:00:00. > :00:37.those temperatures. Between ten and 16 Celsius. Very mild.
:00:38. > :00:40.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:41. > :00:42.Should the police and the intelligence agencies have
:00:43. > :00:46.a right to know what we're looking at on the internet if it means it
:00:47. > :00:51.The government will this week attempt to re-introduce a modified
:00:52. > :00:55.version of what its critics called "the snoopers' charter".
:00:56. > :00:57.The Home Office says several contentious proposals from the
:00:58. > :01:05.Labour in Scotland vote to scrap Britain's nuclear weapons system.
:01:06. > :01:07.That's in tune with what Jeremy Corbyn thinks, but not
:01:08. > :01:15.There's a fair amount of men in the House of Commons, I expect
:01:16. > :01:19.With International Mens Day around the corner, we'll be asking
:01:20. > :01:24.And we demand total honesty from our politicians.
:01:25. > :01:49.All that in the next hour and with us for the duration
:01:50. > :01:51.of today's programme, the Conservative MP Suella Fernandes
:01:52. > :01:59.Now first today let's talk about Labour and Trident,
:02:00. > :02:01.because yesterday delegates at the Scottish Labour conference
:02:02. > :02:05.in Perth voted overwhelmingly to oppose the renewal of Britain's
:02:06. > :02:12.It means Scottish Labour is at odds with the view of its own leader,
:02:13. > :02:15.Kezia Dugdale, and with the policy of the UK Labour Party as a whole.
:02:16. > :02:19.The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, remains opposed to nuclear weapons.
:02:20. > :02:21.Let's talk now to the BBC's Assistant Political Editor,
:02:22. > :02:36.It is a very confusing picture. I suspect people to heads are
:02:37. > :02:40.spinning. We have a different policy north of the border to south of the
:02:41. > :02:45.border, a different stance from the leader north of the border to south
:02:46. > :02:51.of the border, the app! Unite union, the Scottish section wants to
:02:52. > :02:55.get rid of Trident. The national position is to only to do so if
:02:56. > :03:01.there are other jobs for those employed in the nuclear industry.
:03:02. > :03:03.Those around Mr Corbyn say the decision yesterday by the Scottish
:03:04. > :03:08.Conference is significant because it will feed into the whole policy
:03:09. > :03:13.review Labour is undertaking and their hope is that it will shift
:03:14. > :03:19.opinion in his direction. You talk to other members of the said cabinet
:03:20. > :03:23.and they say it is irrelevant. Policy is made by the National party
:03:24. > :03:28.and the National policy Forum so we don't have to worry about what the
:03:29. > :03:34.Scottish party thinks. It is hugely confusing. What it tells us is that
:03:35. > :03:39.the vote on Trident, the stance on Trident, as almost become an emerald
:03:40. > :03:45.attic vote about where Labour stands and its heart and soul. Will it
:03:46. > :03:51.become an unashamedly left-wing unilateralist party or will it
:03:52. > :03:55.retain a more mainstream stance? The forces are coalescing and we are
:03:56. > :04:03.still waiting for a resolution to this. If you took moderates, they
:04:04. > :04:07.are, and there will not be a change in position, but those more Subotic
:04:08. > :04:14.to Mr Corbyn believe the tide is moving in their direction. That grew
:04:15. > :04:17.more sympathetic. It will be implemented it -- emblem attic. When
:04:18. > :04:24.will there be a settled position for Labour on the whole as to whether
:04:25. > :04:31.the Trident system should be renewed? This is also bizarre. It
:04:32. > :04:36.seems they're almost certainly will not be a conclusion to their policy
:04:37. > :04:42.review until after, after the Commons as voted on whether to
:04:43. > :04:46.replace Trident. Hypothetically, was Jeremy Corbyn to win the day and the
:04:47. > :04:51.party decided they would not support it, it would be to late because the
:04:52. > :04:57.Commons would have voted. Those around Mr Fallon say there could be
:04:58. > :05:02.a vote later this year. More likely in the summer of next year. The
:05:03. > :05:07.policy review from Labour and any new policy position on Trident I am
:05:08. > :05:12.told would take at least two years, well after the Commons as voted so
:05:13. > :05:17.you would have the bizarre situation that by the next election, if Mr
:05:18. > :05:21.Corbyn is still leader and has managed to change the position on
:05:22. > :05:23.Trident, it could be irrelevant because the money to change the
:05:24. > :05:28.position on Trident, it could be irrelevant because the money could
:05:29. > :05:33.Trident. Thank you very much. Keir Starmer, a Labour leader in Scotland
:05:34. > :05:37.who disagrees with the Scottish party and a UK Labour leader who
:05:38. > :05:43.agreed with the Scottish party but not the majority of his Shadow
:05:44. > :05:48.Cabinet and MPs. It's chaos. It is a debate that is going on. We have
:05:49. > :05:51.just seen the clip with the different positions but the
:05:52. > :05:55.important thing is that the debate is happening. For a long time we
:05:56. > :06:00.were not discussing Trident as a party or a country. There is an
:06:01. > :06:03.important vote next year and it is important we have a debate before
:06:04. > :06:09.the vote. There is nothing wrong with the debate and has Ishant being
:06:10. > :06:16.taken. What is important is that those in favour of tried and make
:06:17. > :06:22.their case and those against also do so -- and a position has been taken.
:06:23. > :06:28.Where do you stand? I will take a decision when the vote is called
:06:29. > :06:33.probably next year, on the evidence that is available. This should not
:06:34. > :06:39.be treated as party political or points scoring. It is about 50 years
:06:40. > :06:46.worth of defence for this country, it is Syria's decision to be taken
:06:47. > :06:54.on the available evidence -- serious decision. But the party is split. It
:06:55. > :06:59.is an important principle, different people take different views and we
:07:00. > :07:03.should respect that. We should do it on the basis of the available
:07:04. > :07:10.evidence and the vote will come next year. Should Jeremy Corbyn be bound
:07:11. > :07:15.by the current party policy or the view of the Parliamentary party on
:07:16. > :07:20.this issue? Once the party has a view, we should all hold back.
:07:21. > :07:25.Jeremy has always had a clear view on that. At odds with a lot of the
:07:26. > :07:30.Shadow Cabinet. We are having a debate and it is a necessary debate.
:07:31. > :07:33.We can't say beforehand that you can't have a particular position but
:07:34. > :07:39.we should try to get a consensus and hold to it. This is an important
:07:40. > :07:44.national decision about 50 years worth of difference. What about
:07:45. > :07:50.indications from Jeremy Corbyn's aids who are saying that he will use
:07:51. > :07:53.the Scottish vote, despite many in the lead the party saying it is
:07:54. > :07:59.irrelevant, he will use that to attempt to change party policy?
