24/10/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Theresa May tells MPs she won't agree a Brexit

transitional deal until a future trade deal is agreed first.

So, are we edging closer to no deal and what does

A Labour MP who ousted former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg

in Sheffield Hallam is accused of sexist and homophobic

He's apologised and says he's a reformed man.

But, has he really changed his views?

President Donald Trump has called it one of "the worst deals in history".

But yesterday foreign Secretary Boris Johnson urged

Western nations to keep committed to the Iran nuclear deal.

With US support going cold, is it time to ditch the deal?

Then there's a new parliamentary grouping just for you.

Young Tories in the House of Commons are clubbing together

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

of the programme today is writer and commentator Melanie Phillips.

First, a report out today says an estimated 850 men,

women and children left Britain for Syria and Iraq and around half

The report by the New York think tank, the Soufan Centre,

says so-called "returnees" may be particularly vulnerable

Melanie, what would you suggest? I am very surprised that this country

is allowing them back at all. I think once they are back it is very

difficult to deal with them. We know the security services are grossly

overstretched already, we know it cannot monitor adequately all the

known terrorist sympathisers in the country, and yet we have people

going to fight in Syria who must be presumed to be a danger to the

country and consequently this seems to me beyond perverse that we allow

them back in the first place. You seemed to be a danger to this

country and that means we do not know. You concede that, so how can

we stop British citizens coming back to their country of origin if they

claim that they went out to Iraq and Syria on humanitarian grounds or

because they thought they could help? If they do claim that, that

should be taken seriously and we should look very carefully at their

circumstances. Although you said you would not like them to come back in

the first place? I think the figures that we now have combat suggest we

are not simply allowing that people who are saying they are there for

humanitarian purposes and mean it. We are allowing them back on the

basis we presume it is OK and consequently I think there are

presumably very few people going there for humanitarian purposes. I

would guess a large proportion of those people will fight for one

group or another and it makes them a risk to the country. But as you say,

some of those people who went out to Iraq and Syria say they were

fighting against IS for one of the other groups. Again we do not know.

There are international laws that do protect people in the field of

combat and when they come back and they should have a trial. If there

is enough evidence, they should be prosecuted. Is that not the way

forward? You cannot get evidence for a criminal trial if it is not a

theatre of war. If it is a theatre of war, you cannot easily get that

evidence. The people who go to fight are either fighting for Isis or

against Isis. If they are fighting against Isis, they are fighting in

groups that I still nevertheless a danger to this country. The

presumption must be a majority are a danger to this country. You would

like them to be monitored or stopped coming back here, in other words

having their passports taken? Yes, once they go, that is it. The

Foreign Office Minister said on Sunday that the only way of dealing

with them would be in almost every case to kill them, sorry the

international development minister, do you agree? He was talking about

those fighting with Isis. Do you agree with him? He clarified it by

saying they were out in the field, do you agree? How did he clarify

that? He said there are rules about enemy, tense. Yes, it is a bit of a

stretch to say anyone who is there must be killed. But I think what he

was probably trying to say, and I have not seen his clarification, and

this is my interpretation, but I would guess anyone who goes to fight

with Isis will be treated with as an enemy, tense and will be treated as

somebody fighting in a theatre of war, rather than someone who will be

arrested nicely and brought back to trial. In other words they will be

killed. His clarification was that anybody who is an enemy, ten will be

treated in accordance with the rules of war. Absolutely, and they are

incorporated into the rules of international war and they are the

rules of war and not the rules of peace and they go to fight in a

theatre of war and they stand the risk of being killed.

The question for today is, which of these pictures

Take a look at these pictures. Jeremy Corbyn features. At the end

of the show Melanie will give us the correct answer.

Yesterday Theresa May updated MPs on Brexit

She said there will be no "implementation period"

unless the UK settles its "future partnership" first.

So, what does that mean for businesses preparing for Brexit?

And do the Prime Minister's comments suggest the UK is edging

Meanwhile the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, has

been speaking in Strasbourg this morning. He said the remaining EU

countries will be defeated in the Brexit talks unless they continue to

Brexit talks unless they continue to show unity.

