02/11/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/11/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



those temperatures. Between ten and 16 Celsius. Very mild.


Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Should the police and the intelligence agencies have


a right to know what we're looking at on the internet if it means it


The government will this week attempt to re-introduce a modified


version of what its critics called "the snoopers' charter".


The Home Office says several contentious proposals from the


Labour in Scotland vote to scrap Britain's nuclear weapons system.


That's in tune with what Jeremy Corbyn thinks, but not


There's a fair amount of men in the House of Commons, I expect


With International Mens Day around the corner, we'll be asking


And we demand total honesty from our politicians.


All that in the next hour and with us for the duration


of today's programme, the Conservative MP Suella Fernandes


Now first today let's talk about Labour and Trident,


because yesterday delegates at the Scottish Labour conference


in Perth voted overwhelmingly to oppose the renewal of Britain's


It means Scottish Labour is at odds with the view of its own leader,


Kezia Dugdale, and with the policy of the UK Labour Party as a whole.


The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, remains opposed to nuclear weapons.


Let's talk now to the BBC's Assistant Political Editor,


It is a very confusing picture. I suspect people to heads are


spinning. We have a different policy north of the border to south of the


border, a different stance from the leader north of the border to south


of the border, the app! Unite union, the Scottish section wants to


get rid of Trident. The national position is to only to do so if


there are other jobs for those employed in the nuclear industry.


Those around Mr Corbyn say the decision yesterday by the Scottish


Conference is significant because it will feed into the whole policy


review Labour is undertaking and their hope is that it will shift


opinion in his direction. You talk to other members of the said cabinet


and they say it is irrelevant. Policy is made by the National party


and the National policy Forum so we don't have to worry about what the


Scottish party thinks. It is hugely confusing. What it tells us is that


the vote on Trident, the stance on Trident, as almost become an emerald


attic vote about where Labour stands and its heart and soul. Will it


become an unashamedly left-wing unilateralist party or will it


retain a more mainstream stance? The forces are coalescing and we are


still waiting for a resolution to this. If you took moderates, they


are, and there will not be a change in position, but those more Subotic


to Mr Corbyn believe the tide is moving in their direction. That grew


more sympathetic. It will be implemented it -- emblem attic. When


will there be a settled position for Labour on the whole as to whether


the Trident system should be renewed? This is also bizarre. It


seems they're almost certainly will not be a conclusion to their policy


review until after, after the Commons as voted on whether to


replace Trident. Hypothetically, was Jeremy Corbyn to win the day and the


party decided they would not support it, it would be to late because the


Commons would have voted. Those around Mr Fallon say there could be


a vote later this year. More likely in the summer of next year. The


policy review from Labour and any new policy position on Trident I am


told would take at least two years, well after the Commons as voted so


you would have the bizarre situation that by the next election, if Mr


Corbyn is still leader and has managed to change the position on


Trident, it could be irrelevant because the money to change the


position on Trident, it could be irrelevant because the money could


Trident. Thank you very much. Keir Starmer, a Labour leader in Scotland


who disagrees with the Scottish party and a UK Labour leader who


agreed with the Scottish party but not the majority of his Shadow


Cabinet and MPs. It's chaos. It is a debate that is going on. We have


just seen the clip with the different positions but the


important thing is that the debate is happening. For a long time we


were not discussing Trident as a party or a country. There is an


important vote next year and it is important we have a debate before


the vote. There is nothing wrong with the debate and has Ishant being


taken. What is important is that those in favour of tried and make


their case and those against also do so -- and a position has been taken.


Where do you stand? I will take a decision when the vote is called


probably next year, on the evidence that is available. This should not


be treated as party political or points scoring. It is about 50 years


worth of defence for this country, it is Syria's decision to be taken


on the available evidence -- serious decision. But the party is split. It


is an important principle, different people take different views and we


should respect that. We should do it on the basis of the available


evidence and the vote will come next year. Should Jeremy Corbyn be bound


by the current party policy or the view of the Parliamentary party on


this issue? Once the party has a view, we should all hold back.


Jeremy has always had a clear view on that. At odds with a lot of the


Shadow Cabinet. We are having a debate and it is a necessary debate.


We can't say beforehand that you can't have a particular position but


we should try to get a consensus and hold to it. This is an important


national decision about 50 years worth of difference. What about


indications from Jeremy Corbyn's aids who are saying that he will use


the Scottish vote, despite many in the lead the party saying it is


irrelevant, he will use that to attempt to change party policy?


