08/09/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Brexit is still causing problems for ministers today,

after Eurosceptic MPs warned Theresa May against keeping the UK

But are junior members of the government overstepping

Jeremy Corbyn is on the final leg of his tour of marginal

constituencies, but how will Labour reconcile its own differences over

One controversial German party is hoping for a breakthrough

at elections there later this month, but why is Nigel Farage

And the statues of men in Parliament Square in Westminster

are to be joined by a woman for the first time,

but is the campaigner Millicent Fawcett the right woman

All that in the next hour, and with me for all of it two

journalists in absolutely no danger of being immortalised outside

Parliament, and I don't think I've got much chance either,

it's the commentator Isabel Oakeshott and

First today, let's talk about the devastating

impact of hurricane Irma, which has been pummelling

the British overseas territory of the Turks and Caicos Islands

after leaving a trail of destruction across the Caribbean.

After criticisms that the UK government did not respond quickly

enough to the disaster, Theresa May will chair a meeting

of the government's Cobra emergency committee this afternoon.

Ministers have increased the relief fund for overseas

territories including Anguilla, Montserrat and the British

Virgin Islands from ?12 million to ?32 million.

The first British military flight to join the relief effort will leave

RAF Brize Norton later, carrying troops, rations and water.

But some 500,000 people were told to leave south Florida

OK. One of the things, Jack, things have been criticising is the UK

responded too slowly, is that the case? It is difficult for them. You

look at the scale of what is happening over there and it is hard

for a government, it will always get criticised for the way it responds.

It is important for the government to be seen to get on top of this,

not just for the people there but from a political point of view. You

look at George Bush and his slow response to hurricane Katrina, very

damaging to him on political level. You talk about George Bush... Isabel

, this is a massive challenge for politicians, from George Bush to

Donald Trump. It needs a very resourced Armed Forces from our end.

It has become unfashionable in political terms to spend money on

defence. We are now sending out HMS Ocean. It is due to be

decommissioned due to the recalibration of the defence budget.

I think people will be delighted to seek HMS Ocean going out. It will

take a couple of weeks to get there. I think what this exposes is a

shortage of presence in the region, which is a natural consequence of us

diminishing the Armed Forces. We are now going to see our Armed Forces at

our best -- their best and is a reminder to people as to why we need

the Armed Forces. Furthermore, these are are overseas territories and one

of the main duties of the government is to protect the safety of its

people. So this really hammers home that when we are thinking about

defence, we shouldn't just be thinking about the UK but the

remaining overseas territories. That is a resource intensive things. We

will hear from the Prime Minister later in the day.

The question for today is why did Labour MP Ann Clwyd miss

the first Commons vote of the Parliamentary session?

Was it she missed the bus, her dog ate her parliamentary pass,

she was stuck in a lift, or she thought in was still recess?

At the end of the show, Isabel and Jack will give

If they've been doing their homework.

Now, the composition of the standing committees of the House

of Commons may not sound like a subject to get the heart

racing on a rainy Friday afternoon, but it's causing a bit of a stir

today after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn described what sounded

