:00:37. > :00:38.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:39. > :00:40.George Osborne says the UK's referendum on EU membership
:00:41. > :00:47.The Chancellor says it would be unrealistic to a think
:00:48. > :00:59.And is it likely to swing the public in favour of voting to stay in?
:01:00. > :01:01.There's been criticism of the inquiry into allegations
:01:02. > :01:03.of abuse, torture and unlawful killing of Iraqis
:01:04. > :01:07.We'll speak to a former military chief and a lawyer acting
:01:08. > :01:12.We'll be speaking to the newest party to field candidates
:01:13. > :01:15.in this year's elections, and they claim they'll cause trouble
:01:16. > :01:22.Absolutely, let's be radical, let's shake things up.
:01:23. > :01:28.And the SNP head through the final frontier as MPs debate the British
:01:29. > :01:41.All that in the next hour and with us for the duration two
:01:42. > :01:44.of what the BBC's Department of Cliches still likes to call
:01:45. > :01:50.Even though it's more than a decade since the last news organisation
:01:51. > :02:06.And if you find these two there it's most likely they've just skived
:02:07. > :02:09.Yes it's Guardian columnist Gaby Hinsliff and Sun political
:02:10. > :02:14.First today, let's talk about Labour's review
:02:15. > :02:17.It's been making waves because the party is beginning
:02:18. > :02:19.the process of reassessing whether it should continue
:02:20. > :02:21.to support the renewal of Britain's Trident
:02:22. > :02:24.At present the party is officially in favour,
:02:25. > :02:26.but leader Jeremy Corbyn, along with his new Shadow Defence
:02:27. > :02:28.Secretary Emily Thornberry, are in favour of unilateral nuclear
:02:29. > :02:35.Well, we had thought that Emily Thornberry would be aided
:02:36. > :02:41.in her review by the former London mayor Ken Livingstone,
:02:42. > :02:47.another critic of renewing the Trident system.
:02:48. > :03:00.Carole Walker can tell us whether that is still the case. I understand
:03:01. > :03:06.Ken Livingstone will not be doing what we thought he would be? He does
:03:07. > :03:10.not have a formal rebuke... Roll on the defence review any more. He says
:03:11. > :03:14.he is happy with that, he is happy with Emily Thornbury to lead it. She
:03:15. > :03:19.has been doing that this morning, setting out terms of reference about
:03:20. > :03:22.how the review will be conducted. We have the suggestion from Ken
:03:23. > :03:26.Livingstone earlier in the week that the issue of Trident could be done
:03:27. > :03:30.and dusted within eight to ten weeks, which raised quite a few
:03:31. > :03:35.eyebrows, not least between Labour MPs. I am told that is not the case,
:03:36. > :03:41.Trident will be looked at as part of a much wider review of how defence
:03:42. > :03:45.policy will work under Labour, and it could take many months. Although
:03:46. > :03:51.Emily Thornbury is hoping to have at least an interim proposal to put to
:03:52. > :03:57.the party conference in the autumn. Ken Livingstone insists he is happy
:03:58. > :04:01.about this, he says he suggested it. He has a wider role on this review
:04:02. > :04:08.of something that he called Britain's place in the world, which
:04:09. > :04:13.looks at foreign affairs as well. The defence review will feed into
:04:14. > :04:20.this, but Ken Livingstone will not be involved in that defence review
:04:21. > :04:25.getting under way at the moment. It sounds like Emily Thornberry has
:04:26. > :04:28.parked her tanks on Ken Livingstone's lawn? Ken Livingstone
:04:29. > :04:32.insists that he and she are in complete agreement, he is very busy,
:04:33. > :04:38.he has his role on the NEC and various other tasks. I think the key
:04:39. > :04:41.fact is that both he and Emily Thornberry agree on the Trident
:04:42. > :04:47.nuclear system. They both think it is not what written should be
:04:48. > :04:50.spending money on at the moment. Of course, that is what party leader
:04:51. > :04:54.Jeremy Corbyn things. It is not what the majority of his MPs believed.
:04:55. > :04:57.What will be interesting is when they come to this whole defence
:04:58. > :05:02.review, which will be taking submissions from the public and also
:05:03. > :05:06.military figures, academics and so on, as to exactly what it comes up
:05:07. > :05:12.with and whether it can formulate a policy which meets what Emily
:05:13. > :05:17.Thornberry, Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn believed. I understand
:05:18. > :05:21.Ken Livingstone will still be co-convenor with the Shadow Foreign
:05:22. > :05:27.Secretary, Hilary Benn, on a wider policy review entitled Britain In
:05:28. > :05:34.The World. Hilary Benn And Ken Livingstone, That Sounds Like A
:05:35. > :05:37.Marriage Made In Heaven?! It Could Be interesting, they clearly have
:05:38. > :05:42.different views on lots of issues. Ken Livingstone was probably pretty
:05:43. > :05:45.happy to allow Emily Thornberry to carry out the defence review, they
:05:46. > :05:50.are pretty much an agreement on just about everything. This wider review
:05:51. > :05:53.has yet to get under way, but I think the co-convening of Hilary
:05:54. > :05:59.Benn and Ken Livingstone could be one to watch. Thanks for that and
:06:00. > :06:03.for struggling through the wind. It looks like a beautiful day, cold,
:06:04. > :06:11.chilly but clear blue skies in London this morning. Let's begin
:06:12. > :06:17.with the Trident review. It looks like it is still happening, the
:06:18. > :06:23.direction of travel is still towards Labour not wanting to renew Trident.
:06:24. > :06:26.It will take a lot longer? I don't think anyone is exactly on the edge
:06:27. > :06:32.of their sea to find out the answer of this review, we know what Jeremy
:06:33. > :06:36.Corbyn once, we know that Emily Thornberry has been put in to
:06:37. > :06:40.deliver it. We know the short term timetable is unrealistic. Labour MPs
:06:41. > :06:43.are saying there is not even a proper consultation, you at least
:06:44. > :06:47.have to pretend you are going through the motions. There is no
:06:48. > :06:52.need, necessarily, to be there before the Parliamentary vote. And
:06:53. > :06:55.only an interim report to the party conference. Most of us thought that
:06:56. > :06:59.by the next party conference it would vote in line with Mr Corbyn
:07:00. > :07:05.peers view not to renew Trident, that may not happen? This is Jeremy
:07:06. > :07:09.Corbyn's people accepting reality. At the beginning of the week there
:07:10. > :07:14.were people like Ian Nichol, the party general secretary, saying that
:07:15. > :07:17.conference decides what the policy is on Trident. At the moment, we are
:07:18. > :07:22.a party in favour of keeping Trident. The short-term wig fix was
:07:23. > :07:26.never really going to work. The far bigger problem is that we expect the
:07:27. > :07:35.Government to put a vote on Trident this summer. By the time it gets to
:07:36. > :07:41.Conference, Trident will effectively be renewed. And Mr Livingstone, it
:07:42. > :07:45.is hard not to see this as a clear demotion, he has been sidelined? I
:07:46. > :07:49.think what Ken Livingstone wants is to be back in the middle of public
:07:50. > :07:53.life. I interviewed him just before Christmas and he was clearly
:07:54. > :07:57.thrilled to be centre of attention again. I don't think he will be
:07:58. > :08:01.bothered about how he is the centre of attention, if he is not on the
:08:02. > :08:07.defence review, I am fairly sure he will find ways to be out there and
:08:08. > :08:09.influence. He wields an increasing amount of influence
:08:10. > :08:15.behind-the-scenes. Lots of people in Corbyn Bliss offers our old
:08:16. > :08:19.Livingstone staffers, I think you want to watch what Ken Livingstone
:08:20. > :08:26.is doing in the background -- in Corbyn's office. Jeremy Corbyn put
:08:27. > :08:31.Mr Livingstone as a co-convenor of the defence review, along with the
:08:32. > :08:35.then Shadow Defence Secretary Miss Eagle. It would seem pretty clear
:08:36. > :08:39.that Emily Thornberry has laid down the law on this, she did not want to
:08:40. > :08:46.continue with Mr Livingstone in-lap 's vision? I would not necessarily
:08:47. > :08:51.buy that. She does not want Trident to go ahead. If you are Jeremy
:08:52. > :08:56.Corbyn, that is all that matters. You need a senior Labour figure
:08:57. > :09:00.co-convening the review that does not like Trident. If you have Emily
:09:01. > :09:07.Thornbury, why do you need Ken Livingstone? Jeremy Corbyn is wising
:09:08. > :09:12.up a bit, rather than taking his party head-on, he is going around
:09:13. > :09:19.it. The whole Cabinet reshuffle was about not taking the party head-on.