Anybody who is making the argument against Trident is bound to point to


the vote in Scotland. Those that take a different view would do the


same if it went the other way. We can't go into this artificially and


say we need a debate but we can't put points forward or say this is


the support in a particular part of the country. Of course Jeremy and


others are entitled to point to what has happened in Scotland but


equally, the other case as to be heard. Kezia Dugdale has said she


wants a more independent Scottish Labour Party. Do you see trouble


down the line if the party really splits on issues like this? It is


inevitable, as we evolve more and more issues, that you will get


different versions and approaches in different countries -- as we


devolve. There was nothing wrong with different people taking


different views. Would you be happy with the two parties taking


different views? In the end we need an agreed national position. As we


go from where we are now to that position, it is right for people to


express their views. If the Scottish Labour Party stays with its position


against Trident and the UK party as a whole votes to keep it, they will


have to abide, in your view, to what the UK National party says? Yes, I


think there has to be one position. What about the timing? It's not


going to happen for two years. There is clearly a difficulty, we don't


know when the boat will be. It's not going to be in two years. -- when


the vote will be. It does not look like you can resolve that. It looks


like it will be difficult, I accept that. But if it is possible to


resolve it, that is the best outcome. But if it isn't then it


would be the current Labour Party policy and would you expect Jeremy


Corbyn to stick by that and encourage MPs to vote on current


party policy? On an issue as important as this, I would expect


all MPs to vote with the party policy. Before any decision or


position is gone through by Labour? And less -- unless and until it


changes. Is it good to see a debate going on like this? The question is


what the Labour Party's position is all stop it is never been more


important that we have a nuclear deterrent. In Scotland there is a


leader at odds with the party and in England, a leader not supported by


the party again. Most of the front bench support renewal, the manifesto


supported renewal. It is sad that on an issue as important as this, party


politics has ruined the debate. Labour politicians of the past


argued vociferously in favour of nuclear armament and now it has


become reduced party politics. Because there is a debate, it


doesn't become reduced. There is nothing wrong with a political party


having a debate. It is obviously a big issue and we have to try to


resolve it. How does it make Labour look to the public at large if it


takes two years to make a decision? I would step back from that. There


is a decision to be taken and the fact that a political party is


discussing the right approach is a good thing and we should not suggest


there is anything wrong with it. We've learnt in the latest register


of members interests that David Cameron has become a member of a new


club, where does he find the time? So our question for today is,


what's he joined? A) Mark's Private Members Club


in Mayfair. At the end of the show Keir


and Suella will give us The Investigatory Powers Bill is due


to be presented to Parliament The new bill is the latest


in a series of attempts to update the law to


allow police and security services It replaces the


Communications Data Bill, dubbed the Snoopers' Charter, that failed to


make it through Parliament in the last session because of opposition


from the Liberal Democrats. With more and more communication


taking place online and through social media rather than


on the phone, the government says new powers are needed to allow spies


to access information Police sources expect the new bill


to require communications companies to retain data on the websites


people have visited for a year. But the government says they will


not be granting powers to go through It has also been rumoured that,


under the new legislation, spies will be able to hack


into smartphones and computers, giving them access to


all the information they contain. Critics of the bill are worried that


the government will decide against giving the judiciary the power to


authorise access to this kind of data and that it will instead be


ministers who have the final say. Conservative MP David Davis has


warned that he doesn't think the bill will get through


Parliament unless judicial But Home Secretary Theresa May says


that many of the "more contentious powers" from the 2012 bill have been


removed and that there will be "world-leading" oversight of


warrants to access digital records. We've looked very carefully


at those arguments. I met communications service


providers, I've met civil liberties groups, and crucially, I've also met


the charities and groups, Who know what it's like


when people suffer from child sexual abuse, child sexual exploitation


and rape, for example. So I'm very clear of the need


for these powers. But I will be setting


out to Parliament... With proper regulation,


proper oversight. I think what the bill will do


on Wednesday, it sets the modern legal framework,


but crucially, it has very strong I think it will be world leading


oversight arrangements within And it will be clearer, more


comprehensive, and comprehensible. Keir Starmer, you want judicial


oversight of these powers but as Theresa May pointed out yesterday,


three independent reviews of these powers came up with different


recommendations. Why do you think that judicial authorisation is


critical? When we are talking about intercepting two mutations, what


we're saying to each other rather pure data, that is a real privacy


issue -- intercepting communications. That is too


important to be left to a politician. The test is whether the


right individual has been targeted and whether it is necessary. Judges


are very familiar with this and totally independent and many are


trained for this purpose. When you talk about the most intrusive


surveillance that goes into our conversations... This is content.