like a fairly minor technical change as "an unprecedented attempt to rig

Well, our political correspondent Chris Mason lives for this sort

Chris, explained. Even for the most proud Daily Politics viewer

clutching their Daily Politics mug watching you today, it you might

think this is pretty nerdy. It is but it's about the committees, the

most important committees at Westminster you have probably never

heard. Committees made up of MPs that scrutinise the really small

print of legislation, beyond the knock-about stuff we see in the

House of Commons. What the government is proposing in a motion

it has put down and there will be a vote on Tuesday, is they want to

change the make-up of these committees to Minshull there is a

majority of conservatives on them. The idea being from their

perspective they can get legislation, and there is a

truckload of it coming along with Brexit, through the Commons as

quickly as possible. If you are an opposition MP you see this as a

democratic outrage because they say that aggression has been that these

committees are made up of a group of MPs that reflects the make-up of the

house, and given the Conservatives don't have a majority in the

Commons, the argument goes, why should they in these committees? The

opposition see it as Theresa May trying to fiddle the election

results? Yes, and playing fast and loose, as they see it, with the

rules of Parliament. When you speak to real parliamentary historical

nerds, like Chris Bryant, the Labour MP, who has written tomes on this

stuff, started quoting bits of Erskine May. He sees this, and you

might say he would as a Labour MP, he sees this as an unwarranted

bending of the rules. Some are pointing to Presidents back in the

1970s and Walter Harrison, a former whip for Labour when he appointed

Tony Newton, and the Conservatives in 1990 when their majority slipped

away between 92-97, Chris Bryant making the argument this goes beyond

that. The Prime Minister's official spokesman in the last hour, their

argument is that they have a majority in the Commons, which they

do if you take account of the Democratic Unionists, and therefore

it is right they do in these committees. My understanding is the

DUP will vote with the Conservatives when this vote... Every Tory MP will

vote with? That is the big question. I've been trying to get to the

bottom of that this morning. I can't give you a definitive answer. When

you look at the Tory MPs who are most like to make the hullabaloo

about Parliamentary procedure, there is an overlap with those names on

those who want to get Brexit legislation through quickly, so my

hunch is they will back the government. It would be difficult

from Parliament to get this sort of stuff through committees? That is

completely right. Any government would try and do this. There is an

argument to say they are trying to break the system. They don't have a

majority, therefore you don't have a majority on the committees. The

truth is, they would be able to get the legislation through. I suspect

if the shoe was on the other foot and it was

the Labour Party in power without majority, they would try to do the

same thing. I think it's less trying to break the system rather than

making the system work. I know there was some sort of horror in the early

days after the general election result. Apart from the general

overall horror, horror when the government realise this issue with

the make-up of the committees. So it is something that has definitely

been exercising them the reality is nothing will get done unless we come

up with a workable system here. I think some people are just going to

have to accept that perhaps the historical precedents are very

pretty, but business needs to get on with it and I'm sure the opposition

will be as keen on that as everyone else. It will be quite interesting

next week. Thank you for bringing us up to date, Chris.

Now, yesterday the EU Withdrawal Bill, which would convert

all current EU law into UK law after Brexit, was introduced

for its second reading in the House of Commons.

We'll show you a bit of that debate later.

But although the attention this week has been focused on life

after we leave the EU, the battle to define how Brexit

actually happens goes on inside the government and opposition.

So, where exactly are the fault lines?

Tories concerned about the consequences of withdrawal

from the Single Market and Customs Union, that's people

like Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry, have criticised the Withdrawal Bill

for giving ministers too much power over how to incorporate EU law.

But Theresa May's facing pressure from another side too,

the much-larger Eurosceptic group of Conservative MPs.

Yesterday, a letter emerged in which dozens urged

the Prime Minister not to stay in the EU "by stealth."

The letter was circulated among a social media group containing two

junior members of the Government, Brexit Minister Steve Baker

Labour has agreed a three-line whip on its MPs to oppose the EU

The party's Brexit Spokesman Keir Starmer says Labour wants to stay

in the single market and customs union during

a transition but it's divided on the nature of the final deal

One group of Labour MPs, including former shadow ministers

Heidi Alexander and Alison McGovern, is campaigning for permanent

But Labour's 2017 manifesto said freedom of movement

will end after Brexit, something John McDonnell has said

There's expected to be lots of pressure at the party's

conference from the Labour Campaign for Free Movement, backed by people

Backing that campaign is the former union leader Billy Hayes,

Also joining us is the businessman and founder

Thank you both for being here. Billy, what do you want to do at

conference, will you be setting a motion down on this issue? That is

still being debated, as to what will be discussed. But very much we want

to be in favour of the continuation of free movement of labour. The

decision of Keir Starmer on the front trench is a good move in the

right direction. The third part of that has got to be a continuation of

free movement. Only until the transitional deal? Let's deal with

where we are at the moment. We are yet to see the whole of the

disastrous Brexit played out yet. At this stage, we are campaigning and

there needs to be the continuation of free movement of labour. To be

clear, you signed up to a campaign with a commitment of defending and

extending the free movement of people in the context of the debate

around Brexit. Do you ultimately want to make it easier for people to

come here? I think the big thing is immigration and free movement has

been a good thing for this country and is a good thing. The world's

most successful economy is built on it, the Westgate, and immigration

has been built on this -- in this country. That's what it's about, the

continuation of free movement, which has been good for the UK and our

economy. In 2016 people voted for Brexit. Do you not accept that

limiting free movement was part of that vote? That was obviously apart,

the question of immigration. There was a recent YouGov Poll but said

people would accept free movement of labour if there was a deal on the

single market. So yes, obviously immigration was a factor, but the

fact of the matter is, free movement of labour in this country has been a

good thing. John, they are basically saying is the best way to protect

and advance the interests of all workers. What you to that? I'm not

sure that's right. I think what's happened in this country is we have

had a large amount of immigration from people from Eastern Europe with

low income expectations and have come in and competed quite strongly

at the lower end of the labour market and the bank of England

produced a report showing this was depressing wages. Depressing wages

very slightly and it was only one report that quoted quite heavily.

The bank of England have made that smaller since then. I think there

was controversy in doubt about the extent to which this has happened

but it is hard to believe having large numbers of people coming in

who are quite prepared to work for lower wages and people who have lots

of aspirations and are prepared to work hard doesn't have some effect

on the labour market. I think also because we have had such a big

influx of people who are prepared to work for low wages, this is

discouraging investment in the UK, productivity has been stuck in this

country for nearly ten years now. I think there are downsides to having

complete freedom of movement of labour. I think what the Labour

Party really needs to do and the country needs to do is put some

constraints on labour but have is free movement as they can have of

people on high incomes and who have the skills that the economy needs.

How do you respond to that, Billy? That there has been an impact on

lower paid workers? You yourself just said is debatable. But what's

interesting is the reaction to the Tory proposals. A friend of mine was

trying to get through to the offices of the CBI yesterday in the

switchboard was jammed with businesses saying that recent Tory

proposal. The leaked proposals that suggest a pretty big crackdown? Yes.

The CBI, the switchboard was jammed yesterday with people trying to get

through to say what is this nonsense they are talking about, in terms of

restriction of low skilled... The leaked to talk about? Is a

businesses were talking about it, we didn't hear much from the Labour

front trench. Even Diane Abbott, who has talked about the virtues of free

movement, hardly had anything to say about it.