:08:00. > :08:04.Anybody who is making the argument against Trident is bound to point to
:08:05. > :08:07.the vote in Scotland. Those that take a different view would do the
:08:08. > :08:14.same if it went the other way. We can't go into this artificially and
:08:15. > :08:18.say we need a debate but we can't put points forward or say this is
:08:19. > :08:22.the support in a particular part of the country. Of course Jeremy and
:08:23. > :08:25.others are entitled to point to what has happened in Scotland but
:08:26. > :08:31.equally, the other case as to be heard. Kezia Dugdale has said she
:08:32. > :08:35.wants a more independent Scottish Labour Party. Do you see trouble
:08:36. > :08:40.down the line if the party really splits on issues like this? It is
:08:41. > :08:46.inevitable, as we evolve more and more issues, that you will get
:08:47. > :08:54.different versions and approaches in different countries -- as we
:08:55. > :08:58.devolve. There was nothing wrong with different people taking
:08:59. > :09:02.different views. Would you be happy with the two parties taking
:09:03. > :09:07.different views? In the end we need an agreed national position. As we
:09:08. > :09:12.go from where we are now to that position, it is right for people to
:09:13. > :09:16.express their views. If the Scottish Labour Party stays with its position
:09:17. > :09:21.against Trident and the UK party as a whole votes to keep it, they will
:09:22. > :09:25.have to abide, in your view, to what the UK National party says? Yes, I
:09:26. > :09:31.think there has to be one position. What about the timing? It's not
:09:32. > :09:34.going to happen for two years. There is clearly a difficulty, we don't
:09:35. > :09:43.know when the boat will be. It's not going to be in two years. -- when
:09:44. > :09:47.the vote will be. It does not look like you can resolve that. It looks
:09:48. > :09:52.like it will be difficult, I accept that. But if it is possible to
:09:53. > :09:57.resolve it, that is the best outcome. But if it isn't then it
:09:58. > :10:00.would be the current Labour Party policy and would you expect Jeremy
:10:01. > :10:05.Corbyn to stick by that and encourage MPs to vote on current
:10:06. > :10:08.party policy? On an issue as important as this, I would expect
:10:09. > :10:13.all MPs to vote with the party policy. Before any decision or
:10:14. > :10:23.position is gone through by Labour? And less -- unless and until it
:10:24. > :10:30.changes. Is it good to see a debate going on like this? The question is
:10:31. > :10:35.what the Labour Party's position is all stop it is never been more
:10:36. > :10:40.important that we have a nuclear deterrent. In Scotland there is a
:10:41. > :10:43.leader at odds with the party and in England, a leader not supported by
:10:44. > :10:50.the party again. Most of the front bench support renewal, the manifesto
:10:51. > :10:54.supported renewal. It is sad that on an issue as important as this, party
:10:55. > :11:00.politics has ruined the debate. Labour politicians of the past
:11:01. > :11:05.argued vociferously in favour of nuclear armament and now it has
:11:06. > :11:08.become reduced party politics. Because there is a debate, it
:11:09. > :11:13.doesn't become reduced. There is nothing wrong with a political party
:11:14. > :11:18.having a debate. It is obviously a big issue and we have to try to
:11:19. > :11:22.resolve it. How does it make Labour look to the public at large if it
:11:23. > :11:27.takes two years to make a decision? I would step back from that. There
:11:28. > :11:30.is a decision to be taken and the fact that a political party is
:11:31. > :11:32.discussing the right approach is a good thing and we should not suggest
:11:33. > :11:35.there is anything wrong with it. We've learnt in the latest register
:11:36. > :11:39.of members interests that David Cameron has become a member of a new
:11:40. > :11:43.club, where does he find the time? So our question for today is,
:11:44. > :11:45.what's he joined? A) Mark's Private Members Club
:11:46. > :11:47.in Mayfair. At the end of the show Keir
:11:48. > :11:56.and Suella will give us The Investigatory Powers Bill is due
:11:57. > :12:03.to be presented to Parliament The new bill is the latest
:12:04. > :12:08.in a series of attempts to update the law to
:12:09. > :12:10.allow police and security services It replaces the
:12:11. > :12:16.Communications Data Bill, dubbed the Snoopers' Charter, that failed to
:12:17. > :12:19.make it through Parliament in the last session because of opposition
:12:20. > :12:26.from the Liberal Democrats. With more and more communication
:12:27. > :12:29.taking place online and through social media rather than
:12:30. > :12:33.on the phone, the government says new powers are needed to allow spies
:12:34. > :12:37.to access information Police sources expect the new bill
:12:38. > :12:44.to require communications companies to retain data on the websites
:12:45. > :12:49.people have visited for a year. But the government says they will
:12:50. > :12:52.not be granting powers to go through It has also been rumoured that,
:12:53. > :12:57.under the new legislation, spies will be able to hack
:12:58. > :13:03.into smartphones and computers, giving them access to
:13:04. > :13:06.all the information they contain. Critics of the bill are worried that
:13:07. > :13:10.the government will decide against giving the judiciary the power to
:13:11. > :13:14.authorise access to this kind of data and that it will instead be
:13:15. > :13:17.ministers who have the final say. Conservative MP David Davis has
:13:18. > :13:19.warned that he doesn't think the bill will get through
:13:20. > :13:21.Parliament unless judicial But Home Secretary Theresa May says
:13:22. > :13:27.that many of the "more contentious powers" from the 2012 bill have been
:13:28. > :13:31.removed and that there will be "world-leading" oversight of
:13:32. > :13:37.warrants to access digital records. We've looked very carefully
:13:38. > :13:39.at those arguments. I met communications service
:13:40. > :13:46.providers, I've met civil liberties groups, and crucially, I've also met
:13:47. > :13:48.the charities and groups, Who know what it's like
:13:49. > :13:55.when people suffer from child sexual abuse, child sexual exploitation
:13:56. > :13:58.and rape, for example. So I'm very clear of the need
:13:59. > :14:00.for these powers. But I will be setting
:14:01. > :14:02.out to Parliament... With proper regulation,
:14:03. > :14:06.proper oversight. I think what the bill will do
:14:07. > :14:09.on Wednesday, it sets the modern legal framework,
:14:10. > :14:11.but crucially, it has very strong I think it will be world leading
:14:12. > :14:16.oversight arrangements within And it will be clearer, more
:14:17. > :14:31.comprehensive, and comprehensible. Keir Starmer, you want judicial
:14:32. > :14:36.oversight of these powers but as Theresa May pointed out yesterday,
:14:37. > :14:41.three independent reviews of these powers came up with different
:14:42. > :14:46.recommendations. Why do you think that judicial authorisation is
:14:47. > :14:49.critical? When we are talking about intercepting two mutations, what
:14:50. > :14:55.we're saying to each other rather pure data, that is a real privacy
:14:56. > :15:01.issue -- intercepting communications. That is too
:15:02. > :15:05.important to be left to a politician. The test is whether the
:15:06. > :15:10.right individual has been targeted and whether it is necessary. Judges
:15:11. > :15:13.are very familiar with this and totally independent and many are
:15:14. > :15:20.trained for this purpose. When you talk about the most intrusive
:15:21. > :15:23.surveillance that goes into our conversations... This is content.