That ought to be judicial. We do need a new law, powers to


carry out duties and functions properly. We need the right


safeguards. Get the balance right and we can agree that this is an


important chance historically but I hope we are not going to blow.


Suella, due agree it has to be judicial authorisation? I think


there is a lack of coherence in the framework and the rules. This


consolidates codes of practice and makes it clear. It is currently


implementable. So this will be transparent and robust. And most


importantly there is an unprecedented threat to our national


security. The head of MI5 said the most serious he has ever seen in his


30 year career. The powers are security and intelligence services


need enables them to keep ahead of the enemy. But we're speaking of who


will give authorisation, you agree on that level. But shouldn't be a


judge or should be the Home Secretary of the I'm queer, I think


it should be the Home Secretary and the bill strikes the right balance


with an element of judicial involvement. I was also a barrister


and so I have the utmost respect for the rule of law and judicial


process. But I think on an issue like this it is right that elected


and accountable people have this decision-making power. The point


that Keir Starmer is making is it should be someone independent of


party politics. I think accountability and Parliamentary


scrutiny is more important. Judges as export as they are, are


appointed, unelected and so on accountable. I think we need that


element. There is a misconception, that the Home Secretary or any other


minister will come to Parliament on an individual warrant by Warren


paces. That simply will not happen. But it has been happening, she has


been looking at individual cases. She has. There are something like


2500 warrants per year. Each takes a significant amount of time. So this


is a lot of time the Home Secretary has to certify. In truth her team


prepare them for her, nothing wrong with that, but that is what happens


in reality. But to go past accountability, of course she


carries out the function, the point is whether this Home Secretary or


any other in truth is accountable in Parliament for individual decisions


they make on individual wants, because they do not discuss the city


-- the details. Another situation where after the event people look at


the warrants and see if they were correctly awarded or not. To have a


judge is that better safeguard the future, it does not rule out having


that after the event oversight as well. So the idea of different


accountabilities is to misunderstand the system as it is now. Is your


problem the amount of time the Home Secretary has to devote to it, or


that you do not trust her or her team and their judgment? It is not


that. It is that this should be a function for an independent judge,


when it is this high level of intrusion into privacy. We're


looking at a new law, a new settlement, we need robust


safeguards. Other countries do it in this way and it is perfectly


workable and a better system. It is a better system says Keir Starmer


and David Davis, one of your colleagues in Parliament. And he is


not alone. There are other Conservative MPs who want the


judicial authorisation because he says if not included, you will not


get the bill through. I think this does come down to the original point


I made, when I meet my constituents and they ask what I'm doing about


this terror threat, I want to be able to say, Parliamentary Southern


treat should allow us to be able to say we are doing something, not


judges behind closed does. It is right that this power does allow


that. There is an investigatory Powers commission, a panel of senior


judges, which will have some element of involvement. So I think it


strikes a balance. This is in-line with three independent reports, the


intelligence and Security committee has suggested that powers should be


investigated. Would you not have a system that is not actually


compounds of a fully transparent, the very things you criticised at


the beginning about the current situation, that you would have


judges involved in some decisions. Even the Home Secretary said she


must devote a certain amount of time every single day to this, she's


distracted by other issues as well. Would it not be better to have


judges take on that role question mark no, because of the lack of


accountability. There are appointed and not directly legitimately


connected to Parliamentary sovereignty. In what circumstances


could you see the Home Secretary answering questions in Parliament on


individual warrant issues she may or may not have authorised. I cannot


think of any. There are situations where the Home Secretary has been


transparent. Give us some of those examples where we would expect to


hear her opening up about the decisions she has made. The point is


these applications will be made to the right processes, a decision will


be within her remit and is the commission, a body of senior judges


which has some oversight. I think that strikes the right balance. It


does not give this power exclusively to judges and there is an


element... Ragusi is the right of individuals but it is qualified by


the interests of national security. I think it is right that the elected


officials and government and executive power has a large stake in


the decision. Do you think it will not pass through Parliament is does


not prove judicial authorisation in this? I think robust safeguards are


really important and without them it will not go through. But it is not


just a question of whether for instance there are more votes on


this side of the other, if we are to get this right this will be a


framework for the future. Getting a bit and getting people agreed on it


is a prize worth having because we can all then move forward with


consensus. I think in this important area, to get consensus about the


approach is really worth having. Weldon was not consensus at the


moment. We will see what is included in the bill when presented to


Parliament. So what do the public make of it all? We have been out on


the streets with mood box. Mission impossible.