The Labour campaign for free movement is about supporting those

people in the party and wider society who think immigration has

been good for this country and has helped in lots of areas. A woman and

the other day talking about the impact and care homes of these -- if

these restrictions come in. The CBI is against the government proposals.

I know you can't speak for the Labour front bench but you know

quite a lot of the figures on the front bench and do you know if any

of them are supporting opposition? We have some MPs supporting, I can

tell you that full list, but Clive Lewis is one of the supporters of

the campaign. Without naming them, any other people? I know people on

the front bench who are supporting it. This campaign is going to take

off because people see we are going to be in the single market and if

were going to be in the customs union, there needs to be free

movement of labour as well. Labour went into the election saying free

movement will end, John McDonnell has said it, Jeremy Corbyn has said

it. I'm not speaking for the Labour front bench. I'm speaking for those

people in the party... You think Labour should go against its

manifesto? It wouldn't be the first time a party has gone against its

manifesto. We need to stiffen the sinews of those mems of the party

that believes the free movement of labour has been a good thing for the

country. John this is challenging for Labour. Voters on both sides are

very passionate. I think they are and there is a large majority who

are in favour of a reasonable amount of immigration but not unrestricted

immigration. If Billy's campaign is going to allow everyone in the EU,

why don't we let everyone in from the whole of the world? There is

some illogical inking here. What do you think about a post-brexit-mac

system? I thought it was too restrictive and Draconian. What sort

of system would you like to see? We would like to see some constraints

of free movement of labour from Eastern Europe but a free system as

we can devise for people who the economy needs for all sorts of

purposes, and some of them are highly skilled, and some of them are

fruit because. And where will this go in the Labour conference? It will

be a bunfight. We've seen this in the Labour Party and Keir Starmer

has manoeuvred the party into quite cleverly into a position without too

much trouble. If you speak quietly and I'm sure you have done it to

Labour MPs, particularly the ones from the north, where a lot of

people voted Brexit, they are nervous about Labour's current

position. They're worried voters will turn around and say you're

trying to stop Brexit happening altogether. That said, Isabel

Oakeshott, Jeremy Corbyn did say he'd and free movement. If asked if

numbers would come down, he said maybe. They did well in the election

without going too hard on immigration. The legal high the

talks about it being possible to Renee on your manifesto. Recent

history of parties that blithely ignore their commitments isn't

pretty. Look what happened to the Lib Dems. The Tories have learnt a

few things to their cost as well. I found it extraordinary you were not

challenged McCain Brexit is a disaster. Where is your evidence for

that? We haven't got Brexit yet. You repeatedly claimed people want free

movement of people. The result of the Brexit referendum was clearly

indicating people want an end of free movement of people and I find

it very strange that you continue to press for this and I think your

campaign is going nowhere. It wouldn't be the first time a

journalist has told me a campaign in I'm involved in is going nowhere. It

is a good point, isn't it? You make promises in an election and you can

just break them. Also, how do you know Brexit is going to be a

disaster? If you talk to the business community about the impact

of the talks, we haven't even left the EU yet and the impact of the

talks... If you talk to people in business and the CBI, they can see

what is looming large in terms of it. If we are going to be in the

single market, just what is being currently mentioned, and the customs

union, as we seem to be moving towards... Where'd you get that

from? We will not remain in the single market and Customs union.

That is not the government position. That is the Labour position. It is

but that is looking like it will happen. If you are in the single

market, you must support the free movement of labour. I using Labour

should keep that as a permanent position? I don't speak for the

Labour Party, I'm speaking for this campaign and we are campaigning to

make sure... You are running to be chairman of a important committee.

So you do speak for the Labour Party. I haven't been elected yet so

I can't take responsibility for a committee I haven't been elected to.

All the people for Brexit, the fact of the matter is that free movement

of labour in the European Union has been a good thing for this country.