:15:24. > :15:37.That ought to be judicial. We do need a new law, powers to
:15:38. > :15:40.carry out duties and functions properly. We need the right
:15:41. > :15:46.safeguards. Get the balance right and we can agree that this is an
:15:47. > :15:50.important chance historically but I hope we are not going to blow.
:15:51. > :15:56.Suella, due agree it has to be judicial authorisation? I think
:15:57. > :16:00.there is a lack of coherence in the framework and the rules. This
:16:01. > :16:06.consolidates codes of practice and makes it clear. It is currently
:16:07. > :16:09.implementable. So this will be transparent and robust. And most
:16:10. > :16:11.importantly there is an unprecedented threat to our national
:16:12. > :16:17.security. The head of MI5 said the most serious he has ever seen in his
:16:18. > :16:19.30 year career. The powers are security and intelligence services
:16:20. > :16:24.need enables them to keep ahead of the enemy. But we're speaking of who
:16:25. > :16:28.will give authorisation, you agree on that level. But shouldn't be a
:16:29. > :16:34.judge or should be the Home Secretary of the I'm queer, I think
:16:35. > :16:37.it should be the Home Secretary and the bill strikes the right balance
:16:38. > :16:41.with an element of judicial involvement. I was also a barrister
:16:42. > :16:46.and so I have the utmost respect for the rule of law and judicial
:16:47. > :16:49.process. But I think on an issue like this it is right that elected
:16:50. > :16:56.and accountable people have this decision-making power. The point
:16:57. > :17:00.that Keir Starmer is making is it should be someone independent of
:17:01. > :17:03.party politics. I think accountability and Parliamentary
:17:04. > :17:09.scrutiny is more important. Judges as export as they are, are
:17:10. > :17:16.appointed, unelected and so on accountable. I think we need that
:17:17. > :17:20.element. There is a misconception, that the Home Secretary or any other
:17:21. > :17:25.minister will come to Parliament on an individual warrant by Warren
:17:26. > :17:29.paces. That simply will not happen. But it has been happening, she has
:17:30. > :17:36.been looking at individual cases. She has. There are something like
:17:37. > :17:42.2500 warrants per year. Each takes a significant amount of time. So this
:17:43. > :17:47.is a lot of time the Home Secretary has to certify. In truth her team
:17:48. > :17:50.prepare them for her, nothing wrong with that, but that is what happens
:17:51. > :17:54.in reality. But to go past accountability, of course she
:17:55. > :18:00.carries out the function, the point is whether this Home Secretary or
:18:01. > :18:02.any other in truth is accountable in Parliament for individual decisions
:18:03. > :18:06.they make on individual wants, because they do not discuss the city
:18:07. > :18:12.-- the details. Another situation where after the event people look at
:18:13. > :18:16.the warrants and see if they were correctly awarded or not. To have a
:18:17. > :18:22.judge is that better safeguard the future, it does not rule out having
:18:23. > :18:25.that after the event oversight as well. So the idea of different
:18:26. > :18:32.accountabilities is to misunderstand the system as it is now. Is your
:18:33. > :18:35.problem the amount of time the Home Secretary has to devote to it, or
:18:36. > :18:39.that you do not trust her or her team and their judgment? It is not
:18:40. > :18:42.that. It is that this should be a function for an independent judge,
:18:43. > :18:47.when it is this high level of intrusion into privacy. We're
:18:48. > :18:52.looking at a new law, a new settlement, we need robust
:18:53. > :18:56.safeguards. Other countries do it in this way and it is perfectly
:18:57. > :18:59.workable and a better system. It is a better system says Keir Starmer
:19:00. > :19:03.and David Davis, one of your colleagues in Parliament. And he is
:19:04. > :19:06.not alone. There are other Conservative MPs who want the
:19:07. > :19:12.judicial authorisation because he says if not included, you will not
:19:13. > :19:15.get the bill through. I think this does come down to the original point
:19:16. > :19:19.I made, when I meet my constituents and they ask what I'm doing about
:19:20. > :19:25.this terror threat, I want to be able to say, Parliamentary Southern
:19:26. > :19:30.treat should allow us to be able to say we are doing something, not
:19:31. > :19:34.judges behind closed does. It is right that this power does allow
:19:35. > :19:38.that. There is an investigatory Powers commission, a panel of senior
:19:39. > :19:43.judges, which will have some element of involvement. So I think it
:19:44. > :19:47.strikes a balance. This is in-line with three independent reports, the
:19:48. > :19:51.intelligence and Security committee has suggested that powers should be
:19:52. > :19:55.investigated. Would you not have a system that is not actually
:19:56. > :19:58.compounds of a fully transparent, the very things you criticised at
:19:59. > :20:03.the beginning about the current situation, that you would have
:20:04. > :20:05.judges involved in some decisions. Even the Home Secretary said she
:20:06. > :20:11.must devote a certain amount of time every single day to this, she's
:20:12. > :20:15.distracted by other issues as well. Would it not be better to have
:20:16. > :20:18.judges take on that role question mark no, because of the lack of
:20:19. > :20:20.accountability. There are appointed and not directly legitimately
:20:21. > :20:27.connected to Parliamentary sovereignty. In what circumstances
:20:28. > :20:31.could you see the Home Secretary answering questions in Parliament on
:20:32. > :20:36.individual warrant issues she may or may not have authorised. I cannot
:20:37. > :20:41.think of any. There are situations where the Home Secretary has been
:20:42. > :20:44.transparent. Give us some of those examples where we would expect to
:20:45. > :20:48.hear her opening up about the decisions she has made. The point is
:20:49. > :20:52.these applications will be made to the right processes, a decision will
:20:53. > :20:57.be within her remit and is the commission, a body of senior judges
:20:58. > :21:02.which has some oversight. I think that strikes the right balance. It
:21:03. > :21:05.does not give this power exclusively to judges and there is an
:21:06. > :21:09.element... Ragusi is the right of individuals but it is qualified by
:21:10. > :21:12.the interests of national security. I think it is right that the elected
:21:13. > :21:17.officials and government and executive power has a large stake in
:21:18. > :21:20.the decision. Do you think it will not pass through Parliament is does
:21:21. > :21:25.not prove judicial authorisation in this? I think robust safeguards are
:21:26. > :21:30.really important and without them it will not go through. But it is not
:21:31. > :21:34.just a question of whether for instance there are more votes on
:21:35. > :21:40.this side of the other, if we are to get this right this will be a
:21:41. > :21:45.framework for the future. Getting a bit and getting people agreed on it
:21:46. > :21:48.is a prize worth having because we can all then move forward with
:21:49. > :21:54.consensus. I think in this important area, to get consensus about the
:21:55. > :21:58.approach is really worth having. Weldon was not consensus at the
:21:59. > :22:01.moment. We will see what is included in the bill when presented to
:22:02. > :22:06.Parliament. So what do the public make of it all? We have been out on
:22:07. > :22:14.the streets with mood box. Mission impossible.
