otherwise we are going to be in a situation in the future

where we will have to have a huge school-building programme.

The NHS, which is fit to bursting at the moment,

will only be under more pressure.

We will end up with more motorways, a new rail network.

It can't continue.

Capital spend will be massive unless we get control of population.

But as you will know, Derby North, your candidate

who thinks the idea is stupid, that's the home of Rolls-Royce,

one of our great British companies.

He says, "I think it's not practical.

"I think Rolls-Royce would say it was stupid.

"And I would agree with them".

That's your own candidate.

I don't see how anyone can think it's stupid, because, as I say,

what we will be bringing in is skilled migration, migrants

who will add to the economy.

Migrants who will add to the tax receipts,

and therefore it will be good news all round.

It just creates the general impression that in your desperation

to be noticed in this election - and it's been a struggle for you -

you are becoming ever more extreme.

On immigration, you are now more hardline than Nigel Farage.

We're actually, we have moved on from where we were

at the last election.

But between 1970 and 1997, migration was running net

roughly at around 20,000.

So we weren't that far off balance in migration in those years anyway.

Let's move onto Brexit, a matter very important to Ukip.

And the debate has moved now to the nature of the Brexit deal.

At some point there will need to be a deal done to give current EU

residents continuing rights in the UK.

In your view, how long will they have to have lived

in the UK to be given those rights?

Well, look, I mean, we have made it perfectly clear in our general

election manifesto that the 167,000 EU migrants working

in the NHS can stay, OK?

No debate about that.

But I think once Article 50 had been triggered,

it's then up for negotiation how long people can stay for.

So if you are an EU citizen, and you have come in since the end

of March, when Article 50 was triggered, you won't necessarily

have a right to remain?

That will be down to the government of the day.

I'm asking you who is.

That'll be down to the government of the day to go into negotiation

with the European Union, because what we've got to do

is ensure the rights of British citizens in Spain,

Portugal, Italy and Greece and everywhere else can stay as well.

If they come to a satisfactory agreement, whereby British citizens'

rights are protected in those countries, then I will have

no problem whatsoever.

I understand that, but you mention only EU citizens working in the NHS.

Is that it?

Yes, at the moment.

We are going to make that point perfectly clear.

That's it?

So others, EU citizens who are teachers, university

professors, lecturers, they may have to leave?

But these are people who have come before Article 50 was triggered.

Those who have come after - and there won't be that many

who have come after at this present moment in time - will just

have to wait and see what the Prime Minister comes up

with in terms of negotiation.

Let me just clarify this, Mr Nuttall, everybody

who was here when Article 50 was triggered as a definite

right to remain?

Yes.

With all the same access to services, NHS, in-work

benefits and schools?

Yes.

But after Article 50, that's uncertain.

If you have just arrived here from Germany or Italy or France,

you're not quite sure?

That will all depend on the agreement that

the Prime Minister can strike with the European Union.

As we all know, the EU in various ways has been

demanding billions of pounds, people call it a sort

of divorce bill.

Your manifesto says we shouldn't pay a penny.

But if even a modest sum, not tens and tens of billions,

but a modest sum secured substantial access for us and continuing access

to the single market, you wouldn't pay it?

Well, I don't see why we should.

Because since the early 1970s when we've been members

of this organisation, we've handed over ?183 billion net

to this organisation in membership fee alone.

I don't see why we should have to pay a divorce

bill on top of that.

Look, the EU were just picking figures out of the air on this.

50 billion...

But you wouldn't pay anything?

I don't see why we should.

We've got 9 billion wrapped up in the European Investment Bank.

Surely we must own part of EU buildings or real

estate all over Europe.

That may be, but if we got into a situation where for a modest,

but modest to governments, not modest for individuals,

but modest to governments, ten, 12, 15 billion,

and in return we would have tariff-free access

to the European Union, and all the jobs that

would guarantee and save, you wouldn't pay that?

Hang on, we are going to get tariff-free access anyway.

You don't know that.

I will tell you why.

The European Union might be a corrupt organisation,

it might be a bullying organisation, but it isn't a stupid organisation.

There are millions of jobs on the continent that

are dependent on British trade.

We have a huge trading deficit with the European Union.

Have you asked the Greeks if it's not a stupid organisation?

LAUGHTER.

Yeah, maybe.

They've had problems, of course, with Europe.

It's a trade-off.

To continue with tariff-free access for several billion pounds,

that would be money well spent?

Andrew, we are the fifth-largest economy on the planet.

We are Germany's biggest marketplace outside Germany.

We France's biggest marketplace outside France.

In fact, for the French farmers, we bought 39 million bottles

of champagne last year.

The Germans sold 800,000 cars into our economy.

There will be a trade deal.

It's mutually beneficial.

I understand that's your argument, but it seems to me to be that

for a relatively small amount of money, nothing like the hundred

billion that has been floated, perhaps not even the 50

or 60 billion, to secure us continuing largely as we are,

which would be a huge triumph for Britain to have got that,

you wouldn't pay a penny?

I don't see why we have to pay this organisation a single penny,

considering, as I said, that we have paid in almost

200 billion in membership fee alone since we have been

members since 1973.

I think it's wrong.

All right.