It is not a fact! It is not justified! How damaging could these

differences before the Labour Party? It isn't good for the Labour Party

to have these differences. It would be better if the Labour Party could

coalesce around the policy and support the government and unite the

country and these negotiations. It is difficult but that is what Labour

should be doing rather than further dividing the country by some of

these sorts of proposals we've heard. OK, we will keep an eye on

all of it. Well, yesterday MPs began debating

the EU Withdrawal Bill which will transfer existing EU law

onto the UK statute book. The bill has been controversial

because of the inclusion of so-called Henry VIII powers,

which would give Ministers the freedom to make changes

to the law without full Put simply, this bill

is an essential step. Whilst it does not take us out

of the European Union, that's a matter for the Article 50

process, it does ensure on the day we leave,

businesses know where they stand, workers' rights are upheld,

and consumers remain protected. This bill is vital to ensuring

that, as we leave, we do The Secretary of State,

keen to betray this bill as a technical exercise,

converting EU law into our law without raising any serious

constitutional issues Nothing could be

further from the truth. This bill invites us to surrender

all power and influence over that question to the government

and to ministers. That would betray everything

that we were sent here to do. This is clearly a necessary

piece of legislation. We start from the simple principle

how necessary this is the idea that we have to get all of that

European law and regulation transposed into UK law applicable

and actionable in UK law, properly, so that it is properly

justiciable at the end of the day. They said that this would be this

great opportunity to get rid Miles of red tape, all these things

that were strangling British These are the very same things

we are going to take lock, stock and barrel and plays

into substantive British law. The government claims the bill

will restore sovereignty to Parliament and secure

certainty post Brexit. It transfers huge powers

to ministers, not to members of this house, over issues that are vital

to peoples like maternity like maternity or paternity leave,

holidays, environmental standards We have got to make sure,

Madam Deputy Speaker, that on the day of exit,

the statute book in And, frankly, the only

way that we can achieve it in the timescale

with which we are constrained and which is set out in Article 50

is to have a flexible, pragmatic system, such as the system

that is laid out in the draft Bill. If the government isn't

going to move in the next two days of debate, well,

I think we may have to force it to go back to the drawing

board and try again. This is a vital bill and we cannot

leave without this bill on the statute book. I would be no position

to support it a third reading in its current form. It is in many respects

an astonishing monstrosity of a bill.

Well, a little earlier I spoke to the Tory

I began by asking him whether he understood why

some of his Conservative colleagues were so uncomfortable with handing

these so-called Henry VIII statutory powers to Whitehall.

We've had Henry VIII powers in our legislation for many,

many years, and, indeed, in the European Communities Act,

back in the early 70s, has the biggest Henry VIII

European law is simply brought straight into our

legislation without any Parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever.

With this bill, we actually get Parliamentary scrutiny

on transcribing European law into our own domestic legislation.

So just to be clear, Dominic Grieve is wrong when he calls it

I think Dominic has obviously got concerns about that.

I respect those concerns, but my biggest concern is how

we make sure that we get on with the task of Brexit.

My constituents raise with me the issues about money,

the issues about making sure there are no queues at Dover,

they don't raise with me the issues about Parliamentary scrutiny.

They want to make sure that we're focused on making sure

we have an effective Brexit that works for Britain.

We have a Parliamentary mathematics at the moment,

which is going to make things quite difficult for you.

We know that the Labour Party is really worried about these

powers, which are essentially allowing the government

to change regulations without Parliamentary scrutiny.

Do you think the government is going to have to concede

There is Parliamentary scrutiny, because each of these regulations,

about 1,000 regulations in all, can be called in and voted

In fact, if Parliament voted on each regulation and debated each

regulation it would be doing nothing between now and Brexit day.

So, yes, we need scrutiny where it's appropriate,

but we also need to get on with the task at hand,

to make sure we transcribe European law into our domestic legislation,

and then we can then move on with the many

In which case, do you think the colleagues who vote

against certain aspects of the bill are essentially voting

I think the really important thing is that we have this bill,

it's a processed bill, we've put in place the machinery

to bring European law into British law, we've passed these regulations.

Do that transcription process, and then, over time, clearly,

as we've taken back control of our legal system,

we can look at the detail of the laws and see what works

A number of your colleagues have signed this letter

that was going to be published in a Sunday newspaper

to Theresa May, essentially saying do not allow a transitional period

Will you be adding your name to that letter?

This is not a letter that was right for me,

I thought it was too prescriptive, but it was very much not aimed

at our government but aimed at the Labour Party,

who have changed their position since the general election.

They had an election manifesto that said they would end

uncontrolled immigration, leave the single market,

they said they would take back control of trade policy,

leave the customs union, and they've performed a massive u-turn,

talking about a transitional period without end.

A bit like Hotel California, you can check out any time you like,

So you're saying this isn't aimed at Theresa May?

The government have been really clear.

They've said look, we're leaving the single market...

The Labour Party isn't making the policy?

We're leaving the single market, we're leaving the customs union,

we're going to finish up the implementation period by the

Labour has done a u-turn and this letter is about highlighting how

Labour are backsliding and are having this transition

And you're part of this group - the European Research Group -

which is Tory backbenchers, essentially, pushing to make sure

It is chaired by your colleague Suella Fernandes and she,

it appears, has circulated this letter among colleagues.

Some people are saying that as such, she should lose her position

The European Research Group is what it says on the tin,

it's a group that looks at and researches into all the laws

which are going through Parliament at the moment on Brexit.

It includes people who backed Leave, it includes people like me

who backed Remain, all of us are united by taking a real interest

in making sure we have a Brexit that works for Britain.

But you are very much pushing for Brexit to take place,

and this letter, some might say, is essentially lobbying

It's not that we're pushing for Brexit to take place,

we're pushing to make sure the referendum is respected,

the instruction of the British people to leave the European Union

is respected, that we take back control of our borders,

end uncontrolled EU immigration and make sure that we have a trade

policy which is made in London and Britain and not in Brussels.

But some of your colleagues have been pretty angry about this letter.

Steven Hammond said that rebel MPs should sign and resign.

That might include Suella but also, although he hasn't signed

it, there is some talk about Steve Baker, who used

to run your group and now is a Brexit Minister and appears

to have added his name to a Whatsapp group perhaps around it.