Ahead of us is still the toughest stress test.

If we fail it, negotiations will end in our defeat.

We must keep our unity regardless of the direction of the talks.

The EU will be able to rise to every scenario, as long

It is in fact up to London how this ends.

With a good deal, no deal, no Brexit.

But, in each of the scenarios, we will protect our common interest

Well Theresa May has been having her own de-brief

Yesterday in the House of commons she was asked about a potential

implementation period by the former Conservative leader Iain Duncan

Smith. May I say to my right honourable

friend that she may wish to answer some of those uncertainties

by reminding them that she cannot have an agreement

on an implementation period until you have something

to implement first and foremost. Secondly, could she explain

that during the course of her discussions, the private ones

she had, the ones that the acting president of the European union

Martin Selmayr hasn't actually put into the papers, but the private

discussions, could she just say whether she reminded her colleagues

in the European Union that to reach a proper free trade arrangement,

they will need to have concluded those discussions before

the summer of next year, otherwise it will be difficult

to get those through in time both Did she get an answer, therefore,

about when they might like to start? Well, can I say, I thank my right

noble friend because he's absolutely right, as we have said on a number

of occasions, the point of the implementation period

is to put in place the practical changes necessary to move

to future partnership and, in order to have that,

you need to know where that future He asks about, I have, obviously,

in my discussions with other leaders raised the issue of the timetable

that we have, of course, the ultimate timetable that was set

by the Lisbon Treaty and my right honourable friend talks

about knowing the details Of course, Michel Barnier himself

has suggested October 2018 might be the point by which it

would be necessary to know that but my right honourable friend

is absolutely right that, of course, there will need to be a period

of time for ratification Theresa May in the Commons

yesterday. I am joined by Chris Leslie for Labour and Nadhim Zahawi

for the Conservatives. The Prime Minister has got a point. What is

the point of having an implementation period if there is

nothing to implement? I think the Florence speech, now well-known, set

out that the Prime Minister was making the notion of a transition.

Lots of businesses and the financial services have been saying unless we

get a sense in January or February that we have some certainty, there

will not be a cliff edge in March 2019, then they will have no choice

but to start thinking about relocating to Frankfurt or Dublin or

elsewhere, to stay in that wider EU market. We have been getting this

impression, that if not this European Council, then the December

one smoke might emerge and we might get a sense that there is certainty

and a transition. It now turns out the Prime Minister is saying nothing

is agreed until everything is agreed. This means businesses will

have to wait until this time next year to know there might be some

sort of smooth phase will stop that is too late and it is a massive

disappointment, particularly for the CBI, the Federation for small

businesses, the British Chambers of commerce, they were all writing to

the Prime Minister and saying we have got to know that this

transition is certain. Are you massively disappointed by what the

Prime Minister said, or do you welcome the fact the UK could be

moving closer to no deal? I am not disappointed. Chris and some of his

colleagues wanted to stay in the EU and ignore the results of the

referendum. Other colleagues want some fudge. I think the Prime

Minister is correct, to say we are entering these negotiations with

lots of goodwill and we have got lots of position papers and we are

making progress on things like EU citizens living in the UK and

British citizens living in Europe, loss progress on Northern Ireland,

lots of progress on the money, which is important to countries that

contributes so much. What is the evidence of making so much progress

on the money? You have to listen to the EU and Donald Tusk said so. Once

we can go through line by line and scrutinise the money, the money is

the easiest to solve for us. Would you be prepared to see more money

put on the table at this stage to move ahead? At the right time when

we go through it line by line. I think the easiest thing to solve is

the money. You cannot for example have a settlement for Ireland and

Northern Ireland without having a trade agreement in place. Once you

have that then you can talk about the implementation period. You

cannot implement something that does not exist. There is a very strong

intellectual anchor to the Prime Minister's position. Labour are in

denial. Some of them want to say they are in favour... This is way

past the point of party politics. Listen... Is this about keeping this

country in the single market and in a customs union with the EU in

perpetuity. You have called for a condition deal of around two years

to be written onto the face of the EU withdrawal bill. You are

committed to us staying in the EU for a further two years in effect.

