02/11/2015 Daily Politics

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