Nicky Morgan, meanwhile, says it's not fair for ministers

to be heavily involved in backbench affairs when they are involved

Do you disagree with Steven Hammond and Nicky Morgan?

I think they've misunderstood, they've misunderstood

It's not aimed at the government, it's aimed at the Labour Party,

who are hopelessly split on the whole issue of Brexit.

You've got Jeremy Corbyn who seems to want to leave,

you've got the Labour MPs who seem to want to defy the referendum

and remain in Europe, and what we're highlighting

is a transition period without end is not leaving the European Union.

You say it's for the Labour Party, but is it addressed

It's addressed to set out what should happen

and that there should be a transitional period with an end,

I'm not sentry of this letter, I don't know what the purpose

of this letter is, but I've read the text and the text is very

clearly that there should be a transition period with an end,

and that is the current government policy, and the Labour Party have

They've done a u-turn and the concern is that they want us

to remain in the European Union by stealth.

So you're certain it's not to Theresa May, it's not in any way

I think the government have a really clear position.

I think the most important thing is not letters, not process,

it is making sure we have a Brexit that works for Britain,

supporting the government in their negotiations with Brussels,

and the real question is how do we make sure that Brussels gets

on the negotiations, so we can give more certainty

to the businesses and people of this country in what Brexit

And you are very comfortable with Suella both leading your ERG

Suella is an outstanding ministery aide.

She works really hard, does a great job in the Treasury.

Steve Baker has made a flying start as a minister.

They are both excellent people, and they deserve to be supported.

Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke talking to me earlier.

Was this letter designed to lobby government? I think what the letter

shows is a scale of concern within the Tory Parliamentary party, about

the possibility of a rather elongated transition period. There

were differing views within the cabinet about how long the

transition period should last. I think there is an acceptance on the

part of even the most strident Brexit ministers that there has to

be a transition period and that that will be probably around two years

and it must have a. . As Charlie Elphicke said, the grave concern is

about Labour's position on the idea they want to continue the so-called

transitionary period until everything is worked out. That is a

how long is a piece of string situation. In fairness, you can't

blame Labour and people like Keir Starmer for wanting to extend it as

long as possible because they don't believe we should leave anyway.