Why should people believe that you do not want that to carry on? I am

clear, I personally think leaving the European Union and the single

market and the customs union is damaging for our economy. But we are

in the business of growing up out of our party political tramlines and

trying to find some consensus in Parliament that can protect these

core elements. If that means I have to compromise and say we will have a

transitional period, I will vote for that. There is a majority in the

House of commons that recognises the alarm bells that are ringing for the

business community and we have to achieve this. If we stick in our

party political tramlines, this thing will be a total disaster. Why

in her Florence speech did Theresa May propose a condition of about two

years in order to calm business? She has changed her position. She has

not. She has. She is still working for a good deal, but we are talking

in the hypothetical that there is no deal. Do you think there is time for

a trade deal by autumn next year? Yes, I will. Michel Barnier does not

agree. We have been in the EU for decades and we already trade very

freely with the EU and as long as we agree on money, Northern Ireland,

British citizens, EU citizens, we could have a trade deal reasonably

quickly. I came out of the world of business, Chris talks about it, you

do not go into a negotiation saying I will take any deal. They will walk

all over you. Everybody understands this is a negotiation and you have

to get the best deal, but the business community are worried about

that cliff edge in March 2000 and 19. You do not get around that by

rolling over. The Florence speech gave the impression to the banks and

businesses that have been talking to me and you that they were going to

have some certainty, that there would be a smooth arrangement.

Whatever the final settlement is going to be. Now we get the

impression they will not get that until the 11th hour and that is a

real danger to our economy. We should rise out of the tramlines

that we have got and start to work together.

That's a misrepresentation of the position. We are negotiating in good

faith and we will get a good deal but we have to plan for no deal

because if you can't walk away from a deal, you will be walked all over.

If there isn't a trade deal and actually Michel Barnier, the unit

goes to, who has had that he thinks it will take three years, wouldn't

be completed until December 2020, you enter a transitional phase of

two years, what leverage what the UK have to get any sort of deal? I

don't think it should be about the alpha leverage question. We have a

relationship that we want to continue, need to continue, they

need to continue with ours as well and we should be looking at this as

grown-ups are thinking about mutual interests rather than posturing and

flag-waving. In the way that the dinner conversation was leaked

describing the Prime Minister begging for help? Jean-Claude

Juncker has denied that was him. If we approach this as children rather

than as adults, if we approach this in a way that rips up the benefits

of our single market membership, upon which so many jobs are

dependent, we are going to be falling into a recessionary

situation all because of a politicking in this way. The divorce

Bill hasn't been settled yet. We've heard there has been progress on the

money, on the rights of citizens, how likely do you think a trade deal

is going to happen before March 2019? Very likely for this reason

because it is absolutely not in the interests of the EU not to have it.

We can walk away. I don't think that no deal is the disaster that is

being painted. WTO rules, may have some disadvantages but may have many

advantages. Worst case scenario, WTO rules. Worst case scenario for the

EU is a whopping great hole in their finances of 50 billion euros

upwards. They cannot survive that. It is absolutely in their interests

to do a deal. It may be at the last minute. I don't know. I'm pretty

sure it can be done quite quickly. Britain has the cards in its hand.

Chris Leslie says it shouldn't be about leverage which he seems to

think is some kind of macho posturing. Negotiating is all about

leverage. The first rule of a negotiator is that you say what you

want and if you don't give it to me, I'm out of here. There are certain

people who can afford to walk away whose lives won't be affected by the

catastrophe of ripping up trade alliances. Why is it a catastrophe

to negotiate our own alliances. Practically speaking, if you are a

service industry, in manufacturing, if you end up with tariffs, ten, 20,

30% on those products, it isn't going to be the management of those

firms that lose out, all though they will do, it will be the working

people of this country. So you will except any deal that the EU puts

forward to is in order to ensure that trade relationship? I

personally think that no deal is about the worst situation that you

can possibly get. We have to find a way of salvaging the relationships

we have got. The Clinton, pull up the drawbridge scenario is a

complete disaster. How much money should the UK be spending now to

prepare for no deal? First of all, we're not going for no deal, we are

going for a good deal but it is an option. We look specifically at the

Foreign Affairs Committee at what would happen if there is a no deal.