:22:15. > :22:23.It is complicated business, spying, especially when politicians start to
:22:24. > :22:28.get involved. Theresa May is announcing full details of a new
:22:29. > :22:30.survey of balls on Wednesday that they have already come under plenty
:22:31. > :22:33.of criticism. This morning we're asking people what they think is
:22:34. > :22:48.more important, or privacy. Security. I would rather be safe. I
:22:49. > :22:51.have nothing to be private about. I believe security is more important
:22:52. > :23:01.than previously. You have thought about this. Yes.
:23:02. > :23:07.I think they go hand in hand. But covert surveillance is not good for
:23:08. > :23:10.anyone. Unless you're planning on doing something bad. I would have to
:23:11. > :23:19.agree with both. You cannot agree with both on our programme! OK, I
:23:20. > :23:25.will put it in for privacy. I would prefer to be safe. Not worried about
:23:26. > :23:34.people slipping? Whatever, do what you want!
:23:35. > :23:40.We always make excuses for Security and things like that and that
:23:41. > :23:54.becomes invasive. I like my privacy. Pay attention, 007! It seems to
:23:55. > :24:02.suggest it is roughly even. I guess it is a human right to be able to
:24:03. > :24:05.pretty much do what you want within the bounds of the law and not worry
:24:06. > :24:15.about someone watching over your shoulder. I am equal. You have to
:24:16. > :24:23.make a decision. Security. There is no point in being private if you are
:24:24. > :24:31.dead. I think privacy. It is easy? That? It is really good to have the
:24:32. > :24:38.sea. If the government is asking I would say privacy, their presence of
:24:39. > :24:46.security is not mine. -- their version. I do not like the idea of
:24:47. > :24:51.security tramping privacy but in the current circumstances it may need to
:24:52. > :24:53.be done. Well it would seem people are equally worried about their
:24:54. > :24:56.security as they are their privacy. Better be careful, this mood box
:24:57. > :25:09.will self-destruct in five seconds! With us now, Joe Twyman
:25:10. > :25:21.from the pollsters YouGov. Our very own 007 in this case. Even
:25:22. > :25:26.Stevens in that nonscientific mood box but generally the polls show
:25:27. > :25:29.that public accelerates pars. It depends, if you are asking about
:25:30. > :25:34.anti-terrorist powers, should security services and police have
:25:35. > :25:37.powers to track terrorists stop them doing naughty things, yes a
:25:38. > :25:43.majority, although only a small majority, approve of that. Whereas
:25:44. > :25:46.around one third people say they oppose it. If you ask about the
:25:47. > :25:51.general principle you find about four in ten people oppose and around
:25:52. > :25:54.three in ten support it. So the situation varies depending on what
:25:55. > :25:58.you ask. If you ask about local councils being able to check on
:25:59. > :26:03.recycling and things like that then support falls away. So we're talking
:26:04. > :26:08.about that say for arguments sake, serious issues. Has that changed or
:26:09. > :26:13.shifted in the wake of the Snowdon revelations? It does not appear to
:26:14. > :26:19.have done. The general mood seems to be maintained. It is to do with the
:26:20. > :26:22.fear of terrorist atrocities. People fear for their security. And they're
:26:23. > :26:28.willing to make certain sacrifices in terms of the country to maintain
:26:29. > :26:34.that. What about levels of understanding in terms of new powers
:26:35. > :26:38.that could grant authorities to look at not just how many calls you have
:26:39. > :26:43.made or which sites you have logged onto, but the content of some of
:26:44. > :26:49.that communication? People really do not understand these things, they
:26:50. > :26:53.have brought ideas, as your video piece showed, whether it is privacy
:26:54. > :27:00.or security. They do not have a good idea about nuances. They do have an
:27:01. > :27:03.idea about who they trust with these things, they trust the security
:27:04. > :27:09.services, MI6, the most. Two thirds of trust, the police only about half
:27:10. > :27:13.an politicians even fewer. So this argument that the Home Secretary
:27:14. > :27:16.could continue to be the person with authorisation on warrants being
:27:17. > :27:22.issued would be less popular than for instance a judge? We do not have
:27:23. > :27:29.data on that, in one sense it would be correct but people do like
:27:30. > :27:32.politicians being a safeguard as well. It is a complicated situation
:27:33. > :27:36.and perhaps not entirely coherent. What about government being in tune
:27:37. > :27:43.with public opinion on this issue, do you think there is an argument
:27:44. > :27:46.now for the government crossing the line in terms of havoc opinion but
:27:47. > :27:48.it is by no means overwhelming. Around 53% of people said they
:27:49. > :27:55.supported. That is in no way substantial. -- public opinion. But
:27:56. > :27:58.with curve -- was Conservative supporters it rises to three
:27:59. > :28:02.quarters. So maybe the Conservative Party is looking at its base and
:28:03. > :28:05.thinking that this great support comes from. What about public
:28:06. > :28:09.support for injury -- for individual types of interception such as phone
:28:10. > :28:12.hacking. Again people do not have much idea what that means, are you
:28:13. > :28:18.talking about voice phone, smartphone interceptions? It gets
:28:19. > :28:22.really complicated. Generally when you ask about paedophiles or
:28:23. > :28:26.terrorists, they say yes. But what about you, people say no. Jeremy
:28:27. > :28:30.Corbyn has spoken out previously about these kind of powers or a
:28:31. > :28:34.further extension of powers to intrude into people's lives. He will
:28:35. > :28:39.not support this bill either way? The position of arguing that a new
:28:40. > :28:44.law is needed with strong safeguards is the Labour Party position. I
:28:45. > :28:50.think Jeremy took a position on previous Acts of Parliament. It
:28:51. > :28:55.chimes very much with the findings, most people rightly think that
:28:56. > :28:59.surveillance should be targeted at those who need to be identified. But
:29:00. > :29:04.should not be general and should not apply to the public in general and
:29:05. > :29:08.them in particular. But of course the argument is raised is that there
:29:09. > :29:12.would be fishing expeditions and people would be able to browse into
:29:13. > :29:15.areas not necessarily a threat to national security. What would you do
:29:16. > :29:20.Jeremy Corbyn says that Labour would this bill? The Labour Party will
:29:21. > :29:28.decide, we are in conversations with Jeremy about this. The position I
:29:29. > :29:33.set out today, it is very clear and is in favour of a new law
:29:34. > :29:36.safeguards. What has Jeremy Corbyn said to you in those conversations
:29:37. > :29:39.question that we had discussions with Jeremy. The discussions this
:29:40. > :29:44.week and have been going on behind the scenes in the Tory party
:29:45. > :29:48.probably. We are clear in our position, that support powers where
:29:49. > :29:54.they are needed but have rubber safeguards. That has not been
:29:55. > :29:59.controversial for us. Probably there has been more difficulty on the
:30:00. > :30:03.other side. Well you have not got your side on board with this? I