There is this European research group, doing a bit of research on

Brexit and it is all government policy. Led by Suella Fernandez. She

is definitely sailing close to the wind. It is... Steve Baker resigned

from the group. Exactly. The one thing Charlie Elphicke said which I

thought was a little disingenuous, he said this group is just what is,

a European research group. They've come up with the most boring

sounding name for their caucus they possibly can, to make it sound as an

interesting and as they can... Is it sinister? If that is your

deformation of sinister, a lot of things will spook you out! Theresa

May is dealing with real big competing factions in her party. And

what's interesting about it as well, this messaging service Whatsapp has

had a big impact in Parliament. It's allowing MPs to organise quickly and

effectively and I'm sure the other side are doing it as well, we just

don't know the name of their Whatsapp group yet. It is allowing

them to be very disciplined, they can talk to each other all through

the day, people are just coming out and saying things... Or ill

disciplined at making trouble. I think it is worth pointing out the

ministerial aide concerned, Suella, not a senior figure in the

government. It is the bottom rung of the ladder as it were. I don't think

this is an excessively disloyal manoeuvre. We are in a very heated

period for Brexit debate on this is just a bunch of MPs who want to make

sure that the government stands firm. What I could think no question

she should lose her job over this? In my view no, but it is not up to

me. I think it's unlikely, but partly for Theresa May is not in a

strong position to do anything that might upset such a big number... Is

one of her problems, because she has no majority, both sides of this

debate are essentially holding her prisoner to some extent? That is

exactly right. Yesterday she had two different rebellions from different

parts of the party on the same day in the Commons. Dominic Grieve

attacking her bill to get Brexit through and on the same day, putting

together this lobbying letter about how hard Brexit is. She's in an

impossible position and there is nothing she can do because she has

no Commons majority. The people like Dominic Reid who are laying into the

EU Withdrawal Bill, are they trying to scupper Brexit? I wouldn't go

that far. I have the greatest respect for Dominic Grieve. He

argued very powerful yesterday made the point the bill itself is

essential. I think there is a bit of using this as a proxy for just a

fundamental anti-Brexit position. I read, the editor of the Evening

Standard George Osborne's column on this, the editorial fostered by

expected to disagree with every word but found myself rather attracted to

his rhetoric, to talk about the importance of Parliament and

democracy, it sounds brilliant, but remember, a lot of these powers are

ones we blithely nodded away to Brussels and we are doing is

bringing them back here. I didn't hear all these people making cry

when we transferred these from our jurisdiction to Brussels. Lots more

on that next week. Now, earlier this year

the prime minister announced there was to be a new statue

in Parliament Square, just over And, for the first time,

it will honour a woman. Here's Elizabeth Glinka

with the story. There are currently nine statues

here in Parliament Square Not their politics or

even their nationality, We have waited too long

for political justice. The voice of Emmeline Pankhurst,

but it's not the famous suffragette who's set to become the first statue

of a woman in Parliament Square. That honour will go

to her contemporary, the tireless but rather more

moderate feminist campaigner Millicent Garrett Fawcett,

who was president of the National Union of

Women Suffrage Societies And this is where she'll stand,

nestled between Disraeli She's often known as a suffragist

and a constitutional campaign because she never got involved

with militancy and didn't But what's interesting about this

statue and the design that Gillian Wearing has done,

is that the plinth will feature 52 other suffrage campaigners,

both militant and constitutional, who all campaigned

for votes for women. There are those, aren't there,

that say that she was a kind of drawing-room activist,

and that maybe we should have someone who was a bit more thrusting

as the first woman in Parliament She was just absolutely fantastic

and there is no way she sat at home She spoke regularly,

she campaigned behind-the-scenes, So, no, I don't think she was

a hidden or passive figure at all. The statue is due to be unveiled

next year but which other great ladies might lay claim

to Dame Fawcett's spot? Another strong candidate would be

Mary Wollstonecraft, who was a feminist thinker,

and she wrote if indication Now, there is a campaign

for a statue of her already, called Mary On The Green,

and that's to be in North London. But she was so influential

as a feminist thinker, and she also campaigned for women

to be equally represented in Parliament, so she's somebody

who has had a real influence on feminist and equality thinking

over the course of two centuries. Or how about the formidable

Nancy Astor, the first woman to sit But I like fighting,

but I like fighting for justice. Then, of course, there

is the Manchester last Emmeline Pankhurst, who famously

advocated deeds not words, and was imprisoned

for her militant tactics. And speaking of Emmeline,

here she is in Victoria Gardens, just around the corner

from Parliament Square. Now, for many people,

she is the leading figure of the women's suffrage movement,

so they might be asking why And joining me now to discuss this

is Sam Smethers, Chief Executive of the Fawcett Society

and June Purvis, Professor of Women's and Gender History

at the University of Portsmouth. Now, Sam, we have heard of the

Fawcett Society but Millicent Fawcett not exactly a household name

like Emmeline Pankhurst, a bit more of a gradualist, non-violent

campaign. Why is she the right choice? Because she made her life's

work. She spent 62 years working for it. She was there to do the

groundwork, the hard graft of lobbying and holding meetings all

over the country, mobilising people to demonstrations and marches, she

did that for many years before the suffragettes emerged onto the scene

to take the camp forward -- campaign forward. She was there to pick up

the pieces once the war had started... She supported their bid

the beginning, fund raised for them, but once she felt their activity was

counter-productive, she distanced herself from them. She sealed the

deal, negotiated votes for women with Lloyd George. It was her? It

was her that led the delegation to do that and in 1928 she was there.

June, at the right woman? No, I don't think so. I'm in favour of

having two stat to use, one of Millicent Fawcett on one of Emmeline

Pankhurst and they should be in canning green. Why canning green?

That is the campaign Nigel Thorne has been mounting, to have it there.

I think churlishly and in a mean spirit the Fawcett supporters have

said no, it has got to be this stat you in Parliament Square. Tell me

why Fawcett is on the right person? Because it is Emmeline Pankhurst,

her name that is associated with the votes for women campaign. Fairly so

why not? Fairly so. Her and her supporters campaigned and gave their

all to win the vote, right up to 1914. Emmeline herself was

imprisoned 13 times. She went on hunger strike but was never forcibly

fed. And from 1913, she also went on first strike as well as sleep

strike. She has got a statue around the corner. Yes, but that was raised

by private subscriptions, by all her admirers, it wasn't by public

subscription. This stat is being supported by a Conservative

government and paid out of public funds. Emmeline has never had

recognition, publicly, by public funds for her contribution to

democracy. That is a point, Emmeline Pankhurst was in prison and had to

be. Because she was on hunger strike. Emily Davidson killed for

the cause. Some might say that Fawcett is a somewhat boring choice.

What she is is a leader. Is tempered but not a leader? She is. I think

temperament should be commemorated as well, I'm not arguing against

commemorating the women and I don't want us to pit one woman against

another when there are so few. I support Mary Wollstonecraft. I

really think it is time for another look, but let's not argue against

Millicent Fawcett, but get behind it because it has been too long. Why

are divisions? I think what you're doing in supporting Millicent and

the Conservative government in supporting that statue is writing

out of history the radical women who brought about change, and Emmeline

was radical. Parliament represents non-violent democracy, it represents

what Millicent Fawcett stood for. Yes, that is properly wider

Conservative government in particular, and some other people

are supporting that. But it is radical women, people like Emmeline

Pankhurst and Emily Davidson who gave their lives for the cause and

Millicent Fawcett would not attend her funeral. I think that is a very

bad black mark against her. Can I just clarify one thing? We have

support of the Mayor of London also and he is not a Conservative. It has

cross-party support. Is it an establishment choice? I think

fundamentally if you look at history and what her role was from beginning

to end, she merits being there and commemorated in that way. The plinth

design is intended to commemorate the suffragettes and suffragists who

contributed to this campaign over the years. That's why there are 52

other names and faces on the plinth. Do have a preference? Not really.

What brought on to me was just how few female statues we actually have.