Yes, it will be very difficult for the UK economy but it will be

equally difficult for the European economy and the reason why is we

inject ?70 billion per year in the month. We buy a lot. We import a lot

from Europe. They do not want to lose that. How much should the UK

Government spend on preparing for no deal? This is the point, I think

Chris is defeatist on this. Age -- 82% of our economy is financial. We

have leverage when it comes to infrastructure, building 300,000

homes,... How much money should be be putting behind it? We can do a

lot of that and make sure our economy is really vibrant. This is

blind face. Just try our best. Look at the data. Look at what the

business organisations are saying. I am from the business world. Not any

more. Is the government spending enough on no deal? Philip Hammond is

doing the right thing to make sure our economy is insulated in the

scenario of no deal. But we have enough leverage. They do not want is

to walk away with no deal. That is my view.

Now, last night the Labour MP, Jared O'Mara quit the parliamentary

Women and Equalities Committee after a series of offensive comments

he made a decade ago came to light and were published

Jared O'Mara, who ousted the former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg

from his Sheffield Hallam seat in June said, "I am deeply ashamed

The Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston tweeted, "Hard to see how anyone

with his views was selected and retains the Labour whip.

Sheffield Hallam deserves a by-election."

But last night after Jared O'Mara addressed

the Parliamentary Labour Party and apologised for his comments,

his fellow Labour MP Wes Streeting said, "The battle for equality

is increasingly a battle for hearts and minds and that must surely mean

that people are allowed to change their views

I hope I don't end up eating my words and that Jared

demonstrates his commitment to equality through his

We have spoken to one of Jared O'Mara's constituents who met in in

March this year just a few months before he was elected. Sophie Evans

who worked in a bar in the city said he used abusive and sexist language

towards her and a friend. I axed her if she were surprised by the latest

revelations. This interview contained potentially offensive

language. I wasn't surprised he said it. It came as no shock to me that

he would say things like that at all. Why do you say that? How do you

know him? Why do you say that? I met him on a dating app. It didn't

really work out. There were no hard feelings. He was a DJ at a club in

Sheffield. I saw him from time to time. There was an incident in March

this year. He showed his true colours. What did he actually say to

you? Some of the things aren't broadcast the ball. There were some

trans-phobic slurs in there. He called me an ugly pitch. He said

that he was wrong to make the comments on live. He apologises for

is an acceptable language. He made the comments as a young man in a

particularly difficult period of his life, he says. Do you believe he is

changed? Absolutely not. Fair enough for him to have said that 15 years

ago but he won't even acknowledge something that happened seven months

ago. He never apologised to me or my friends that were involved in the

situation. He has called as liars in the press. He has been on radio and

called as liars. I just find it very hard to believe that he has changed.

I think he thinks we won't affect his political career. We are just

workers at a backstreet pub. We couldn't have any impact on him.

Sophie Evans. Well, we did ask Jared O'Mara

to come on the programme today, Labour MP Chris Leslie

is still with us. Do you still believe he is a

reformed character? It's very difficult. I don't really know him

very well. He was only recently elected. I haven't had any dealings

with him. I was at the Parliamentary Labour Party last night. He made a

statement to the PLP about reports that had been circulating yesterday.

In a general situation, I personally think we are in an Iraq now

particularly when women are feeling that it is difficult to come forward

with confidence and talk about situations, I think we have to

applaud people for coming forward and reporting circumstances. We've

just heard the report there. I think, you know, any individual has

to show by their behaviour that there are attitudes are not of that

character. It was certainly right that he left the quality select

committee of the House of Commons. I think he's got to answer allegations

as they come forward. It's difficult for me to say much more than that.