Major parties use their manifesto, they hope,

to set out a grand vision.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

But your manifesto has got talk about scrapping

VAT on fish and chips, tackling what you call

the lad culture.

We have talked about banning the burqa, but it's interesting that

in the manifesto you want to prevent it because it, "prevents

an intake of essential vitamin Dfrom sunlight".

Hang on, hang on, hang on.

These aren't quite serious, are they?

That last point, there is a myriad of research,

by the way, medical research, that proves our point on this.

However, that is peripheral to the burqa point.

But you put it in the manifesto.

Hang on, the problem we have got with the burqa

and the niqab is that it prevents people from communicating.

It prevents people from integrating into society.

This is a really serious point.

If you want to enjoy the full fruits of British society, you have to be

able to show your face.

So why mention vitamin D and sunlight?

Because there's lots of research that proves our point on this.

Isn't the truth is that Ukip is becoming increasingly irrelevant,

that the 2017 general election is the beginning of the end

for Ukip, isn't it?

Sometimes in politics, the tide comes in, the tide goes out.

This is very opportune for Theresa May at the moment

because she is able to talk the talk and act tough on the issue

of Brexit, because she hasn't gone into those negotiations.

It will get difficult for her once the negotiations start.

That's why it's so important Ukip remains on the pitch.

If she does backslide, I will make a prediction...

Ukip, by the end of 2018, could be bigger than it

ever has been before.

But the tide has gone out for Ukip and it's been showing you have no

clothes bar a particularly extremist set of garbs.

No, I don't buy that at all, actually.

I think our manifesto has been agenda-setting.

We are leading the agenda when it comes to integration.

Obviously the Conservative Party in some areas have stolen our clothes.

But equally, as I say, Ukip's job is to set

the agenda in politics.

We have been very successful at that in the past.

When we spoke about Brexit 15 years ago people looked at us

as if we were lunatics.

We've now got Brexit.

When we spoke about grammar schools, people said that they were unfair,

bad for the working class.

It's now government policy.

When we spoke about a points system for immigration, we were called

racists and xenophobes.

It's now government policy.

I put it to you that many of the things which are in the Ukip

manifesto this time round will be government policy, or at least

policies of other parties within the next decade.

But this time, for the big picture, you are in an uncomfortable position

because the truth is that for Ukip to succeed, Theresa May's

Brexit has to fail.

No, because Ukip will move on and campaign on other issues.

Other issues which are contained within our manifesto.

I don't want Theresa May to fail.

But you just said she becomes relevant if she backslide.

But I will put country above party.

I want Theresa May to succeed in these negotiations -

that's if she's still the Prime Minister.

Of course.

But I want her to succeed in these negotiations.

I want to do well, I want her to get the best deal for Britain.

My problem is that if you look at her record as Home Secretary,

I'm not sure she will get that best deal.

But if, come the next election, whenever that is, we're out

of the customs union, we are out of the single market,

we are out of the European Court, we're also out of Ukip.

There would be no purpose to you by then.

There would, because we would continue to set

the agenda on integration.

Obviously, I'm a big proponent of an English parliament.

We are talking about scrapping the House of Lords.

There's lots of things for Ukip to campaign on.

Your period as leader hasn't been covered in glory,

has it, Mr Nuttall?

You lost the Stoke Central by-election, even though it was

a hugely pro-Brexit constituency.

A number of claims you made on the website during that campaign

turned out to be untrue.

You did badly in the local elections.

During the ITV debate you forgot the name

of the Welsh National party leader.

You're not the man to save Ukip, Mr Nuttall, are you?

Hang on, o you know I was elected as leader of Ukip with the biggest

mandate that anyone's ever received in a leadership election?

I took a flyer on Stoke, I took a gamble.

And it didn't pay off.

We halved Labour's majority in that election.

You crashed and burned.

I would love to have been an MP and I would love

to have won that seat.

It didn't work.

We knew these local elections would be the hardest set

of elections we ever fought.

As I say, sometimes in politics the tide comes

in and the tide goes out.

It will come back in again.

But you know what a lot of people say, including some

critics in your own party, is that Ukip under Paul Nuttall

is a pale imitation of Nigel Farage's Ukip.

I think if you look at our manifesto it's proof that it's not.

Ukip has moved on, it's campaigning on other issues.

Ukip in the future will be relevant, if not more relevant,

than it has ever been in the past.

We both know Nigel Farage, Mr Nuttall.

You're no Nigel Farage.

I'm not Nigel Farage.

Quite obviously we come from completely different backgrounds.

We have a completely different leadership style.

I've only been the leader of Ukip for six months.

I'm now in a general election and I believe I will lead Ukip

after this general election and we can go on to great things.

Are you the last leader of Ukip?

No, absolutely not.

Who else would want it?

We've got some really good people coming through at the moment.

I think in the future - being the leader of Ukip

is a four year term - we will go on and we will have

another really good leader of Ukip.

As I say, Ukip's future is secure.

Ukip will campaign on other issues in the future.

But beyond that, if Theresa May backslides on Brexit,

she must know that Ukip will be bigger and more important than it's

ever been in the past.

Paul Nuttall, thank you very much.

Thanks, Andrew.