It is complicated business, spying, especially when politicians start to


get involved. Theresa May is announcing full details of a new


survey of balls on Wednesday that they have already come under plenty


of criticism. This morning we're asking people what they think is


more important, or privacy. Security. I would rather be safe. I


have nothing to be private about. I believe security is more important


than previously. You have thought about this. Yes.


I think they go hand in hand. But covert surveillance is not good for


anyone. Unless you're planning on doing something bad. I would have to


agree with both. You cannot agree with both on our programme! OK, I


will put it in for privacy. I would prefer to be safe. Not worried about


people slipping? Whatever, do what you want!


We always make excuses for Security and things like that and that


becomes invasive. I like my privacy. Pay attention, 007! It seems to


suggest it is roughly even. I guess it is a human right to be able to


pretty much do what you want within the bounds of the law and not worry


about someone watching over your shoulder. I am equal. You have to


make a decision. Security. There is no point in being private if you are


dead. I think privacy. It is easy? That? It is really good to have the


sea. If the government is asking I would say privacy, their presence of


security is not mine. -- their version. I do not like the idea of


security tramping privacy but in the current circumstances it may need to


be done. Well it would seem people are equally worried about their


security as they are their privacy. Better be careful, this mood box


will self-destruct in five seconds! With us now, Joe Twyman


from the pollsters YouGov. Our very own 007 in this case. Even


Stevens in that nonscientific mood box but generally the polls show


that public accelerates pars. It depends, if you are asking about


anti-terrorist powers, should security services and police have


powers to track terrorists stop them doing naughty things, yes a


majority, although only a small majority, approve of that. Whereas


around one third people say they oppose it. If you ask about the


general principle you find about four in ten people oppose and around


three in ten support it. So the situation varies depending on what


you ask. If you ask about local councils being able to check on


recycling and things like that then support falls away. So we're talking


about that say for arguments sake, serious issues. Has that changed or


shifted in the wake of the Snowdon revelations? It does not appear to


have done. The general mood seems to be maintained. It is to do with the


fear of terrorist atrocities. People fear for their security. And they're


willing to make certain sacrifices in terms of the country to maintain


that. What about levels of understanding in terms of new powers


that could grant authorities to look at not just how many calls you have


made or which sites you have logged onto, but the content of some of


that communication? People really do not understand these things, they


have brought ideas, as your video piece showed, whether it is privacy


or security. They do not have a good idea about nuances. They do have an


idea about who they trust with these things, they trust the security


services, MI6, the most. Two thirds of trust, the police only about half


an politicians even fewer. So this argument that the Home Secretary


could continue to be the person with authorisation on warrants being


issued would be less popular than for instance a judge? We do not have


data on that, in one sense it would be correct but people do like


politicians being a safeguard as well. It is a complicated situation


and perhaps not entirely coherent. What about government being in tune


with public opinion on this issue, do you think there is an argument


now for the government crossing the line in terms of havoc opinion but


it is by no means overwhelming. Around 53% of people said they


supported. That is in no way substantial. -- public opinion. But


with curve -- was Conservative supporters it rises to three


quarters. So maybe the Conservative Party is looking at its base and


thinking that this great support comes from. What about public


support for injury -- for individual types of interception such as phone


hacking. Again people do not have much idea what that means, are you


talking about voice phone, smartphone interceptions? It gets


really complicated. Generally when you ask about paedophiles or


terrorists, they say yes. But what about you, people say no. Jeremy


Corbyn has spoken out previously about these kind of powers or a


further extension of powers to intrude into people's lives. He will


not support this bill either way? The position of arguing that a new


law is needed with strong safeguards is the Labour Party position. I


think Jeremy took a position on previous Acts of Parliament. It


chimes very much with the findings, most people rightly think that


surveillance should be targeted at those who need to be identified. But


should not be general and should not apply to the public in general and


them in particular. But of course the argument is raised is that there


would be fishing expeditions and people would be able to browse into


areas not necessarily a threat to national security. What would you do


Jeremy Corbyn says that Labour would this bill? The Labour Party will


decide, we are in conversations with Jeremy about this. The position I


set out today, it is very clear and is in favour of a new law


safeguards. What has Jeremy Corbyn said to you in those conversations


question that we had discussions with Jeremy. The discussions this


week and have been going on behind the scenes in the Tory party


probably. We are clear in our position, that support powers where


they are needed but have rubber safeguards. That has not been


controversial for us. Probably there has been more difficulty on the


other side. Well you have not got your side on board with this? I