Is it enough to have quit the women and equality 's committee as a

result of comments he said he made 15 years ago and he says he isn't

that person when we have now heard from Sophie Evans abusive language

that was made to her just a few months before he was elected? If

allegations are made and they are proven or accent in any institution,

politics, broadcasting, we've seen of course recently in the film

industry, other in the issues. If they are proven or accepted, there

have to be consequences for the individual. We can't be in a

position where people say they can make excuses or apologise and

everything is glossed over. There has to be processes that are gone

through here. That's why I'm reluctant to intercede in this

particular case. It's not enough to simply make excuses and move on.

That is the important thing. If we do that, people will feel that they

can't come forward and talk about people in positions of power. We

have to give people confidence to make reports of these things. What

do you think the Labour Party should do now on the basis of that report

from Sophie Evans? Any allegations have to be explored and put people

and we have a system in the House of Commons if people within our

political party for out of the conduct of that which is expected,

then there are consequences that flow from that. Should he lose the

web? I'm not involved in educating on these things. There are a basket

of consequences that can come. If your conduct. Of the standards

expected. Are you shocked by the use of language? Yes. I think if these

allegations are true it is inconsistent to deprive him of his

plays on the place on the equality 's committee and let him keep the

labour whip. The question is are they true. Does he still think like

that? He says he regrets it all. People should be allowed a second

chance. First of all, the extremity of the language that he used and the

frequency with which he seems to have used it, as he admitted 15

years ago, would suggest that this wasn't some aberration and I don't

buy this I was going through a difficult period, nobody should talk

to people like that about anybody. This seems to be something in his

personality rather than just something in his youth. With more

allegations coming forward, it has to be put into the mix. It doesn't

look very good from the point of view of him saying I'm reformed and

deeply regretted. Anyone can say that faced with the prospect of

losing the whip. People again to say anything in those circumstances. We

can't put too much on his apology. One has to look at everything in the

round. It may be that when the Labour Party does that, they cannot

entertain him as a Labour member of Parliament.

Now, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal lifted economic sanctions in return

for curbs to the country's controversial nuclear

It's aim was to stop Iran using their energy programme

to create a nuclear weapon and it marked the jewel

in the crown of Barack Obama's foreign policy agenda.

But, with President Trump calling it "one of the worst deals" he's ever

seen and promising to ditch the deal, where does this leave

the agreement and the UK's foreign policy relationship with Iran?

Let's take a look at what Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson

To grasp the importance of the joint, comprehensive plan

of action we should remember that just before it was signed in 2015,

Iran had enough centrifuges and low enriched uranium to be only months

away from producing the essential material for at least

Let us remember what the consequences would have been

for Iran and the world if Teheran had gone down that road,

never mind the response of Israel or indeed the United States

to the fact of nuclear weapons in the grip of the Iranians,

a regime that has been capable of bloodcurdling rhetoric

about the mere existence of the Zionist entity.

Joining me now is Jack Straw who was foreign secretary when Iran

was referred to by America as part of "the axis of evil".

Welcome to the Daily Politics. Melanie Phillips, broadly speaking

do you agree with double trap that Iran is a fanatical regime that is

intent on acquiring nuclear weapons? Yes, I believe it is a fanatical

regime and I believe it is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. All the