We are looking now at a very historic figure, whose has lasted

eternally as it were. I wonder whether in 50 years' time we may

have a lot more female statues, because... Would you have? I knew

you would ask that and I don't know the answer. Margaret Thatcher? We'll

know Margaret Thatcher statues are extremely controversial. I would

love to see a statue of her but she is recognised in other places. I

think the real point is you walk down Whitehall and there will the

start use of dusty old men comment mostly military figures who fought

dubious war is 150 years ago are not sure we can be proud of it... You

get to the end there is no women at all. We are scrabbling over should

this important historical woman that one be honoured? They should both be

honoured and is ridiculous. What we really need is a full review of all

the statues around Westminster and Whitehall and they why are are half

these people here? Knock some of them down? Yes, I genuinely think

that. That is another issue and very controversial for another day. Thank

you all for talking about. The former UKIP leader

Nigel Farage is in Berlin today, speaking at a campaign event

for the Alternative Elections in Germany

are just a few weeks away, with Angela Merkel expected

to continue as chancellor But the Alternative

for Germany, or AfD as it's known, is predicted to win about 50 seats,

although it has slipped Launched four years ago,

the Eurosceptic party's policies include a call to declare Islam

incompatible with German culture, and a plan to strip immigrants

convicted of serious crimes So, what is Nigel

Farage doing there? Well, he can tell us,

he joins us now from Berlin. Wellcome, Nigel. What are you doing

getting involved in another foreign election? Well I've been invited

here by one of the candidates for the AfG, and someone who sits with

me in the European group and I've known her for a long time and I

think she's a good person and I'm happy to accept that invitation. I

have no formal relationship of any kind with the AfG, they are part of

it different political family in Europe but here we've got a massive

election campaign going on, a debate last Sunday watched by 20 million

Germans, and yet so far in this campaign nobody is talking about

Brexit, and they should be. Why? Because the Germans sell us ?30

billion worth of goods every year, more than we sell them and it is in

the interest of German companies and German workers for a sensible trade

deal to be struck with the United Kingdom and I want the argument to

be made here that, actually, the one group of people that are holding

this back and potentially damaging German jobs and their economy are

the European Commission themselves. So far, we haven't had that debate.

OK but the AfD was supposed to ride a European wave of Eurosceptic

parties excess but it is just not happening, is it? Oh, yes! What is

going to happen, whether or not you like the AfD, is we are going to see

on September 25 the first time in modern Germany a party that has been

deeply critical of many aspects of the European Union getting 10% plus

of the vote and this is happening in Europe's biggest country. It is

quite a significant moment. Brexit was all about the UK. Are you on a

personal mission to destroy the whole of the EU? I don't believe in

the European Union. I think Europe is a wonderful diverse continent of

different peoples and countries, different nationalities, languages,

cheeses, you name it, and the idea to bring us all together to be run

by a bunch of unelected men in Brussels it is not desirable and the

isn't working. I believe in nations that trade together and cooperate

together. All sorts of things like cross-border crime and pollution,

read work as neighbours but not to give away our democratic rights to

Brussels. What you are seeing through these negotiations are the

European Union, Brussels, putting their own interests above that of

the peoples of Europe. There was a time when you wouldn't be associated

with the front National and then you back to Marine Le Pen for French

President. Are you now endorsing every populist European party? No,

no, Mac, I backed another candidate for the French President in the

first round. Had I been a French writer, would I have voted for

Eurosceptic will not? That as of this. I want to repeat the point

that I'm here as a result of a personal invitation I've no link

with this party but it is significant they will be getting 10%

of the votes on. You get a link by being fair and AfD is a party that

has views beyond the fringe. For example, they've previously

suggested German border guards should use weapons against illegal

female refugees. You don't want to be associated with that, do you? No,

I'm not head to get involved in the internal debate in German politics

at all other than to say there is a glaring omission and it is quite

wilful that the leading contestants do not wish to discuss Brexit at but

they should be because it is in the interests of German people to do so

and I'm here today and I will be in Prague next Friday and I will go

around Europe making this argument and getting it hurt. And I wish that

the British government, I wish the British Chambers of Commerce and

other organisations were out around Europe doing it, too, because the

best way to get the best trade deal for all of us in all of our

interests is for Brussels to be bypassed, it is a Brussels to be

told by national leaders you are doing the wrong thing. While you do

that, there is an identity crisis for your own party back in the UK.

Well, yes. They are having a leadership election and some might

say another leadership election. And we are going to have the results in

a couple of weeks' time. Like all parties, there are different wings.