don't know about that. I think it is clear how Jeremy Corbyn will vote,


he has voted against all the legislation... What about the David


Davis opinion and people who agree with him on the Tory side? I think


this legislation comes on the basis of three independent reviews. The


Anderson review, the intelligence Security committee report and Royal


United securities Institute report, they all feed into this. There will


be free legislative committees and heightened scrutiny of this bill


everyone can have a say. Now, workers across the Country


have gathered in Westminster to protest against the Government's


proposed changes to laws governing And in


an attempt to win people round to their cause, this morning the TUC


launched a new advertising campaign, I work in the Essex Fire and


Rescue Service control room. The reason we have had to go


on strike recently is because the management board have changed our


hours, meaning the family work-life balance has just really messed up


the staff's lives, basically. Myself, I don't want to be job


shared but I've had to go to a job share position, meaning I've


had to take a big pay cut. The Fire Service wouldn't be


where it is today without us We have kept stations from closing,


jobs from being lost. It's so important that people


have the right to strike. Everyone should have the right to


stand up and have their voice heard. And the TUC General Secretary,


Frances O'Grady is with us now. Welcome back. The new advertising


campaign features three women, a cinema worker, a firefighter and a


midwife. Is there an acceptance in your opinion that the trade union


movement needs an image makeover? It is a reflection of reality because


the majority of members are women now. In terms of the government's


Bill, this Coney and Bill attacking the principle of the right to


strike, it will be women on the front line -- this Draconian Bill.


We will that do Suella Fernandes in a moment that you have complained


that the government is trapped in a Thatcherite perception of what a


trade union member is. Do people have a misconception about trade


unions and their members? There are still these old stereotypes


including about strikes and that is why it was important to tell the


stories about why people took that big last resort decision to go on


strike. The midwife who just wanted her 1% that she was awarded by an


independent pay review body but the government rejected or those


firefighters who want to keep local stations open with huge support from


local communities or the worker fighting for a living wage. When you


think of a typical trade union member, are you thinking of those


people? I think the trade unions provide such a vital service in our


Society for industrial relations and standing up for workers rights and


effecting positive change so it is right that the right to strike is


respected but it has to be balanced with a democratic process and the


impact on normal men and women going about their daily lives. These are


normal men and women. Of course, that the impact of strikes is


sometimes disproportionate. The NHS strike last summer was on the basis


of 19% of union workers who voted for it and participated so there is


a minority of people who are voting for a strike which is effecting a


large majority. Not in all strikes. But that is the crux. That is what


the government is saying, that it is not balanced and there are not


enough people alerted to justify it. The government admits that the


majority of ballots would meet the new thresholds it wants to introduce


but especially in workforce that are dispersed and at a time when postal


balloting is seen as pretty 20th century and it is only unions that


are forced to use it, if we want to improve turnout, it was the right to


vote electronically online just as the Conservative Party used for the


selection of London mayor candidates. Why won't you do that?


There are a lot of measures in the trade union Bill and they have been


through a reading in Parliament and there has been a lot of input. In


terms of the mechanisms, there needs to be a robust basis for it. At the


moment, it is not properly carried out. There is a disproportionately


small number of people participating in these votes... Not in all votes.


If I take you through the Bill, permitting employers to substitute


agency workers for strikers in industrial action as well as


requiring a minimum 50% turnout in all strike Al-Aqsa find on unions if


their picket supervises repeatedly fail to wear an official armband. Is


it necessary? It is the list of other things that


will make strikes almost impossible. I wouldn't say that, I think those


are necessary for reasons of legitimacy. There were over 1


million working days lost through teachers strike in the last


five-year scum are how can it be justified? You are proposing to lift


a 40 year ban. -- in the last five years.


The public are worried about the safety and training implications.


Even if we meet all of those tests, you would make that strike pointless


because an employer could replace us wholesale with agency workers. Would


you agree to a higher minimum turnout in the other parts of that


built were not there? International law says you should not treat


abstentions as no votes. We want to improve turnout as well because that


strengthens our arm in negotiations with employers so we are saying,


give us the right to vote electronically and we know it can be


independently supervised, safe and secure, as the electoral reform


services have said it would be. Then we can all be happy. If it goes


through, would you support action that they will go ahead and take a


legal strike action? The reality is that we are going to see a midwife


forgetting to wear her armband fined ?20,000 come we're going to create


situations where people are forced not to comply with the law and that


sounds like a bad law and a bad bill that needs rethinking. Thank you.