:09:20. > :09:24.He is very tactical in that regard. If you see is a formidable roadblock
:09:25. > :09:30.ahead, he either slows down and does not hate it all goes around it.
:09:31. > :09:32.Which is different to the first three months, charged straight up
:09:33. > :09:37.the mountain, now you can go around it and achieve the same thing. We
:09:38. > :09:41.will speak to Mr Livingstone on the Sunday politics. But we were told he
:09:42. > :09:45.would not give us an interview, so you can read into that what you
:09:46. > :09:49.want. Let's talk about a story in and out
:09:50. > :09:50.of the news over the last few weeks, to do with the conduct of British
:09:51. > :09:53.soldiers in the Iraq war. Nearly 300 veterans of the conflict
:09:54. > :09:56.have been contacted by investigators looking into allegations
:09:57. > :09:58.of war crimes. The Iraq Historic Allegations Team
:09:59. > :10:00.was set up in 2010 to investigate claims of murder, abuse
:10:01. > :10:04.and torture of Iraqis. Some MPs and former forces chiefs,
:10:05. > :10:07.as you perhaps might expect, aren't happy with the scope
:10:08. > :10:10.of the inquiry and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has criticised
:10:11. > :10:12.the role of ambulance-chasing British law firms in
:10:13. > :10:17.bringing cases forward. Here's the former Security Minister
:10:18. > :10:19.and First Sea Alan West speaking It's outrageous the way
:10:20. > :10:29.we are chasing the men and women who have been trying to protect us
:10:30. > :10:31.many many years later, And also the fact, and if I can
:10:32. > :10:36.ask the noble Minister, can we not do an urgent
:10:37. > :10:39.investigation into firms of solicitors who I know use agents
:10:40. > :10:44.in Iraq, and no doubt will in the future in Afghanistan,
:10:45. > :10:48.to effectively ambulance chase And we are seeing constantly these
:10:49. > :10:54.costing immense amounts of money. They cause mental anguish
:10:55. > :10:56.to our men and women, so it affects this issue
:10:57. > :10:58.we are talking about, and we really do need
:10:59. > :11:02.to get a grip of this. There has, as the noble
:11:03. > :11:04.Lord rightly points out, been extensive coverage
:11:05. > :11:07.and publicity of this very issue in the press in recent weeks
:11:08. > :11:11.and I share his concern. The fact of the matter is, though,
:11:12. > :11:14.it isn't the government It is that, every time
:11:15. > :11:20.there is a complaint raised, we have a duty to
:11:21. > :11:25.investigate that complaint. It is not hounding the armed forces
:11:26. > :11:29.personnel, but rather trying to get to the bottom of the complaint
:11:30. > :11:32.as quickly as possible, and indeed many of these
:11:33. > :11:35.complaints have been found But I share his concern
:11:36. > :11:40.about the behaviour We're also joined from Birmingham
:11:41. > :11:47.by Bethany Shiner from Public Interest Lawyers,
:11:48. > :11:49.one of the law firms representing alleged victims of abuse
:11:50. > :12:06.by British forces. Alan West, if British soldiers have
:12:07. > :12:09.broken the law, shouldn't they face the consequences? Absolutely, they
:12:10. > :12:14.should, it is a question of balance as to how much this is looked into,
:12:15. > :12:20.how long it goes on for and how we look after them. These are young
:12:21. > :12:23.men, often very frightened, scared, in danger of their lives, they often
:12:24. > :12:28.need the benefit of the doubt and to be looked after. Wouldn't that be
:12:29. > :12:33.taken into account in a proper legal process? Ex-soldiers are getting
:12:34. > :12:36.letters through the post, I know this because people have been in
:12:37. > :12:39.contact, accusing them of things, they are being asked things on the
:12:40. > :12:47.doorstep they are getting very little support, they are frightened,
:12:48. > :12:50.some of them have PTSD... PTSD? Post-traumatic stress syndrome.
:12:51. > :12:55.We're not looking after them. The inquiry showed is that some of these
:12:56. > :12:59.things are difficult. They said that a lot of the charges were without
:13:00. > :13:05.foundation, I think the statement by the man who did the inquiry, it was
:13:06. > :13:09.deliberate lies, reckless speculation and hostility to the
:13:10. > :13:14.man. I think they got this balance wrong. There is no doubt, we know,
:13:15. > :13:19.for example, that there was a man who works for the British Government
:13:20. > :13:22.and also for some of these lawyers, he went around and one of the
:13:23. > :13:29.distressed widows said, he came to my door and said, but, you can get a
:13:30. > :13:37.money. Bethany Shiner, our British law companies employing Iraqis to
:13:38. > :13:41.drum up business in Iraq? Unfortunately, this is the subject
:13:42. > :13:50.of an SRA investigation. What is the SRA? Solicitors Regulatory
:13:51. > :13:58.Authority, which are investigating following an MoD commissioned report
:13:59. > :14:01.into such conduct. I am unable to comment much more than to say that
:14:02. > :14:05.it is absolutely proper and appropriate that all of these
:14:06. > :14:08.allegations are properly investigated in accordance with the
:14:09. > :14:13.rule of law, and to say that public interest lawyers, and I'm sure the
:14:14. > :14:21.other law form would say the same, do nothing but Edfors the role of
:14:22. > :14:25.law. I was not asking you to comment, I was asking a factual
:14:26. > :14:33.question, our British law companies like yourselves and others employing
:14:34. > :14:35.Iraqis to go around and try to find people who may have a grievance
:14:36. > :14:46.against British troops? A comment much more than to say...
:14:47. > :14:54.That is a factual question. We deny such allegations. You don't employ
:14:55. > :14:59.Iraqis agents? We do not employ Iraqi agents to conduct themselves
:15:00. > :15:05.in any way outside the bounds of the law. But you do employ Iraqi agents?