:30:04. > :30:08.don't know about that. I think it is clear how Jeremy Corbyn will vote,
:30:09. > :30:16.he has voted against all the legislation... What about the David
:30:17. > :30:20.Davis opinion and people who agree with him on the Tory side? I think
:30:21. > :30:24.this legislation comes on the basis of three independent reviews. The
:30:25. > :30:30.Anderson review, the intelligence Security committee report and Royal
:30:31. > :30:33.United securities Institute report, they all feed into this. There will
:30:34. > :30:36.be free legislative committees and heightened scrutiny of this bill
:30:37. > :30:38.everyone can have a say. Now, workers across the Country
:30:39. > :30:41.have gathered in Westminster to protest against the Government's
:30:42. > :30:43.proposed changes to laws governing And in
:30:44. > :30:46.an attempt to win people round to their cause, this morning the TUC
:30:47. > :30:49.launched a new advertising campaign, I work in the Essex Fire and
:30:50. > :30:59.Rescue Service control room. The reason we have had to go
:31:00. > :31:03.on strike recently is because the management board have changed our
:31:04. > :31:07.hours, meaning the family work-life balance has just really messed up
:31:08. > :31:10.the staff's lives, basically. Myself, I don't want to be job
:31:11. > :31:13.shared but I've had to go to a job share position, meaning I've
:31:14. > :31:16.had to take a big pay cut. The Fire Service wouldn't be
:31:17. > :31:19.where it is today without us We have kept stations from closing,
:31:20. > :31:23.jobs from being lost. It's so important that people
:31:24. > :31:28.have the right to strike. Everyone should have the right to
:31:29. > :31:31.stand up and have their voice heard. And the TUC General Secretary,
:31:32. > :31:43.Frances O'Grady is with us now. Welcome back. The new advertising
:31:44. > :31:47.campaign features three women, a cinema worker, a firefighter and a
:31:48. > :31:53.midwife. Is there an acceptance in your opinion that the trade union
:31:54. > :31:57.movement needs an image makeover? It is a reflection of reality because
:31:58. > :32:03.the majority of members are women now. In terms of the government's
:32:04. > :32:08.Bill, this Coney and Bill attacking the principle of the right to
:32:09. > :32:17.strike, it will be women on the front line -- this Draconian Bill.
:32:18. > :32:21.We will that do Suella Fernandes in a moment that you have complained
:32:22. > :32:26.that the government is trapped in a Thatcherite perception of what a
:32:27. > :32:31.trade union member is. Do people have a misconception about trade
:32:32. > :32:34.unions and their members? There are still these old stereotypes
:32:35. > :32:38.including about strikes and that is why it was important to tell the
:32:39. > :32:44.stories about why people took that big last resort decision to go on
:32:45. > :32:50.strike. The midwife who just wanted her 1% that she was awarded by an
:32:51. > :32:53.independent pay review body but the government rejected or those
:32:54. > :32:58.firefighters who want to keep local stations open with huge support from
:32:59. > :33:04.local communities or the worker fighting for a living wage. When you
:33:05. > :33:09.think of a typical trade union member, are you thinking of those
:33:10. > :33:14.people? I think the trade unions provide such a vital service in our
:33:15. > :33:18.Society for industrial relations and standing up for workers rights and
:33:19. > :33:22.effecting positive change so it is right that the right to strike is
:33:23. > :33:27.respected but it has to be balanced with a democratic process and the
:33:28. > :33:34.impact on normal men and women going about their daily lives. These are
:33:35. > :33:39.normal men and women. Of course, that the impact of strikes is
:33:40. > :33:45.sometimes disproportionate. The NHS strike last summer was on the basis
:33:46. > :33:50.of 19% of union workers who voted for it and participated so there is
:33:51. > :33:55.a minority of people who are voting for a strike which is effecting a
:33:56. > :34:00.large majority. Not in all strikes. But that is the crux. That is what
:34:01. > :34:05.the government is saying, that it is not balanced and there are not
:34:06. > :34:09.enough people alerted to justify it. The government admits that the
:34:10. > :34:15.majority of ballots would meet the new thresholds it wants to introduce
:34:16. > :34:20.but especially in workforce that are dispersed and at a time when postal
:34:21. > :34:24.balloting is seen as pretty 20th century and it is only unions that
:34:25. > :34:30.are forced to use it, if we want to improve turnout, it was the right to
:34:31. > :34:32.vote electronically online just as the Conservative Party used for the
:34:33. > :34:38.selection of London mayor candidates. Why won't you do that?
:34:39. > :34:42.There are a lot of measures in the trade union Bill and they have been
:34:43. > :34:49.through a reading in Parliament and there has been a lot of input. In
:34:50. > :34:54.terms of the mechanisms, there needs to be a robust basis for it. At the
:34:55. > :35:00.moment, it is not properly carried out. There is a disproportionately
:35:01. > :35:07.small number of people participating in these votes... Not in all votes.
:35:08. > :35:10.If I take you through the Bill, permitting employers to substitute
:35:11. > :35:13.agency workers for strikers in industrial action as well as
:35:14. > :35:19.requiring a minimum 50% turnout in all strike Al-Aqsa find on unions if
:35:20. > :35:21.their picket supervises repeatedly fail to wear an official armband. Is
:35:22. > :35:32.it necessary? It is the list of other things that
:35:33. > :35:36.will make strikes almost impossible. I wouldn't say that, I think those
:35:37. > :35:41.are necessary for reasons of legitimacy. There were over 1
:35:42. > :35:45.million working days lost through teachers strike in the last
:35:46. > :35:52.five-year scum are how can it be justified? You are proposing to lift
:35:53. > :35:59.a 40 year ban. -- in the last five years.
:36:00. > :36:06.The public are worried about the safety and training implications.
:36:07. > :36:11.Even if we meet all of those tests, you would make that strike pointless
:36:12. > :36:15.because an employer could replace us wholesale with agency workers. Would
:36:16. > :36:19.you agree to a higher minimum turnout in the other parts of that
:36:20. > :36:26.built were not there? International law says you should not treat
:36:27. > :36:31.abstentions as no votes. We want to improve turnout as well because that
:36:32. > :36:35.strengthens our arm in negotiations with employers so we are saying,
:36:36. > :36:42.give us the right to vote electronically and we know it can be
:36:43. > :36:45.independently supervised, safe and secure, as the electoral reform
:36:46. > :36:52.services have said it would be. Then we can all be happy. If it goes
:36:53. > :36:57.through, would you support action that they will go ahead and take a
:36:58. > :37:03.legal strike action? The reality is that we are going to see a midwife
:37:04. > :37:08.forgetting to wear her armband fined ?20,000 come we're going to create
:37:09. > :37:14.situations where people are forced not to comply with the law and that
:37:15. > :37:20.sounds like a bad law and a bad bill that needs rethinking. Thank you.