Now what's in store for us this week?


Later today the Public Accounts Committee will hear evidence from


senior Civil Servants about the closure of the Kids Company charity.


The Chancellor, George Osborne, travels to Berlin for talks


on the UK's plans to renegotiate its relationship with the


And Parliament will vote on proposed new planning laws.


Tomorrow, a memorial service will be held for the late Liberal Democrat


On Wednesday, David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn will face each


other across the Despatch Box for their weekly session of PMQs.


And thousands of students are expected to take to the streets


And on Thursday, junior doctors in England will be


balloted on industrial action over changes to their pay and contracts.


Let's talk now to the Political Editor of the Sun, Tom Newton Dunn


Welcome to both of you. Let's talk about George Osborne going to


Berlin. Our number ten and number 11 panicking over these negotiations?


We don't know for sure but I have a strong suspicion they might be. They


have a problem and a considerable one in that they have lost control


of the process. A lot of activity over the summer when David Cameron


jumped around European capitals to prove he would crack a deal as soon


as possible. George Osborne followed suit and did a lot of jetsetting


around Europe and then it went quiet. The government did not say


very much because they were not getting much from their EU


compatriots. That was because they did not want to put anything down in


writing because people like us would say they would not get what they


asked for. In that time, the Leave campaign launched, perhaps more


successfully than the main campaign, and it feels like it is slipping


from their grasp. The polls are moving away from staying in and they


need to regain momentum in time for ideal at the EU Council in December


which looks pretty unlikely, but certainly to get public opinion act


to look like they know what they are doing which what George Osborne


hopes to do tomorrow. Isn't the problem that some of the EU leaders


say they still haven't seen any detail or concrete proposals, as


people here also say, is that going to be forthcoming? David Cameron has


said he will set out what he wants in more detail in a letter, I think


next week. We will see more detail at that point but we have some vague


areas where we know Downing Street wants to renegotiate. George Osborne


will probably be focusing on one tomorrow, which is making sure that


written's financial services are protected and that Eurozone


countries don't take decisions that effect the UK negatively if they


push for closer integration -- Britain's financial services. That


might not excite the public too much, it is not something they can


bring back from Europe, like immigration or reducing regulation.


That is the area that people are interested in. Nigel Farage said


yesterday that he would be delighted if the Home Secretary wanted to lead


the official campaign for Britain to leave the UK, she obviously resisted


on saying anything. What is your thought on that? What she did


yesterday was fascinating. Like only she can do. She has this


extraordinary deadpan style where she cuts you dead, as she did with


Andrew Marr yesterday, and gives nothing away but it also works the


other way. When you should be backing the government, saying David


Cameron is going to win this and it is going to be good, Theresa May


completely failed to say that. Setting a very obvious horse wedding


that she might be for out. I don't really leave she is -- a horse


running. I think she wants to remain in but she is playing an interesting


game, keeping her cards close to her chest and giving herself bargaining


power to ask for more from David Cameron, especially on immigration


which she and Boris Johnson have been on the record in the past


saying they need to get something back on freedom of agreement and


that is not on the table at the moment. On the Housing and planning


Bill, how controversial Will this be with some Tory backbenchers, forcing


councils to sell high-value council homes for other schemes? It was


something all Tory MPs welcomed in the election because they thought it


was great that they could sell on the doorstep to the swing voters.


The problem is, like the tax credits debate, they might be worrying that


it is a less popular than they thought and there might be more


problems than it Downing Street had first anticipated. It could be


another tricky area where David Cameron hasn't quite got the support


of his whole party. Thank you very much. Let's pick up on that policy,


you support the idea of forcing councils to sell high-value council


homes when tenants move on in order to fund either more low rate housing


stock or write to buy discounts for housing association tenants? We have


a housing crisis of epic proportions and there are people in their 20s


and 30s who cannot get onto the housing ladder. The solution is to


increase the supply of housing and anyway do that whilst devolving


powers to local authorities is the right thing to do. How will that do


that? By encouraging local authorities to release their stock,


that'll bring the price down and also increase the amount of


affordable housing. How will it increase the number of affordable


homes if you are getting rid of, particularly in expensive areas,


where it is difficult to afford homes unless you have a big income,


how is getting rid of council homes going to help that? There is also


provision in the framework for replenishment of stock and we


heard, with the selling of council houses, they will be dubbed unabated


whereby the most expensive houses, particularly in London, are released


for sale and were punished with additional stock. This is so unreal.