:15:06. > :15:09.I cannot comment more than what I've already said. I think what I've said
:15:10. > :15:15.is quite clear. This list is authority have put before the
:15:16. > :15:17.disciplinary trust and 99% of those cases are then taken further. But
:15:18. > :15:24.that's not the case of public interest lawyers? It should be
:15:25. > :15:28.happening in the next few weeks. Just to clarify, I understand about
:15:29. > :15:31.not being able to comment on these proceedings, but another law firm
:15:32. > :15:36.you are involved in, have been referred to these lizard is
:15:37. > :15:39.regulatory authority and onto the tribunal which means they going to
:15:40. > :15:44.be investigated. You have been referred to the SRA, but not yet to
:15:45. > :15:52.the tribunal. Is that correct? Correct. Is that the next stage? How
:15:53. > :15:56.long do have to wait to find out if that's happening? That would be mere
:15:57. > :16:00.speculation for me to say. What I would like to say, though, we are
:16:01. > :16:06.very concerned about how the focus is suddenly shifted onto the lawyers
:16:07. > :16:14.and we see that this is a mechanism to try and deflect the public
:16:15. > :16:17.attention away from the wrongs, away from very serious questions which
:16:18. > :16:22.need to be asked and answered by the government to instead scapegoat
:16:23. > :16:27.these issues, scapegoat the attention onto these lawyers. All
:16:28. > :16:31.right. Scapegoating the lawyers? I don't think we are. I think we are
:16:32. > :16:36.swinging it back in the right direction because there seems to be
:16:37. > :16:40.a oration of the industry trying to bring complaints about British
:16:41. > :16:43.soldiers before British courts and it seems like it's gone out of
:16:44. > :16:49.kilter. It's right thing should be investigated. We know nasty things
:16:50. > :16:53.happen sometimes. Generally, our people behave very well and it had
:16:54. > :16:58.gone out of kilter and it's wrong for law firms to genuinely send
:16:59. > :17:01.people out to get trade and there's no doubt this investigation by the
:17:02. > :17:06.solicitors regulation authority has discovered things they are concerned
:17:07. > :17:10.about. It will be interested to see what happened to the Public interest
:17:11. > :17:14.lawyers, but I am concerned about that. It happens in numbers of areas
:17:15. > :17:19.now for people to look upon actions which happen in war in places like
:17:20. > :17:24.Iraq and Afghanistan as if you are having a summer day in Hyde Park and
:17:25. > :17:28.address it and hide Park in that way, and it's not. These are
:17:29. > :17:32.difficult circumstances. The Second World War, the Korean War, you could
:17:33. > :17:38.provide thousands of cases. We have to get the right balance.
:17:39. > :17:45.Particularly in Iraq, when we were in a war of our making, that we
:17:46. > :17:51.chose to wage, on a country we chose to invade, it wasn't planning to
:17:52. > :17:55.invade us, this was not Britain, 1939, 1940, that it is incumbent on
:17:56. > :17:58.our troops who are there that they behave to the highest possible
:17:59. > :18:02.standards given the circumstances of the war. I could not disagree with
:18:03. > :18:06.that but I think the balance has got slightly wrong and these young men
:18:07. > :18:11.and now women are out there really doing the work for us and I think
:18:12. > :18:17.there was an element that we have to look after them as well as ensure
:18:18. > :18:21.these other things happen. Your firm is representing over 1000 cases, I
:18:22. > :18:26.think, involving British military. How much vetting, what kind of
:18:27. > :18:30.betting do you do to verify that these claims are genuine? There's a
:18:31. > :18:36.couple of things I'd like to say actually. Firstly, you are right we
:18:37. > :18:44.represent over 1000. We only take on credible allegations. There has not
:18:45. > :18:49.been any incidents, other than one enquiry, which found that there was
:18:50. > :18:51.ill-treatment, let's not forget there was ill-treatment, findings of
:18:52. > :18:55.ill-treatment of those detailed knees, other than that one instance,
:18:56. > :19:00.the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, the European
:19:01. > :19:04.Court of Justice has not had any questions as to the credibility of
:19:05. > :19:10.any of our clients' allegations. Let me clarify a very important
:19:11. > :19:16.misconception when were talking about Iraq. As the public are
:19:17. > :19:22.forgetful to recall, the war stage was over within weeks. After that
:19:23. > :19:30.point, it was an occupation. The laws are governed by... If the
:19:31. > :19:36.international law which includes human rights law. The responsibility
:19:37. > :19:43.of any occupying power, especially in the instances of custody, is
:19:44. > :19:48.incredibly high. I understand. Let's remember, a lot of these cases are
:19:49. > :19:55.not just Babar Moussa cases, but the majority are people unlawfully
:19:56. > :20:01.detained. Horrifically treated. I understand the claims. I'm grateful
:20:02. > :20:08.for your clarification on the status post of hostilities, of the soldiers
:20:09. > :20:12.in Iraq, my question was, what work done to verify, given that have got
:20:13. > :20:17.over 1000 cases, what were to be done to verify that these claims are
:20:18. > :20:23.genuine because it would not be against human nature for some people
:20:24. > :20:28.to jump on a bandwagon, would it? Well, I shan't speculate, but human
:20:29. > :20:33.nature is human nature. I'm asking and other factual question. What
:20:34. > :20:37.actual work to do to verify the claims? We take supporting
:20:38. > :20:45.documentation first off, and that documentation is very important. It
:20:46. > :20:49.is disclosed to the MOD. The MoD has a lot more information and a lot
:20:50. > :20:52.more documentation than our clients do, but in any case, we disclose
:20:53. > :21:00.that information. Those documents include for example, certificates
:21:01. > :21:04.from the International Red Cross which prove the dates of the
:21:05. > :21:10.detention, it may include detention numbers, it may include photographs.
:21:11. > :21:15.Of course, witnesses to events. So we collect and process as much
:21:16. > :21:25.information as we can and that is shared with the MoD. Don't you ever
:21:26. > :21:28.have any doubts in some cases about what you're doing? The Iraq historic
:21:29. > :21:32.allegations team has done just what you're doing? The Iraq historic
:21:33. > :21:38.cases in five years, wrongdoings shown in just one of the 18. It
:21:39. > :21:45.resulted in a ?3000 fine. That was it. Nobody convicted. ?31 million
:21:46. > :21:47.public enquiry found there had been mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners but
:21:48. > :21:54.the most serious allegations including murder where wholly
:21:55. > :22:02.without foundation. Do we have any doubts about our work? In the light
:22:03. > :22:06.of what I just read it. Ala work is about upholding the rule of law full
:22:07. > :22:10.is our work is about accountability. Ala work is about representing
:22:11. > :22:14.people and don't just represent Iraqis but we represent soldiers, ex
:22:15. > :22:22.serving soldiers, and criminal soldiers as well, and ala work, no
:22:23. > :22:25.matter who the client, is about addressing the grievance, securing
:22:26. > :22:31.accountability, securing the truth, forcing the truth. What sort of fees
:22:32. > :22:39.do you charge for this work? We are legal firm. British taxpayers paid?
:22:40. > :22:44.We live in a very strong democracy. A democracy we should be proud of.