I am not taking sides. I think for ex-leaders to attempt to be

back-seat drivers is a bad idea but I would argue that Ukip really

always was from the very beginning a party that did believe in liberty,

freedom, and tolerance. I am as worried as the next person about the

rise of extremist radical as to Islam, about the weakness of our

politicians to deal with this. But I've never wanted us to be against

the religion and if Ukip was to go in that direction, that would be a

disaster for that. So if Anne-Marie Waters was elected leader, would it

be a death blow for the party? We will have to see what happens. I am

not going to commit myself. I don't want to be seen to be getting too

heavily involved in this. What is said at the hustings over the next

couple of weeks and whoever the next leader is, it is crucial. If we go

into the position where Ukip was fighting a religious war, I think

that probably would be the end of it. Fantastic. Michael, thank you so

much for joining us from Berlin. What you make of what Nigel Farage

is doing fair Chris Hill it is sad. It hasn't happened this idea of this

huge populist wave happening across Europe. I was in Austria last

December for the presidential election, the closest run thing

we've seen to a very populist right-wing politician being elected

but it didn't happen. It didn't happen in Holland and it won't

happen in Germany. It didn't happen in France, either. I am not quite

sure why Nigel Farage, who has announced he got his life back after

the referendum, is out campaigning for this fringe right-wing party

that isn't going to have a big impact on the election. Angela

Merkel is going to win by a landslide, everyone knows it. Is he

trying to destroy the EU? You've misunderstood why he's there. He's

not there to campaign for the party. He is there to hammer home the

message that it is in the interests of German business that we get a

good deal... That they and the EU strikes a favourable deal from their

point of view. Whatever he says, ultimately, the individual countries

are not going to negotiate with us. We know who was calling the shots

here. Is AfD calling the shots? Obviously not, they are not going to

be calling the shots but I don't think Nigel Farage has anything to

defend by being there. He is there making the point in Britain's

interest. He is making it on a platform next to the leader of the

AfD! He isn't making a speech at the Chambers of Commerce. He certainly

not making any intervention in the Ukip leadership right now.

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

The question was why did Labour MP Ann Clwyd miss the first vote

Was it she missed the bus, her dog ate her parliament pass,

she was stuck in a lift, or she thought in was still recess?

So, Isabel and Jack what's the correct answer?

I don't know. I was hoping there was an option of she had a headache

because, as we know, Labour frontbenchers have a particular

habit of missing crucial votes when they have a sore head. Sadly for me

I'd do know this because in my new job I have to stay up all night

reading all the newspapers. Which is why you are bleary eyed. So, go on,

then, give us the answer. I couldn't tell you when went, she was stuck on

the left. Mr Speaker, although I was present

to vote in the first vote last I was locked not in

the lavatory but in the lift. If it were not for one

of the researchers of the party opposite, I suspect I would still be

in the lift. Now, Westminster is back

from its summer holidays and it's been a busy week,

here's Chris Mason with our round up of everything that's been

happening in just 60 seconds. MPs returned to debate

the EU Withdrawal Bill which seeks to ensure legal

continuity after Brexit. But opponents accuse ministers

of acting like Henry VIII in trying A leaked government document

revealed our immigration system Draft plans include ending free

movement, and restricting low Strikes were on the menu at PMQs

as Jeremy Corbyn raised working It's the first time UK staff under

the golden arches walked out. Nicola Sturgeon unveiled

the Scottish government's plans The first minister hinted she may

raise taxes to pay for measures like ending the 1% cap

on public sector pay. Tory MP Jacob Rees Mogg downplayed

suggestions he might be Heaven knows, next you'll be

offering me the papacy! Well, let's discuss some

of the week's events now We saw Jacob Rees Mogg is there. A

bit of a silly season 's story, the movement, people talking about him

as a future Tory leadership person. People even saying he is Superman in

disguise. Pretty controversial views this week on abortion and gay

marriage. Does it kill his chances? To be honest, I've never really

taken his chances seriously. Perhaps that is my bad. I just cannot see it

happening. It would add immense to the gaiety of the nation. He is an

intelligent man, some very articulate thoughts as well. It

would be difficult with those views. People would massively respect he is

a man of principle, he must have known when he articulated those

views they would cause a storm. They are very extremely socially

conservative. But we saw what happened to Tim Farron when he

articulated religious views on gay marriage, which were not to with the

kind of mainstream consensus, and that was very difficult for him.

Does it show it is difficult to be deeply religious and be deeply

religious and beer front line politician? It would seem so. It

seems to be one of the things we've learned this year. We rule out Jacob

Rees Mogg's chances? We ruled out Jeremy Corbyn's! 200-1! Was your

money and Jeremy from the beginning? Mayor, I was referring to Trump.

There is the received wisdom about politics. I wouldn't rule anything

out. What you have to remember is when Theresa May goes, and she will

sooner rather than later... She says later. She can say what she likes

but I don't think a party think so. No one takes it seriously stop

though it won't be the country who decides, it'll be the small number

of conservative grassroots members who might quite like Jacob Rees

Mogg. Sadiq Khan says he's been snubbed at the Labour conference,

he's not giving a speech. What is behind that? There's been a real

clamp-down by Jeremy Corbyn's offers who's been allowed to have speeches.

No Sadiq Khan, no Andy Burnham, no mayor of Merseyside. And a lot of

the shadow cabinet ministers have been told no speeches because it is

all about Jeremy, I think. What they are saying, in fairness, is they

want to give space to delegates and normal party members. What if David

Cameron had stopped Boris in this way? He might have had an even more

rocky eve of conference than he did every year anyway. Boris was

creating trouble just before conference anyway. I get the

impression Jeremy Corbyn doesn't want to be outshone by some of these

big names. I very much doubt it. Trouble being made beforehand. Thank

you very much for joining me. Thanks to my guests,

especially Isabel and Jack. The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now. Jo will be back here

on BBC Two on Monday at midday