In parts of London, in my constituency, we have a massive


overcrowding problem, I have families coming to meet every week


with parents and children in a one-bedroom flat and however quickly


the council tries to build, it cannot provide the units leading. In


Camden it would mean selling of a third of the existing stock. In any


party, this is a disaster housing for the future. It is so wrong and


we should not be lulled into this sense of security that somehow in


the long-running... It is a disaster for those families and anybody who


wants to make the case should see these families and say to them, not


only do you not have somewhere to live now but you will not have one


for a very long time for the future. To sell off the stock when you


cannot even oust the people in your council is a disaster.


We have local authorities in possession of vast amounts of


housing stock which is not being efficiently use. This legislation


compels them to release that so it is better used, people can own a


home, they have a stake in society and we increase home ownership for a


whole generation of people. We will discuss this further when this comes


before Parliament. Now - each year the House of Commons


holds a debate to coincide with But should the same courtesy


be extended to men? That was the question posed


by the Conservative MP Philip Davies when he appeared in front


of the Backbench Business Committee However, his suggestion was met with


disbelief by the The opportunity


for men to raise issues that are ..Mr Chairman, of the type of


things that may came up and which would be part


of International Men's Day. I'm not entirely sure why it's


so humorous. But to discuss issues such


as men's shorter life expectancy, Many of which go unreported through


embarrassment of men to sort of go You'll have to excuse me


for laughing, but the idea that men don't have the opportunity to ask


questions in this place is a frankly laughable thing, I say this as


the only woman on this committee. The idea that this chamber,


that these Houses, both of them, in any way reflect gender equality


is frankly, And Phillip Davies and Jess Phillips


join us now from College Green. James Phillips, you say was


laughable, do you now regret saying that, was at the right reaction? I


stand by the idea that men cannot raise issues in Parliament and do


not have enough opportunity, it is obviously ridiculous when so many


more men are in Parliament. I think what never gets played in this clip


is the part where I ask for a point of order to explicitly state that I


do care about the issues that men face. Do not have enough


opportunity, Philip Davies? You just have to look at the numbers. There


is a difference between how many men there are in Parliament and a debate


about men's issues which are also of interest not just to men but a lot


of women are concerned as well. If you think about the issues are


raised, high suicide rates amongst men, the low achievement of boys in


schools, the health problems that do not get reported like testicular


cancer, the underreporting of male domestic violence, fathers getting


access to their children... You have had your say. All those things, if


you look in Parliament, they rarely get debated. And they've are real


issues. If Jess is saying these issues could be debated at other


times, the same thing applies to issues around International women's


Day. We have monthly questions about women in Parliament so if she is


going to say to people we want a debate on International women's Day


and she will say you do not need one because there are other


opportunities to raise this, it would be entirely consistent. I did


not deprive Philip Davies or the men in Parliament of this debate. Mr


Davies failed to fill in the form correctly put up it may well still


get through. And you would support it? I cannot say I think there is a


need for International Men's Day debate. I am happy and I'm committed


to raising a debate on male suicide, on young boys achieving


schools. These are both things I have personal experience of and see


everyday my constituency. That is not what was asked for, what was


asked for was a mealy-mouthed, well, the girls get one... Is that what


you really were asking for, just tit-for-tat, because there would be


opportunities to raise individual issues like the worrying issue of


high suicide rates amongst young men and underachievement in school, that


could be done aside from having a International Men's Day? I just gave


a huge range of issues that affect man but rarely get debated in


parliament. A debate for temporary would allow these issues to be


raised during the course of one debate in a simple way. I was on the


fact badge business committee 40 years will be granted debates on


International women's Day. All I'm saying is I do not think the spirit


of gender equality, I cannot see what the objection is to debate the


legitimate issues with a prime opportunity, to coincide with


International Men's Day on the 19th of November. I would suggest you put


in for a debate with an actual motion so the government has to do


something. For example the poorer targeted services for men in mental


health services, with a motion. But I suspect you might talk it out much


as you did with the carers who asked for your help on Friday. Well voting


on other issues, your voting record in general, are there other ways in


other debates, to bring these issues to light and heavy voted in favour


of these in the past? I always vote in favour of true equality. Did you


vote for gay marriage? I do not agree with it so why would I vote


for something I do not agree with. If we were to get into that debate,


it has nothing to do with quality. You could have a civil partnerships


and marriage for gay people, it is not the quality. So Jess has a


strange view of the quality. You have a very basic view of equality.