:22:45. > :22:48.Legal aid is very, very important. I understand. I just want to
:22:49. > :22:53.understand where the money is coming from and the answer is the British
:22:54. > :22:57.taxpayer. What you make of this? Legal aid for Iraqi, British
:22:58. > :23:01.taxpayers money, up to 1000 Iraqi citizens, there's a slight anomaly
:23:02. > :23:08.there for common sense. What your talking about here, the scenario she
:23:09. > :23:12.is presenting is, over ten years, ten years ago, there's been a vast
:23:13. > :23:19.cover-up of industrial scale abuse and mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners
:23:20. > :23:23.and citizens. I used to cover defence in Iraq on numerous
:23:24. > :23:25.occasions. Whenever there was an incidents, the police will
:23:26. > :23:28.investigate things that relate to the great upset other soldiers on
:23:29. > :23:34.the ground and maybe there's one or two things which are crap through
:23:35. > :23:38.which are there to be covered up. That's the nature of things.
:23:39. > :23:43.Certainly the nature of war. The idea industrial scale abuse has been
:23:44. > :23:47.covered up is nonsense. I can see why it's hard. Nobody wants a knock
:23:48. > :23:55.on the door ten years after that, Dick talk in war, the past coming
:23:56. > :24:01.back revisit you, but it is about how much support they offer them.
:24:02. > :24:04.Some of them have been left to their own devices. You are cut off
:24:05. > :24:08.especially if you have left the services. There is no help to go
:24:09. > :24:12.through this. Also the numbers and the delays, there are 1500 cases
:24:13. > :24:17.going through. With the best will in the world, that will take years.
:24:18. > :24:21.This result, I think people could tolerate it. We will either bear.
:24:22. > :24:26.We're going to move on. Bethany, thanks for joining us, did that the
:24:27. > :24:31.legal situation was difficult for you to be able to answer all of the
:24:32. > :24:34.questions. Thank you for joining us from Birmingham. We are holding you
:24:35. > :24:40.hostage, Admiral, because you want to talk about Trident. I think we
:24:41. > :24:45.are going to get Emily Thornbury, the new Shadow Defence Secretary
:24:46. > :24:49.making a statement on the Trident review this morning. I'm not sure if
:24:50. > :24:53.we have got that yet. We do, I'm told. It was made only a few moments
:24:54. > :24:58.ago. She is reconfiguring labours approach to its attitude towards
:24:59. > :25:02.Trident and the process by which it's going to be done. Let's hear
:25:03. > :25:06.what you had to say. This is going to be a wide-ranging review. We are
:25:07. > :25:10.going to looked all aspects of defence policy and clearly Trident
:25:11. > :25:14.is part of that and my views on the record, I'm extremely sceptical
:25:15. > :25:17.about Trident and I will not be afraid to answer difficult questions
:25:18. > :25:21.and I need to hear the evidence about it and I will then come to
:25:22. > :25:26.review. I go into this wanting to look at evidence before we make
:25:27. > :25:30.policy. She says she wants a look at evidence before she makes policy. We
:25:31. > :25:38.know that she historically and indeed currently she is against
:25:39. > :25:41.Britain renewing their deterrent. Yes, and I'm sure that's why she was
:25:42. > :25:47.put in her post I Jeremy Corbyn because of that. If she is genuinely
:25:48. > :25:50.going to listen to all the arguments, then I think that's good.
:25:51. > :25:55.I have no doubt at all in my own mind, but I think it needs a proper
:25:56. > :25:59.debate that we need a deterrent. We have done more than any other county
:26:00. > :26:03.to cut down the number of systems and warheads, everything, and it had
:26:04. > :26:08.no impact whatsoever on any other nations trying to get them and we
:26:09. > :26:14.are in a very dangerous world, but there's no doubt at the moment that
:26:15. > :26:19.Labour policy is that we should replace the submarines. We're not
:26:20. > :26:22.getting any deterrent, replacing them and that Labour policy in the
:26:23. > :26:27.manifesto. That has to go through conference. To be changed. Labour
:26:28. > :26:32.actually first gave our nation the deterrent. Under the Clement Attlee
:26:33. > :26:39.government. There was a period of time within Labour when people said
:26:40. > :26:43.let's get rid of it, let's go unilateralism. The early 1980s when,
:26:44. > :26:48.of course, it was disastrous. The British public believe in the
:26:49. > :26:52.deterrent, I think. If your party should change your end its historic
:26:53. > :26:57.commitment to Britain's nuclear deterrent, where would that leave
:26:58. > :27:00.you? I think if we said we were going to become unilateralist,
:27:01. > :27:03.particularly if the other parts of the policy, Ken Livingstone of
:27:04. > :27:10.course mentioned loosely not being a part of Nato... He was contradicted
:27:11. > :27:16.by Jeremy Corbyn's office. I find that quite worrying if he's going to
:27:17. > :27:23.be involved in our position in the world. Where would it leave you? I
:27:24. > :27:30.would not take believe the Labour whip. What I found over the years
:27:31. > :27:34.people who are anti-Trident, when they hear the arguments and see all
:27:35. > :27:39.of the issues, they realise, actually, although none of us like
:27:40. > :27:44.nuclear weapons, who on earth like nuclear weapons, but we need them
:27:45. > :27:47.pragmatically, I fear. OK, thanks for being with us today.
:27:48. > :27:53.Now let's talk about the referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.
:27:54. > :27:58.Yesterday one Cabinet Minister, Chris Grayling, declared that
:27:59. > :28:00.membership in its current form is disastrous and signalled
:28:01. > :28:03.that he would be a leading figure in the out campaign.
:28:04. > :28:05.Well, last night the Chancellor, George Osborne, described himself
:28:06. > :28:09.as a Eurosceptic, but said he was confident that David Cameron
:28:10. > :28:12.would secure a renegotiation deal that would allow him
:28:13. > :28:17.and the government to campaign to stay in the EU.
:28:18. > :28:19.Let's have a listen to Mr Osborne's exchange
:28:20. > :28:24.Do you think the referendum is going to settle it?
:28:25. > :28:31.You know, I think it will for at least a generation.
:28:32. > :28:33.Some people have talked about a second referendum
:28:34. > :28:44.This is the crucial decision of our lifetime.
:28:45. > :28:47.Do we stay in the European Union, a reformed European Union
:28:48. > :28:52.And you have another chance in negotiating...
:28:53. > :28:55.Anyone who votes out on the assumption that a year or two
:28:56. > :28:58.later you can have another vote to go back in, I think
:28:59. > :29:01.is being unrealistic about the nature of the choice.
:29:02. > :29:04.And I think it's really important the British people focus on the fact
:29:05. > :29:09.this is the once in a lifetime decision.
:29:10. > :29:11.So the Chancellor thinks this will be the only referendum on EU
:29:12. > :29:27.He described it as the crucial decision.
:29:28. > :29:31.He was responding to the idea floated by the out campaign that,
:29:32. > :29:34.in the event of Britain voting to leave there could be a second
:29:35. > :29:39.referendum on whether to accept the new relationship with the EU.