:37:21. > :37:22.Now what's in store for us this week?
:37:23. > :37:24.Later today the Public Accounts Committee will hear evidence from
:37:25. > :37:27.senior Civil Servants about the closure of the Kids Company charity.
:37:28. > :37:29.The Chancellor, George Osborne, travels to Berlin for talks
:37:30. > :37:32.on the UK's plans to renegotiate its relationship with the
:37:33. > :37:39.And Parliament will vote on proposed new planning laws.
:37:40. > :37:42.Tomorrow, a memorial service will be held for the late Liberal Democrat
:37:43. > :37:47.On Wednesday, David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn will face each
:37:48. > :37:51.other across the Despatch Box for their weekly session of PMQs.
:37:52. > :37:54.And thousands of students are expected to take to the streets
:37:55. > :38:00.And on Thursday, junior doctors in England will be
:38:01. > :38:05.balloted on industrial action over changes to their pay and contracts.
:38:06. > :38:08.Let's talk now to the Political Editor of the Sun, Tom Newton Dunn
:38:09. > :38:23.Welcome to both of you. Let's talk about George Osborne going to
:38:24. > :38:29.Berlin. Our number ten and number 11 panicking over these negotiations?
:38:30. > :38:34.We don't know for sure but I have a strong suspicion they might be. They
:38:35. > :38:39.have a problem and a considerable one in that they have lost control
:38:40. > :38:43.of the process. A lot of activity over the summer when David Cameron
:38:44. > :38:48.jumped around European capitals to prove he would crack a deal as soon
:38:49. > :38:52.as possible. George Osborne followed suit and did a lot of jetsetting
:38:53. > :38:56.around Europe and then it went quiet. The government did not say
:38:57. > :39:00.very much because they were not getting much from their EU
:39:01. > :39:05.compatriots. That was because they did not want to put anything down in
:39:06. > :39:11.writing because people like us would say they would not get what they
:39:12. > :39:16.asked for. In that time, the Leave campaign launched, perhaps more
:39:17. > :39:21.successfully than the main campaign, and it feels like it is slipping
:39:22. > :39:25.from their grasp. The polls are moving away from staying in and they
:39:26. > :39:30.need to regain momentum in time for ideal at the EU Council in December
:39:31. > :39:35.which looks pretty unlikely, but certainly to get public opinion act
:39:36. > :39:40.to look like they know what they are doing which what George Osborne
:39:41. > :39:46.hopes to do tomorrow. Isn't the problem that some of the EU leaders
:39:47. > :39:52.say they still haven't seen any detail or concrete proposals, as
:39:53. > :39:57.people here also say, is that going to be forthcoming? David Cameron has
:39:58. > :40:03.said he will set out what he wants in more detail in a letter, I think
:40:04. > :40:07.next week. We will see more detail at that point but we have some vague
:40:08. > :40:14.areas where we know Downing Street wants to renegotiate. George Osborne
:40:15. > :40:18.will probably be focusing on one tomorrow, which is making sure that
:40:19. > :40:22.written's financial services are protected and that Eurozone
:40:23. > :40:30.countries don't take decisions that effect the UK negatively if they
:40:31. > :40:34.push for closer integration -- Britain's financial services. That
:40:35. > :40:42.might not excite the public too much, it is not something they can
:40:43. > :40:44.bring back from Europe, like immigration or reducing regulation.
:40:45. > :40:51.That is the area that people are interested in. Nigel Farage said
:40:52. > :40:55.yesterday that he would be delighted if the Home Secretary wanted to lead
:40:56. > :40:59.the official campaign for Britain to leave the UK, she obviously resisted
:41:00. > :41:06.on saying anything. What is your thought on that? What she did
:41:07. > :41:11.yesterday was fascinating. Like only she can do. She has this
:41:12. > :41:16.extraordinary deadpan style where she cuts you dead, as she did with
:41:17. > :41:20.Andrew Marr yesterday, and gives nothing away but it also works the
:41:21. > :41:23.other way. When you should be backing the government, saying David
:41:24. > :41:30.Cameron is going to win this and it is going to be good, Theresa May
:41:31. > :41:34.completely failed to say that. Setting a very obvious horse wedding
:41:35. > :41:42.that she might be for out. I don't really leave she is -- a horse
:41:43. > :41:47.running. I think she wants to remain in but she is playing an interesting
:41:48. > :41:53.game, keeping her cards close to her chest and giving herself bargaining
:41:54. > :41:56.power to ask for more from David Cameron, especially on immigration
:41:57. > :41:59.which she and Boris Johnson have been on the record in the past
:42:00. > :42:03.saying they need to get something back on freedom of agreement and
:42:04. > :42:07.that is not on the table at the moment. On the Housing and planning
:42:08. > :42:13.Bill, how controversial Will this be with some Tory backbenchers, forcing
:42:14. > :42:20.councils to sell high-value council homes for other schemes? It was
:42:21. > :42:24.something all Tory MPs welcomed in the election because they thought it
:42:25. > :42:29.was great that they could sell on the doorstep to the swing voters.
:42:30. > :42:32.The problem is, like the tax credits debate, they might be worrying that
:42:33. > :42:37.it is a less popular than they thought and there might be more
:42:38. > :42:41.problems than it Downing Street had first anticipated. It could be
:42:42. > :42:44.another tricky area where David Cameron hasn't quite got the support
:42:45. > :42:51.of his whole party. Thank you very much. Let's pick up on that policy,
:42:52. > :42:55.you support the idea of forcing councils to sell high-value council
:42:56. > :43:03.homes when tenants move on in order to fund either more low rate housing
:43:04. > :43:09.stock or write to buy discounts for housing association tenants? We have
:43:10. > :43:14.a housing crisis of epic proportions and there are people in their 20s
:43:15. > :43:18.and 30s who cannot get onto the housing ladder. The solution is to
:43:19. > :43:22.increase the supply of housing and anyway do that whilst devolving
:43:23. > :43:27.powers to local authorities is the right thing to do. How will that do
:43:28. > :43:32.that? By encouraging local authorities to release their stock,
:43:33. > :43:38.that'll bring the price down and also increase the amount of
:43:39. > :43:44.affordable housing. How will it increase the number of affordable
:43:45. > :43:47.homes if you are getting rid of, particularly in expensive areas,
:43:48. > :43:53.where it is difficult to afford homes unless you have a big income,
:43:54. > :43:59.how is getting rid of council homes going to help that? There is also
:44:00. > :44:05.provision in the framework for replenishment of stock and we
:44:06. > :44:10.heard, with the selling of council houses, they will be dubbed unabated
:44:11. > :44:13.whereby the most expensive houses, particularly in London, are released
:44:14. > :44:21.for sale and were punished with additional stock. This is so unreal.