It is about opportunity. What does International women's Day actually


achieve? International women's Day is a long held day, I had never been


in Parliament when it was International women's Day so I have


no idea what happens in the debate in Parliament. But it is about


recognising that women internationally faced terrible


inequalities. Issues like the awful rates in India, issues around back


but in Africa the average age for a woman to get married is 14. These


are issues that we want to stand as sisters shoulder to shoulder across


the world and said we do not accept it. And that is what you want for


men that Davis, an exact replica of that debate around the world as you


might there are issues that affect women and I have taken part in


debates before on International women's Day. Thank you for your


sorority! All I ask is we have real equality and I do not know what Jess


is so worried about allowing these men's issues to be debated. Well I


look forward to seeing both of you in that debate when it happens. If


it ever happens. Thank you to both of you. Should there be an


international men stayed debate? I have sympathy for that view, I think


there is a serious problem of male suicide and mental health issues,


addiction, conditions in prison. I think talking about those in no way


detracts from the plight of women in our society. Jess... Right about the


gender imbalance in Parliament, it is there in the judiciary and in our


profession and we have got to face up to that. There are also issues


women face. So should there be a International Men's Day debate? I do


not have a strong view on that, I do accept that on men's physical or


mental health, these are issues we do need to discuss. Also role models


for young men. I'm neither for or against that debate, I do not think


that is the main issue. But they said to the issues that need to be


debated rather than a facile debate about whether we need a particular


day. Now do you care about what


politicians got up to in their past? Or even if they believe in God,


or not? Yesterday the Conservative MP James


Cleverly was pretty candid about his private life, when he appeared


on Five Live's Pienaar's Politics. I had a little dabble with


marijuana at University. It's a waste of money,


waste of time. It's not very good


for your future prospects. When was the last time,


if there was one, you made yourself Now that is a very,


very long time ago, actually. Well you didn't say last week


in the bar. What did private school do for you


that Well, my mum, from Sierra Leone,


flatly refused to let me go to She believed quality


of education is really important. It was in south-east London,


ethnically mixed demographic. But it really showed me that


a lot of people make a lot of personal sacrifices


for the benefit of their children. And that is something I


feel very strongly about. It wasn't the answer to the


question, but I'm going to move on. Isabel Oakshotte, the author and


chief hitwoman against David Who should be the next leader


of the Tory party? I'm going to do the Nicky Morgan


defence on this one. I think it's now going to be


called the Nicky Morgan defence. If you had to be


in another political party, We will not do those exact same


questions, did you find that profession or shopping? James is a


friend of mine and I think he is a good sport for going along with


those questions. But I think there is a line to be drawn. Politicians


are people, vegetables, we have a valid life and media have a


responsibility to tailor the questions appropriately. Really but


you might should he have answered them as honestly as he did? I think


it is his own choice. It was a light-hearted interview and he was


happy with that. But I think there is such a thing as too much


information. What was more shocking, admitting using online porn, or


wanting to snog Theresa May? Not for me to say! He was prepared to answer


those questions in that way, I think it is sporting of him. What would


you have done M last time I came on this show you asked if I wanted to


be Prime Minister. I was rather worried that you were going to ask


about my private life. Have you something good to tell us! Some


politicians and the public need to know everything they do in their


private life, I'm not in that camp. Others value privacy and that is


where I am. Some people would put anything about their private life


out there are over again. That is up to them. It is their choice. Do you


think that the public are interested in what you guys get up to in the


past? I do not think it is relevant to the job. But do you think that


they are interested M I do not think it is that interesting, frankly.


What people care about is how we are going to sort out the issues of the


day. What we are going to do about terrorism or housing and tax


credits. I think what you did 20 years ago is irrelevant. You do not


think people care? I do not think they are bothered. I think they find


it amusing on occasion. At the end of the day I think they do judge


people by what they actually do. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn has what it


takes to be a good by Minister? Yes, I think he has shown that he has won


a mandate. That is fine. That is good.


There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.


The question was which new club has David Cameron joined?


a) Mark's Private Members Club in Mayfair.


The National Liberal club. I will go for the first one. Mark's Private


Members Club in Mayfair. You right, it is Mark's Private Members Club in


Mayfair. The one o'clock news is


starting over on BBC One now. I'll be here at noon tomorrow with


all the big political stories


Download Subtitles