:29:40. > :29:42.But, of course, the Government has already legislated to allow
:29:43. > :29:44.for a further referendum should there be any transfer of powers
:29:45. > :29:55.The so-called referendum lock, passed back in 2011,
:29:56. > :29:58.came after David Cameron said, "Never again should it be possible
:29:59. > :30:01.for a British government to transfer power to the EU without the say
:30:02. > :30:16.The act provided for a referendum throughout the United Kingdom on any
:30:17. > :30:22.With treaty changes expected within the next few years
:30:23. > :30:31.as Eurozone countries head for further unification,
:30:32. > :30:35.that means that even if the UK votes to stay in it may not be the final
:30:36. > :30:42.time voters are asked to go to the polls over Europe.
:30:43. > :30:48.Well, we're joined now by the Conservative MEP Dan Hannan.
:30:49. > :31:00.Welcome. Let's peeled this bit by bit. First of all, the idea that we
:31:01. > :31:05.could vote no in the upcoming referendum, Europe would take
:31:06. > :31:11.fright, give us a turn of things we had not even asked for and we would
:31:12. > :31:16.have on that. Is that a credible scenario? We have both been around
:31:17. > :31:22.long enough to see what happens when there is a no vote. In Denmark,
:31:23. > :31:27.Ireland, France. We both know that Brussels does not take no for an
:31:28. > :31:32.answer, at least not the first time. I am not saying a second referendum,
:31:33. > :31:35.but I think that if we vote no, that is when they will take seriously and
:31:36. > :31:41.proper concessions will be on the table. That if we vote to stay, that
:31:42. > :31:45.is it. You think they will ask us again? At that stage we have
:31:46. > :31:50.acquiesced in the whole coming project. We have asked them to carry
:31:51. > :31:53.on integrating. If they will not make series concessions before the
:31:54. > :31:59.referendum, and much and how they will treat us after we vote to stay?
:32:00. > :32:03.-- imagine how they will. Do you think there is a possibility of
:32:04. > :32:07.Europe saying, don't go, let's look at this again and have another
:32:08. > :32:10.referendum? All of the conversations I have had for years in Brussels
:32:11. > :32:13.suggest that in the event of Britain voting to leave, some sort of
:32:14. > :32:19.associate membership would quickly be put on the table, they have
:32:20. > :32:22.basically worked that out. The broad principles have been agreed by
:32:23. > :32:27.Federalists and antifederalists in Europe that we would have a free
:32:28. > :32:31.trade only membership. My job would disappear, we would not be members,
:32:32. > :32:36.but we would probably keep the bulk of the economic and financial links.
:32:37. > :32:40.Hasn't the government indicated that if it is a no vote, it applies to
:32:41. > :32:46.leave immediately under article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, and that just
:32:47. > :32:50.sets the train on the tracks? But what do we mean by leave? It is very
:32:51. > :32:56.important to stress there is a common market in Europe that
:32:57. > :33:01.embraces EU and non-EU countries, it runs from non-EU Iceland to non-EU
:33:02. > :33:05.Turkey, there are no tariffs, no trade barriers within that area.
:33:06. > :33:10.Nobody is talking about Britain leaving that. We are talking about
:33:11. > :33:13.withdrawing from the political institutions in Brussels and getting
:33:14. > :33:18.a looser relationship. I would have hoped that Cameron would have
:33:19. > :33:22.negotiated that amicably as part of these talks. Since that has not
:33:23. > :33:26.happened and we are getting the same deal, as even Alan Johnson admitted
:33:27. > :33:31.on Newsnight yesterday, the leader of the Labour yes campaign, it is
:33:32. > :33:36.clear that the only way we can get that slightly looser deal is by
:33:37. > :33:40.voting to leave. Can we move onto an act that I think a lot of people
:33:41. > :33:49.forgotten about, the European Referendum 2011, part of the
:33:50. > :33:54.coalition agreement in 2010. If we vote to stay in in the upcoming
:33:55. > :33:58.in-out referendum, and nevertheless because of the needs of the Eurozone
:33:59. > :34:06.there is quite substantial Treaty change around 2020, maybe 2021, as
:34:07. > :34:08.the law stands, is it your understanding that we would need
:34:09. > :34:13.another referendum on that treaty change? That had been mine and
:34:14. > :34:19.everyone else's until I heard the Chancellor last night. By the way,
:34:20. > :34:25.it is when, not if. It is clear that the rest of the EU will go... By the
:34:26. > :34:28.way, it is very clear that we will be dragged into quite a lot of that
:34:29. > :34:32.even if we are not in the euro. And the reporters what needs to be done
:34:33. > :34:42.in the Eurozone and the relationship with the non-Eurozone Busta gulp it
:34:43. > :34:47.talks about fiscal harmonisation. It is the question of when that
:34:48. > :34:55.happens. I had assumed that we would have another referendum. Not an
:34:56. > :35:01.in-out referendum? A referendum effectively blocking a future... The
:35:02. > :35:06.type that Ireland has? Ireland, Denmark. You have to listen to what
:35:07. > :35:11.ministers are saying, what George said in your clip. Are they trying
:35:12. > :35:16.to get a mandate now we were to vote to stay in that would effectively
:35:17. > :35:25.carry us through? We voted for the big principle of the thing, we don't
:35:26. > :35:29.need any future votes. But the Referendum Act that establishes the
:35:30. > :35:34.referendum we are about to have did not repeal the 2011 act, and I have
:35:35. > :35:41.not heard any ministers say that in the event of a vote to stay in that
:35:42. > :35:45.they will repeal the 2011 act? This is a political rather than a legal
:35:46. > :35:50.way of tackling it. We have already seen since the 2011 act came into
:35:51. > :35:54.effect quite substantive transfers of power from Westminster to
:35:55. > :35:58.Brussels, particularly in the field of criminal Justice and home
:35:59. > :36:01.affairs, which didn't trigger... A clever lawyer can usually find a way
:36:02. > :36:08.of saying this does not involve the kind of treaty... There was an
:36:09. > :36:11.unquestionable treaty change to do with a respective legalisation of
:36:12. > :36:15.the bailouts, clever Government lawyers said it did not trigger the
:36:16. > :36:20.act. We are gearing up for the Government saying, if we get a vote
:36:21. > :36:25.to remain in, we will treat that as a mandate for a generation, forget
:36:26. > :36:28.ever voting again. When we go to vote, we can vote to leave and there
:36:29. > :36:33.will be the beginning of a new round of talks, if we vote this day, that
:36:34. > :36:40.is it, gone forever, we are on that bus and we will not be able to get
:36:41. > :36:43.off it. Had you forgotten about the 2011 act? It is engraved on my
:36:44. > :36:47.memory forever more excavation Marco did not take the same thing from a
:36:48. > :36:53.George Osborne interview that Dan Hannan did. He says it is not like
:36:54. > :36:59.haggling in the souk, they will not chase you with a better offer. I
:37:00. > :37:02.don't think saying there is no more in-out referendum 's is the same as
:37:03. > :37:06.saying there is no more referenda ever about anything. Of course there
:37:07. > :37:12.will be issues further along the line, do we want this, that all the
:37:13. > :37:18.other, that is not the same as saying that somehow we have changed
:37:19. > :37:21.our approach completely. Not one, not two, maybe three European
:37:22. > :37:26.referenda in the next couple of years? We have not had enough in
:37:27. > :37:30.recent times! We have had one every year, every six months. There were
:37:31. > :37:34.two flaws in George Osborne Haas interview, one with his complete
:37:35. > :37:39.inability to say by how much migration would be stopped by David
:37:40. > :37:43.Cameron 's four-year ban on benefits and new arrivals. The next one was
:37:44. > :37:49.definitely no second in-out referendum. He has absolutely no way
:37:50. > :37:54.at all of knowing that. There are no rules written down anywhere about
:37:55. > :37:58.why you can't have a second in out. The question for Darren and those
:37:59. > :38:01.who want to be out, how do you know they're definitely will be a second
:38:02. > :38:09.in-out referendum if we voted no for yes. You don't. That is the key
:38:10. > :38:17.point, there are unknown 's and risks both ways. There are known
:38:18. > :38:20.unknowns and there are black swans. The EU does not readily accepts a no
:38:21. > :38:25.vote, we have seen that every single time. We can reasonably draw
:38:26. > :38:30.inferences. But there are huge risks in staying in, not only in terms of
:38:31. > :38:33.migration but in terms of the continuing euro crisis, the way we
:38:34. > :38:39.will be dragged into more euro bailouts. One known unknown is that
:38:40. > :38:44.if we stay in, how much more of this federalism and the costs will be
:38:45. > :38:50.applied to us. If we stay out, we can get a trade... Finally on this,
:38:51. > :38:55.because we will have plenty of time to argue the pros and cons on the
:38:56. > :39:02.substantive issue, it is clear that the Prime Minister will lead the
:39:03. > :39:08.staying campaign. The -- there needs no ghost come from the grave to
:39:09. > :39:15.Telesis. You need someone to an capsular the outer campaign, who
:39:16. > :39:19.should be? We don't need a single person, in the AV campaign, the
:39:20. > :39:24.regional devolution referenda, there was no single figurehead. I think
:39:25. > :39:27.there will be a coalition of business figures, financiers, trade
:39:28. > :39:35.unionists, ordinary citizens, professional associations. If Boris
:39:36. > :39:43.or Theresa May... Boris and Theresa May... Every army needs a general.