:44:22. > :44:24.In parts of London, in my constituency, we have a massive
:44:25. > :44:30.overcrowding problem, I have families coming to meet every week
:44:31. > :44:33.with parents and children in a one-bedroom flat and however quickly
:44:34. > :44:40.the council tries to build, it cannot provide the units leading. In
:44:41. > :44:46.Camden it would mean selling of a third of the existing stock. In any
:44:47. > :44:51.party, this is a disaster housing for the future. It is so wrong and
:44:52. > :44:56.we should not be lulled into this sense of security that somehow in
:44:57. > :44:59.the long-running... It is a disaster for those families and anybody who
:45:00. > :45:02.wants to make the case should see these families and say to them, not
:45:03. > :45:06.only do you not have somewhere to live now but you will not have one
:45:07. > :45:10.for a very long time for the future. To sell off the stock when you
:45:11. > :45:15.cannot even oust the people in your council is a disaster.
:45:16. > :45:20.We have local authorities in possession of vast amounts of
:45:21. > :45:26.housing stock which is not being efficiently use. This legislation
:45:27. > :45:31.compels them to release that so it is better used, people can own a
:45:32. > :45:34.home, they have a stake in society and we increase home ownership for a
:45:35. > :45:36.whole generation of people. We will discuss this further when this comes
:45:37. > :45:38.before Parliament. Now - each year the House of Commons
:45:39. > :45:41.holds a debate to coincide with But should the same courtesy
:45:42. > :45:45.be extended to men? That was the question posed
:45:46. > :45:48.by the Conservative MP Philip Davies when he appeared in front
:45:49. > :45:50.of the Backbench Business Committee However, his suggestion was met with
:45:51. > :45:54.disbelief by the The opportunity
:45:55. > :46:00.for men to raise issues that are ..Mr Chairman, of the type of
:46:01. > :46:08.things that may came up and which would be part
:46:09. > :46:09.of International Men's Day. I'm not entirely sure why it's
:46:10. > :46:11.so humorous. But to discuss issues such
:46:12. > :46:15.as men's shorter life expectancy, Many of which go unreported through
:46:16. > :46:21.embarrassment of men to sort of go You'll have to excuse me
:46:22. > :46:29.for laughing, but the idea that men don't have the opportunity to ask
:46:30. > :46:32.questions in this place is a frankly laughable thing, I say this as
:46:33. > :46:36.the only woman on this committee. The idea that this chamber,
:46:37. > :46:39.that these Houses, both of them, in any way reflect gender equality
:46:40. > :46:44.is frankly, And Phillip Davies and Jess Phillips
:46:45. > :47:00.join us now from College Green. James Phillips, you say was
:47:01. > :47:07.laughable, do you now regret saying that, was at the right reaction? I
:47:08. > :47:11.stand by the idea that men cannot raise issues in Parliament and do
:47:12. > :47:15.not have enough opportunity, it is obviously ridiculous when so many
:47:16. > :47:22.more men are in Parliament. I think what never gets played in this clip
:47:23. > :47:25.is the part where I ask for a point of order to explicitly state that I
:47:26. > :47:30.do care about the issues that men face. Do not have enough
:47:31. > :47:35.opportunity, Philip Davies? You just have to look at the numbers. There
:47:36. > :47:38.is a difference between how many men there are in Parliament and a debate
:47:39. > :47:42.about men's issues which are also of interest not just to men but a lot
:47:43. > :47:46.of women are concerned as well. If you think about the issues are
:47:47. > :47:50.raised, high suicide rates amongst men, the low achievement of boys in
:47:51. > :47:55.schools, the health problems that do not get reported like testicular
:47:56. > :48:02.cancer, the underreporting of male domestic violence, fathers getting
:48:03. > :48:10.access to their children... You have had your say. All those things, if
:48:11. > :48:15.you look in Parliament, they rarely get debated. And they've are real
:48:16. > :48:19.issues. If Jess is saying these issues could be debated at other
:48:20. > :48:27.times, the same thing applies to issues around International women's
:48:28. > :48:31.Day. We have monthly questions about women in Parliament so if she is
:48:32. > :48:35.going to say to people we want a debate on International women's Day
:48:36. > :48:38.and she will say you do not need one because there are other
:48:39. > :48:51.opportunities to raise this, it would be entirely consistent. I did
:48:52. > :48:54.not deprive Philip Davies or the men in Parliament of this debate. Mr
:48:55. > :48:57.Davies failed to fill in the form correctly put up it may well still
:48:58. > :49:04.get through. And you would support it? I cannot say I think there is a
:49:05. > :49:09.need for International Men's Day debate. I am happy and I'm committed
:49:10. > :49:13.to raising a debate on male suicide, on young boys achieving
:49:14. > :49:18.schools. These are both things I have personal experience of and see
:49:19. > :49:21.everyday my constituency. That is not what was asked for, what was
:49:22. > :49:26.asked for was a mealy-mouthed, well, the girls get one... Is that what
:49:27. > :49:31.you really were asking for, just tit-for-tat, because there would be
:49:32. > :49:35.opportunities to raise individual issues like the worrying issue of
:49:36. > :49:40.high suicide rates amongst young men and underachievement in school, that
:49:41. > :49:44.could be done aside from having a International Men's Day? I just gave
:49:45. > :49:49.a huge range of issues that affect man but rarely get debated in
:49:50. > :49:53.parliament. A debate for temporary would allow these issues to be
:49:54. > :49:56.raised during the course of one debate in a simple way. I was on the
:49:57. > :50:00.fact badge business committee 40 years will be granted debates on
:50:01. > :50:05.International women's Day. All I'm saying is I do not think the spirit
:50:06. > :50:12.of gender equality, I cannot see what the objection is to debate the
:50:13. > :50:16.legitimate issues with a prime opportunity, to coincide with
:50:17. > :50:20.International Men's Day on the 19th of November. I would suggest you put
:50:21. > :50:25.in for a debate with an actual motion so the government has to do
:50:26. > :50:31.something. For example the poorer targeted services for men in mental
:50:32. > :50:36.health services, with a motion. But I suspect you might talk it out much
:50:37. > :50:42.as you did with the carers who asked for your help on Friday. Well voting
:50:43. > :50:47.on other issues, your voting record in general, are there other ways in
:50:48. > :50:52.other debates, to bring these issues to light and heavy voted in favour
:50:53. > :51:02.of these in the past? I always vote in favour of true equality. Did you
:51:03. > :51:06.vote for gay marriage? I do not agree with it so why would I vote
:51:07. > :51:09.for something I do not agree with. If we were to get into that debate,
:51:10. > :51:15.it has nothing to do with quality. You could have a civil partnerships
:51:16. > :51:25.and marriage for gay people, it is not the quality. So Jess has a
:51:26. > :51:29.strange view of the quality. You have a very basic view of equality.