evidence, as Boris Johnson said, it was only months away from producing

nuclear weapons in 2015. It is the chief funder and backer of terrorism

threat the world. But it has been halted? It has been temporarily

halted to a certain extent, but the deal is full of holes. Iran has not

allowed verification of its principal sites where it is

producing, where it is thought to be producing those weapons. Iran is in

breach of various aspects of the deal. But the deal itself is

basically flawed because far from preventing Iran from getting a

nuclear weapons, it allows Iran in ten or 15 years to produce it and as

a consequence of Iran signing this deal, a huge amount of money has

poured into Iran through sanctions relief, enabling it to arm its game

in producing backing for terror and further destabilising the entire

regime by backing Hezbollah and Hamas. Why is it a good deal? It is

a good deal because it is working. Melanie is wrong to say it has not

been implemented, it has. There are over 400 inspectors from the

International atomic agency on the ground. The director-general of the

IAEA says this is the most comprehensive and intrusive set of

inspections ever. They have had to cut the number of centrifuges, they

have closed down water reactors that could have made plutonium. They have

had to cut their stockpiles of uranium and much else besides. This

is far better than the alternative. It is an international agreement

which was signed up to by the United Nations on a unanimous basis. I hear

what Melanie says, but the truth is what is the alternative to this? You

could have a war against Iran, but it would be absolutely... You may

not like it or trust it, but isn't Jack Straw correct that the

alternative is worse? Jack Straw is completely incorrect to say the deal

is working. The IAEA recently stated it was unable to verify that Iran

was fully implementing the agreement. Does that mean it is not

working? It was unable to verify it because it is not able to inspect

the sites. That is crucial. That is what they have said. Also, Iran has

broken the terms of agreement on uranium enrichment levels, heavy

water production and missile programmes. The alternative is to

return to the idea, which is what should happen, that Iran should be

perceived as a pariah state in the world and treated as such. Which is?

Sanctions. Continue with the economic sanctions? Yes, and do

everything to see Iran is trying to advance its strategic position in

the region which is a direct threat to the west. Let's go back to the

issue of whether they are meeting the terms of the agreement. Our

inspectors being allowed into verify it? I have got here the most recent

statement by the inspectors to the board of governors of the IEEE eight

E and Europe you, excuse me for prattling on about it, you can look

this up online. Iran is subject to the well's most robust nuclear

verification regime. It says elsewhere in this report that it is

implementing the agreement. And it is. Even President Trump's Secretary

of State, Rex Tillerson, and most of the sensible grown-ups around the

United States administration, accept it is working. Can I make this

point? You could have made the argument that Melanie made some

years ago to continue with sanctions when sanctions were internationally

agreed because of the outrageous behaviour of the previous president.

But that changed when President Rohani was elected in 2013 and the

world has moved on. If you were to pursue this policy, which is what

President Trump is doing, or you end up with is a complete split in the

international community, not only with Russia and China separate, but

also with major European powers, including the UK, because they know

how dangerous it would be to move down this road. Containment Shirley

is working better than the idea of allowing the regime, or making it

feel more isolated and marginalised in the world as a result of

continued sanctions if Donald Trump gets his way? It depends whether you

want to marginalise one of the well's most dangerous regimes or

whether you want to empower it. I cannot understand why Jack Straw has

acted as the chief defender and protector of this uranium regime.

You said when President Rouhani came to power he was a great reformer and

his election would usher in a new dawn for Iran and you said it would

bring stability to the region. As a result of the deal empowering Iran,

it is making enormous progress in destabilising the region in Syria,

in Iraq where it is getting huge numbers of people against Western

interest, and in Yemen. Where is the evidence for destabilising the

region? Possible, this deal was about their nuclear activities and

had we made it wider, you would never have got a deal and it makes

sense to concentrate on their nuclear activities. I do not defend

them and I am not their spokesperson. You behave as if you

are. That is beyond the level of insult. I am not their spokesperson

but I distinguish between the elected government which is a

reformer, and the non-elected security forces, they are no

particular friend of mine. So far as their foreign policy and the region

is concerned, life is full of paradoxes. The Iranians and the

United States have recently been working very cooperatively together

to remove the Kurds from control of areas like Coco. Iran is a major

player in the region and the problem faced by Donald Trump, but not by

sensible people like Rex Tillerson or indeed sensible people in Israel,

is that people like Donald Trump do not have a strategy for trying to

engage with Iran, recognising its strength, and bringing it in. Where

is the pressure coming on Donald Trump to do this? To do what he is

doing? Yes, if you say the Republicans around him do not agree

with him, what is driving him on? Percival, he was to tear up Barack

Obama's legacy and he believes all the stuff that Iran is the most

dangerous power in the world. I do not accept that. I am quite clear if

we do implement this agreement fully, the world would be much

safer. Those who are of the reform minded view in Iran will be much

more greatly empowered than they are at the moment. Just briefly, do you

accept this is a different regime in Iran? Your views in opposition to

the country are based on more than what came before? Or do you think

the new president is the same messy-mac it completely misses the

point. There is only one person who matters in the regime and that is

the supreme leader. That is ultimately not the point. I do not

believe President Rohani is a reformer. The internal repression in

Iran that has gone on since he took power, in as he has power, huge

numbers of dissidents and people against the regime in prison and so

on, I do not see you criticising that as a result of his election.