:39:44. > :39:46.In the Scottish referendum, was it wise, looking back from the Unionist
:39:47. > :39:49.point of view, to make Alistair Darling the sole spokesman? They
:39:50. > :39:57.slipped ten points during the campaign. Nurturing the campaign,
:39:58. > :40:02.but they did win... This is a campaign of an elite of politicians,
:40:03. > :40:05.big businesses, megabanks, against the general population. Who does the
:40:06. > :40:10.final debate with the Prime Minister? That would emerge during
:40:11. > :40:15.the campaign, that I don't think there should be one person doing all
:40:16. > :40:16.the reports from our site. It will be Chris Grayling? No idea, it will
:40:17. > :40:19.be whoever is best. Now, since MPs voted in favour
:40:20. > :40:22.of extending British air strikes against the so-called Islamic State
:40:23. > :40:24.group from Iraq into Syria, we've been bringing you regular
:40:25. > :40:27.updates on what sort of impact, according to the Ministry
:40:28. > :40:29.of Defence, they've been having. And it was notable that
:40:30. > :40:31.since the bombing campaign was extended at the beginning
:40:32. > :40:34.of December, the RAF hadn't used the Brimstone missile,
:40:35. > :40:36.which you may remember was put forward as a key reason why
:40:37. > :40:38.the international coalition wanted So what's happened in
:40:39. > :40:45.the last few days? On Sunday the RAF carried out
:40:46. > :40:48.four missions, including using a Brimstone missile
:40:49. > :40:51.for the first time to destroy a supply truck near the Isis
:40:52. > :40:57.stronghold of Raqqa in Syria. The next day, on Monday,
:40:58. > :41:00.an RAF Reaper drone flew the 1,000th sortie of its type since
:41:01. > :41:06.they were committed to operations On Tuesday evening
:41:07. > :41:10.RAF aircraft joined other coalition jets
:41:11. > :41:29.in a strike on Mosul, I saw that the Americans may have
:41:30. > :41:33.taken it some ices funds, Lou up the dollars, in other words, or at least
:41:34. > :41:35.that is what it claims. -- Lou up the dollars.
:41:36. > :41:37.At oilfields in eastern Syria they destroyed a mechanical
:41:38. > :41:40.And in Al-Hasakah in North East Syria RAF jets targeted
:41:41. > :41:45.Well, the man we turn to keep us up to speed on this is our defence
:41:46. > :41:57.Jonathan, does this represent an uptake in activity, or is it pretty
:41:58. > :42:01.much on a par with what we have had for several months? I think there
:42:02. > :42:07.has been an uptake in act that he ever since those extra typhoons were
:42:08. > :42:13.sent and two tornadoes were sent to Akrotiri. There has been a surge of
:42:14. > :42:17.activity over Syria, whether that is because of a military priority or
:42:18. > :42:22.political is a moot point, I think. If you look at the use of the
:42:23. > :42:26.brimstone, which had not been used, as you mentioned, since the campaign
:42:27. > :42:30.started in Syria, they were used to hate mobile cranes in an oilfield.
:42:31. > :42:36.You could probably have used a different type of bond to do that
:42:37. > :42:41.stop to make sure they Brimstone. I think the focus is still in Iraq. I
:42:42. > :42:46.think the attack on the secret police headquarters by the RAF that
:42:47. > :42:49.you mentioned by the Pentagon, the US and four against the cache
:42:50. > :42:53.storage facility, otherwise known as the bank, to make sure they can't
:42:54. > :43:00.give money to their fighters. You could see that the focus, the
:43:01. > :43:04.military focus, is on the shaping up operation around Mosul. That will
:43:05. > :43:07.clearly be the next target for the Iraqi security forces. They do not
:43:08. > :43:12.give a timetable this time because they said it would last year and
:43:13. > :43:18.they did not. Suspicious folk will be wondering how much of a PR
:43:19. > :43:24.element to bear is in this. There has been talk on how the Brimstone
:43:25. > :43:30.was not used, in our Britain -- briefing we were told the Brimstone
:43:31. > :43:36.was used to take out a truck. That is a very expensive way of taking
:43:37. > :43:42.out a truck. The missile alone costs over ?100,000? It is an expensive
:43:43. > :43:47.weapons system with a radar on front to track and make sure it hits its
:43:48. > :43:52.target, it can hit a target moving at 70 mph, I don't whether the truck
:43:53. > :43:56.was moving at 70 mph, I doubt whether mobile cranes in the
:43:57. > :44:01.oilfields were. But they have used it and clearly there was political
:44:02. > :44:05.pressure. People have been asking, not least yourself, why the RAF had
:44:06. > :44:10.not fired any Brimstone missiles. The focus has returned to Mosul.