:51:30. > :51:36.It is about opportunity. What does International women's Day actually
:51:37. > :51:41.achieve? International women's Day is a long held day, I had never been
:51:42. > :51:45.in Parliament when it was International women's Day so I have
:51:46. > :51:50.no idea what happens in the debate in Parliament. But it is about
:51:51. > :51:55.recognising that women internationally faced terrible
:51:56. > :52:01.inequalities. Issues like the awful rates in India, issues around back
:52:02. > :52:08.but in Africa the average age for a woman to get married is 14. These
:52:09. > :52:11.are issues that we want to stand as sisters shoulder to shoulder across
:52:12. > :52:19.the world and said we do not accept it. And that is what you want for
:52:20. > :52:24.men that Davis, an exact replica of that debate around the world as you
:52:25. > :52:26.might there are issues that affect women and I have taken part in
:52:27. > :52:33.debates before on International women's Day. Thank you for your
:52:34. > :52:37.sorority! All I ask is we have real equality and I do not know what Jess
:52:38. > :52:43.is so worried about allowing these men's issues to be debated. Well I
:52:44. > :52:47.look forward to seeing both of you in that debate when it happens. If
:52:48. > :52:53.it ever happens. Thank you to both of you. Should there be an
:52:54. > :52:58.international men stayed debate? I have sympathy for that view, I think
:52:59. > :53:03.there is a serious problem of male suicide and mental health issues,
:53:04. > :53:09.addiction, conditions in prison. I think talking about those in no way
:53:10. > :53:13.detracts from the plight of women in our society. Jess... Right about the
:53:14. > :53:18.gender imbalance in Parliament, it is there in the judiciary and in our
:53:19. > :53:26.profession and we have got to face up to that. There are also issues
:53:27. > :53:31.women face. So should there be a International Men's Day debate? I do
:53:32. > :53:36.not have a strong view on that, I do accept that on men's physical or
:53:37. > :53:43.mental health, these are issues we do need to discuss. Also role models
:53:44. > :53:47.for young men. I'm neither for or against that debate, I do not think
:53:48. > :53:51.that is the main issue. But they said to the issues that need to be
:53:52. > :53:52.debated rather than a facile debate about whether we need a particular
:53:53. > :53:54.day. Now do you care about what
:53:55. > :53:57.politicians got up to in their past? Or even if they believe in God,
:53:58. > :53:59.or not? Yesterday the Conservative MP James
:54:00. > :54:02.Cleverly was pretty candid about his private life, when he appeared
:54:03. > :54:04.on Five Live's Pienaar's Politics. I had a little dabble with
:54:05. > :54:17.marijuana at University. It's a waste of money,
:54:18. > :54:25.waste of time. It's not very good
:54:26. > :54:27.for your future prospects. When was the last time,
:54:28. > :54:30.if there was one, you made yourself Now that is a very,
:54:31. > :54:33.very long time ago, actually. Well you didn't say last week
:54:34. > :54:40.in the bar. What did private school do for you
:54:41. > :54:43.that Well, my mum, from Sierra Leone,
:54:44. > :54:48.flatly refused to let me go to She believed quality
:54:49. > :54:51.of education is really important. It was in south-east London,
:54:52. > :54:57.ethnically mixed demographic. But it really showed me that
:54:58. > :55:01.a lot of people make a lot of personal sacrifices
:55:02. > :55:03.for the benefit of their children. And that is something I
:55:04. > :55:05.feel very strongly about. It wasn't the answer to the
:55:06. > :55:08.question, but I'm going to move on. Isabel Oakshotte, the author and
:55:09. > :55:33.chief hitwoman against David Who should be the next leader
:55:34. > :55:37.of the Tory party? I'm going to do the Nicky Morgan
:55:38. > :55:43.defence on this one. I think it's now going to be
:55:44. > :55:46.called the Nicky Morgan defence. If you had to be
:55:47. > :56:07.in another political party, We will not do those exact same
:56:08. > :56:14.questions, did you find that profession or shopping? James is a
:56:15. > :56:16.friend of mine and I think he is a good sport for going along with
:56:17. > :56:22.those questions. But I think there is a line to be drawn. Politicians
:56:23. > :56:24.are people, vegetables, we have a valid life and media have a
:56:25. > :56:29.responsibility to tailor the questions appropriately. Really but
:56:30. > :56:34.you might should he have answered them as honestly as he did? I think
:56:35. > :56:39.it is his own choice. It was a light-hearted interview and he was
:56:40. > :56:42.happy with that. But I think there is such a thing as too much
:56:43. > :56:47.information. What was more shocking, admitting using online porn, or
:56:48. > :56:55.wanting to snog Theresa May? Not for me to say! He was prepared to answer
:56:56. > :57:00.those questions in that way, I think it is sporting of him. What would
:57:01. > :57:05.you have done M last time I came on this show you asked if I wanted to
:57:06. > :57:09.be Prime Minister. I was rather worried that you were going to ask
:57:10. > :57:14.about my private life. Have you something good to tell us! Some
:57:15. > :57:18.politicians and the public need to know everything they do in their
:57:19. > :57:25.private life, I'm not in that camp. Others value privacy and that is
:57:26. > :57:28.where I am. Some people would put anything about their private life
:57:29. > :57:32.out there are over again. That is up to them. It is their choice. Do you
:57:33. > :57:37.think that the public are interested in what you guys get up to in the
:57:38. > :57:43.past? I do not think it is relevant to the job. But do you think that
:57:44. > :57:47.they are interested M I do not think it is that interesting, frankly.
:57:48. > :57:51.What people care about is how we are going to sort out the issues of the
:57:52. > :57:57.day. What we are going to do about terrorism or housing and tax
:57:58. > :58:02.credits. I think what you did 20 years ago is irrelevant. You do not
:58:03. > :58:07.think people care? I do not think they are bothered. I think they find
:58:08. > :58:10.it amusing on occasion. At the end of the day I think they do judge
:58:11. > :58:15.people by what they actually do. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn has what it
:58:16. > :58:21.takes to be a good by Minister? Yes, I think he has shown that he has won
:58:22. > :58:22.a mandate. That is fine. That is good.
:58:23. > :58:25.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:26. > :58:27.The question was which new club has David Cameron joined?
:58:28. > :58:29.a) Mark's Private Members Club in Mayfair.
:58:30. > :58:47.The National Liberal club. I will go for the first one. Mark's Private
:58:48. > :58:48.Members Club in Mayfair. You right, it is Mark's Private Members Club in
:58:49. > :58:48.Mayfair. The one o'clock news is
:58:49. > :58:53.starting over on BBC One now. I'll be here at noon tomorrow with
:58:54. > :58:57.all the big political stories