:44:11. > :44:16.What has happened in Mosul, with the strike by the Americans on that
:44:17. > :44:21.bank, the cash storage facility, there were private briefings from
:44:22. > :44:26.military officials, US military officials, that there would probably
:44:27. > :44:30.be civilian casualties. What we have not had, obviously, from Britain,
:44:31. > :44:34.ministers, the RAF, is any admission of civilian casualties. There has
:44:35. > :44:38.not even an ad campaign in which there have not been civilian
:44:39. > :44:42.casualties. I think there will be more scrutiny of this, as yet we
:44:43. > :44:48.have had no confirmation of any civilian casualties. One final
:44:49. > :44:52.question Jonathan, it might be hard to answer, is there anything you can
:44:53. > :44:57.tell us about what is going on on the ground with coalition British
:44:58. > :45:01.allied forces? We talk about the our war, we can monitor that and so on,
:45:02. > :45:06.but is there any sense that specialist forces act that is on the
:45:07. > :45:12.ground are increasing as well? The great thing about the SAS is people
:45:13. > :45:15.can write what they like about them, they have been in Afghanistan,
:45:16. > :45:20.Libya, everywhere. They have not been in Afghanistan recently. They
:45:21. > :45:24.have been doing stuff around Iraq and Syria. The difference between
:45:25. > :45:28.the Americans and Brits is the Americans say, yes, US special
:45:29. > :45:33.forces, they have admitted this, are going in. We have not had any
:45:34. > :45:38.comment at all from Britain as to what the SAS are doing. The SAS, we
:45:39. > :45:45.know there are other British troops doing training in facilities around
:45:46. > :45:49.Baghdad, mostly focused on IEDs, that is a massive threat in Ramadi,
:45:50. > :45:54.they are also training the Peshmerga -- Peshmerga. But no comment at all
:45:55. > :46:00.about what the SAS special forces are doing. Thank you.
:46:01. > :46:02.Now, it's one of Britain's newest political parties and it's hoping
:46:03. > :46:04.to make an impact in May's elections across England,
:46:05. > :46:09.But to do that, the Women's Equality Party needs some cash and last night
:46:10. > :46:12.it held a fundraiser in Central London.
:46:13. > :46:19.We sent our Ellie along to see what it was all about.
:46:20. > :46:21.NEWSREEL: A fundraising sale organised by the Tory
:46:22. > :46:26.This is how they used to do it in the 1970s.
:46:27. > :46:30.Party political fundraising at its most ladylike.
:46:31. > :46:33.I enjoy working for the Conservative party obviously.
:46:34. > :46:36.Last night's fundraiser was ladylike too.
:46:37. > :46:42.So I've been given 15 minutes and I was thinking what shall I do?
:46:43. > :46:47.Obviously, it would take longer with my skills.
:46:48. > :46:51.It was largely a night of comedy with a serious message.
:46:52. > :46:54.If I had seen the Labour Party or the Tory Party or any other party
:46:55. > :47:03.Absolutely, let's be radical, let's shake things up.
:47:04. > :47:10.The thing about equality is that you need someone to make
:47:11. > :47:14.The idea of equality is everywhere but someone needs to come along,
:47:15. > :47:17.a bit like a mum, and make sure that that's actually happening and that
:47:18. > :47:20.all the rules are written down and everyone is playing nicely.
:47:21. > :47:22.And there were plenty of mums in the audience
:47:23. > :47:26.And those who, for various reasons, might describe
:47:27. > :47:29.What people think about feminists is they've got no sense of humour,
:47:30. > :47:33.they're extreme radical lesbians, which is also ridiculous
:47:34. > :47:36.because we know that there is a continuum.
:47:37. > :47:40.And I always used to say, you know, the problem is you've got your kind
:47:41. > :47:42.of extreme radical feminists there and you've got your kind
:47:43. > :47:44.of lipstick feminists there who still want to wear nice
:47:45. > :47:49.The problem is, I'm one of those but I look like one of those.
:47:50. > :47:53.People just need to be a little bit more forgiving.
:47:54. > :47:57.I think women have to be a bit cleverer really about how they,
:47:58. > :48:05.That's a bloody man interrupting again!
:48:06. > :48:12.The Women's Equality Party launched last March and is planning to field
:48:13. > :48:14.candidates in the Scottish, Welsh and London mayoral elections.
:48:15. > :48:21.They say they have 45,000 members, which is more than UKIP.
:48:22. > :48:24.I think any revolutionary out there should have a picture
:48:25. > :48:27.of Nigel Farage on their bedroom wall with, "If he can do it anyone
:48:28. > :48:33.There are plenty of people I understand who would like to see
:48:34. > :48:38.Do you know what, in the last election, I thought,
:48:39. > :48:40.I wonder if I would like to be Prime Minister?
:48:41. > :48:43.I phoned up and asked if I could look around the house
:48:44. > :48:46.You want to check the house out first, right?
:48:47. > :48:49.I think that's a very female approach actually.
:48:50. > :48:52.I want to see how big the bedrooms are.
:48:53. > :48:55.And Sophie Walker, leader of the Women's Equality Party,
:48:56. > :49:08.Why a separate party on this issue as opposed to fighting within the
:49:09. > :49:15.major parties to get this issue up the agenda? Because all of the other
:49:16. > :49:18.parties have competing priorities and they are simply unable to give
:49:19. > :49:23.this the attention that it needs. We've been waiting a very, very,
:49:24. > :49:29.very long time. The pace of change is clay seal and I think we needed
:49:30. > :49:34.to set this political party up to be able to speak for the thousands and
:49:35. > :49:39.thousands of people who are sick of living with gender inequality every
:49:40. > :49:47.day. -- Glace seal. Children going to school without role models, who
:49:48. > :49:51.want to see fully rounded role models. There's a to do something
:49:52. > :49:56.about this. If you don't win a single seat, which I think people
:49:57. > :50:01.might think is likely, doesn't that to your cause harm in the end? First
:50:02. > :50:09.of all, it's absolutely very likely we will win seats. As a huge amount
:50:10. > :50:15.of momentum behind us. We think we are contesting candidates for the
:50:16. > :50:20.Greater London assembly, also in Scotland and Wales and looking at
:50:21. > :50:23.the London mayoral election. Ala members will vote for candidates in
:50:24. > :50:31.the next couple of weeks. With this voting system, your not going to win
:50:32. > :50:36.any seats but hope to get some list under the PR system? I think we
:50:37. > :50:41.genuinely will win seats. The growth and the speed of the growth of this
:50:42. > :50:46.party has been really phenomenal. People have really had enough and I
:50:47. > :50:51.think the model also appeals to people because we are a nonpartisan
:50:52. > :50:56.political party, so we can come at this from two ways, firstly, saying
:50:57. > :51:01.to the other political parties, we want to help and find common ground.
:51:02. > :51:04.The traditional parties are still operating along this very
:51:05. > :51:10.old-fashioned, very combative model in which they feel a quality is
:51:11. > :51:14.something they have two each own it and decide who gets to give it out
:51:15. > :51:17.piece by piece, and we are saying it's really shouldn't work that way.
:51:18. > :51:22.People are joining from the Conservative, Lib Dems, labour and
:51:23. > :51:27.Ukip and saying to us, we are going to give you a boat to get this done
:51:28. > :51:33.to tell the other parties this needs to be at the top of their agenda. --
:51:34. > :51:37.vote. Why shouldn't the top of the agenda rather than being on it when
:51:38. > :51:44.the larger pay gaps in this country associated with ethnicity, religion,
:51:45. > :51:53.disability, even looks. There's a beauty premium established by a
:51:54. > :51:56.columnist. Why this one gap and not these are the gaps? Because this
:51:57. > :52:03.speaks right across all of the other stuff, too. We are speaking for
:52:04. > :52:07.women, which means also a quality for men, an economy which
:52:08. > :52:12.flourishes, a society which flourishes, everything works better
:52:13. > :52:16.this way and I think we are not saying we are a single issue party,
:52:17. > :52:21.but people don't live single issue lives. Talking up the economy, for
:52:22. > :52:24.example, there are 600,000 women in the country who would like to back
:52:25. > :52:30.to work if they could afford the health care and the childcare and
:52:31. > :52:35.the price of it means they can't. If we could get 10% of mothers who want
:52:36. > :52:40.to work into the workplace, ?1.5 billion a year in terms of
:52:41. > :52:46.additional tax revenues and in work benefits topping. Is this the right
:52:47. > :52:50.way to go? I think they've rarely tapped into something. I have every
:52:51. > :52:55.sympathy for giving the existing parties are put up the backside.
:52:56. > :52:59.Jeremy Corbyn 's Labour Party does not look terribly female friendly to
:53:00. > :53:04.be honest. He now has a majority of women in the Shadow Cabinet. None in
:53:05. > :53:08.his inner circle apart from Diane Abbott for the Lib Dems have been
:53:09. > :53:12.left for road kills others an opportunity there. The concern for
:53:13. > :53:16.me would be there is a real problem with becoming a Ukip of the
:53:17. > :53:20.centre-left, that the women's equality party takes lots of votes
:53:21. > :53:23.in areas where there's lots of like-minded sympathetic women and
:53:24. > :53:29.all it does is not win the seat but just keeps up possible like-minded
:53:30. > :53:32.sympathetic candidate. That presumes we are a left-wing party and we are
:53:33. > :53:40.not. We have people coming to us from right across... All your famous
:53:41. > :53:44.names. There's lots of people behind-the-scenes who don't want to
:53:45. > :53:47.be named to our supporters. There's lots of people behind-the-scenes
:53:48. > :53:52.reporting is. There's a famous right-wing name joining you get a
:53:53. > :53:54.Mac I dig going and so that? You've already got the hang of being a
:53:55. > :54:02.politician by not answering the question. I find this really weird.
:54:03. > :54:05.People presume that they tell us for stealing votes. The boats don't
:54:06. > :54:09.belong to the other parties. They have to do in them and there's an
:54:10. > :54:14.awful lot voters who say, you're not having my vote on this any more --
:54:15. > :54:19.votes. I think you're onto something. Why can't you steal vast
:54:20. > :54:25.tranches of votes on a group of issues off the establishment? On
:54:26. > :54:28.that shock revelation that you have the backing of the Sun newspaper,
:54:29. > :54:30.you can take that back to your party leaders and they will be overjoyed.
:54:31. > :54:32.Thanks for being with us. Now any moment now,
:54:33. > :54:34.if all goes to plan, Major Tim Peake will become
:54:35. > :54:37.the first Briton to walk in space, to repair the International
:54:38. > :54:40.Space Station. Back here on earth,
:54:41. > :54:42.MPs, or at the least Scottish National Party's
:54:43. > :54:44.MPs, have been getting Yes, it turns out the SNP
:54:45. > :54:57.is packed with Trekkies. And in the Commons they were boldly
:54:58. > :55:05.going, in the words of the famous split infinitive, where no
:55:06. > :55:11.MP has gone before. Let's have a listen
:55:12. > :55:14.Philippa Whitford opening a Commons Now, some people who follow
:55:15. > :55:22.the media will be aware that our former First Minister,
:55:23. > :55:24.the right honourable member for Gordon, has used as a travelling
:55:25. > :55:30.pseudonym the name of that famous But for a debate as important
:55:31. > :55:36.as this, I felt that we should And I therefore have a message
:55:37. > :55:43.to the House of Commons "Space is one of the
:55:44. > :55:47.last known frontiers. "Mostly untouched by
:55:48. > :55:51.mankind in his politics. "In opening a debate on this
:55:52. > :55:54.subject, it is my hope you take "the tenets
:55:55. > :55:57.of Star Trek's prime directive "to universally and peacefully share
:55:58. > :56:02.in the exploration of it. "I wish you all a wonderful debate.
:56:03. > :56:06.My best, Bill. "So that it can live
:56:07. > :56:10.long and prosper." And Philippa Whitford joins us now
:56:11. > :56:24.from the BBC studios in Glasgow. I noticed William Shatner has not
:56:25. > :56:28.lost his ability to split a definitive on the statement you read
:56:29. > :56:32.doubtful that was it difficult to get a message from him? Surprisingly
:56:33. > :56:37.easy. I can't claim the credit for it. It was the inspired move of my
:56:38. > :56:41.parliamentary assistant who just wrote to several very famous Star
:56:42. > :56:46.Trek people. Was he aware Alex Salmond has used his name to book
:56:47. > :56:51.flights and hotels? Yes, that was covered in the media last year. Do
:56:52. > :57:00.you check in as Deanna Troy? No, I don't. Press a week is vying to be
:57:01. > :57:07.the spaceport for button bash Prestwick. What is a spaceport do?
:57:08. > :57:11.It's something which struck me during the election. If you mention
:57:12. > :57:15.space in the UK, people laugh. It's something we think Russia and
:57:16. > :57:22.America do but not us. Sorry to interrupt because just as you are
:57:23. > :57:30.speaking, we have pictures of Tim Peake leaving the space station to
:57:31. > :57:36.begin his work of repair, the first person to walk in space. Please,
:57:37. > :57:40.carry on. I interrupted you. Major Tim Peake is the reason we ask the
:57:41. > :57:44.backbench committee to give us the debate yesterday in honour of his
:57:45. > :57:49.spacewalk today but also to encourage people to realise that the
:57:50. > :57:53.UK has a significant space industry. We have led for decades in what are
:57:54. > :57:57.called small satellites which the size of a fridge rather than on a
:57:58. > :58:02.bus, but we now have here in Glasgow company along with others who make
:58:03. > :58:07.micro satellites, about one litre in size, so this whole industry is
:58:08. > :58:12.growing that we have no launch site at all in the UK. Am I right in
:58:13. > :58:19.thinking there's quite a few Star Trek fans in the SNP Parliamentary
:58:20. > :58:26.party? I don't think it was only the SNP. We did, mind you, have Ian
:58:27. > :58:31.Wright, the Labour MP who stuck to Star Wars. I understand one of your
:58:32. > :58:35.colleagues is into fist bumping rather than a unhygienic
:58:36. > :58:40.handshaking. Will we see the fist bumping now? I think I will be going
:58:41. > :58:43.for elbow bumping if you're trying to do that. Just use alcohol gel.
:58:44. > :58:45.Thank you very much for joining us. That's all for today.
:58:46. > :58:47.Thanks to our guests. The One O'Clock News is starting
:58:48. > :58:49.over on BBC One now. I'll be back on Sunday
:58:50. > :58:52.with the Sunday Politics. We are expecting to see people
:58:53. > :59:13.who can sell anything. It's the Oscar
:59:14. > :59:15.for the mobile phone industry. The search for Britain's best
:59:16. > :59:20.mobile phone salesperson is on. We are expecting to see people
:59:21. > :59:25.who can sell anything.