Only one person matters and that is the supreme leader. Iran remains a

fanatical regime in a state of self war against the West, responsible

for the deaths of many British and American servicemen and women. I

sanctions enough? Should there be a war with Iran? Nobody wants a war,

what we must stop doing is to continue to empower it and to enable

it to continue its infernal activities. Jack Straw, thank you

very much for coming in. Jack Straw, thank you very

much for coming in. Now, seldom before in British

society has so much attention been paid to an individual's sexual

and gender identity. For some people it's a long overdue

recognition of the persecution For others, the change is too much,

too fast, without enough discussion. So on what issues is

the debate most heated? This month NHS England said

all patients should be asked about sexual orientation at every

instance of face-to-face contact. Hospitals are dealing increasingly,

too, with the T in LGBT, and a government review

led by Justine Greening is considering dropping the need

for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria to begin a legally

recognised gender transition. That's where an individual feels

a mismatch between their gender The British Medical Association

already advises its members - that's doctors and medical students

- that the term "pregnant people" may be preferable

to "expectant mothers". The BMA says this would recognise

intersex men and trans men who are pregnant,

although they acknowledge a "large majority" of those who've given

birth identify as women. This week the Foreign Office denied

it had asked the UN to replace the term "pregnant women"

with "pregnant people" The FCO said it didn't object

to the use of the term women, but it asked the UN to include

pregnant trans people And the Office for National

Statistics was criticised this month for apparently planning to make

a question on gender The ONS says they've "never

suggested" people wouldn't be able to report themselves

as male or female. Well, to discuss these issues we're

joined by the Shadow Women's and Equalities Minister,

Dawn Butler. Welcome to the programme. Just

before I come to you, Melanie Phillips, what is wrong with doctors

asking their patients their sexual orientation? If it has some bearing

on the condition the patient is presenting with, it is important

they ask such questions. But the idea they should ask questions as a

matter of routine if you simply present with a sore throat, that is

absurd and that is what this guidance is saying. Is an absurd? I

agree in terms of the time GPs have with their patients and the sole

purpose must be to establish what is wrong and to do with their medical

needs. If it is to do with a medical need, that is fine, but if not, I do

not believe it is a necessity. I think the one-to-one 15 minutes

time, which is already limited, that must be the priority. You do not

think everybody should be asked routinely their sexual orientation?

No, I do not think it is necessary. It is for the GP to determine that.

Let's move on to the issue of transgender rights. Is it your

position that we have gone too far in accommodating people who feel

their gender identity and biological sex do not match? Anyone in a

situation of gender confusion merits sympathy and understanding. But I

also think that we have got ourselves into a situation where

there is a body of pressure behind the cause associated with

transgender issues which seeks to basically right biological sex out

of the script altogether to basically say if I was to say I am a

woman, that is somehow causing offence to somebody who is in a

state of gender confusion. I think that is not only absurd, it is

draconian and even totalitarian, it is denying me the right to say what

I am, which is a woman. Do you think that is what is happening? I do not

think that is what is happening. It is all about equality and

recognising that some people self identify as a different gender and

they should be given the opportunity to do that. It is the society you

want to live in in terms of looking after people's health and well-being

and we need to be mindful of people's circumstances and what they

are going through. I agree with that, we should be mindful,

compassionate and considerate. That is not what is happening. If you

look at the proposal for the census, the proposal is that people should

not be required to say whether they are male or female, the consultation

document says that it was thought to be irrelevant, unacceptable and

intrusive to be asked about sex. But the crucial point is the option of

adding a third choice of other was considered problematic because it

was thought to modernise trans people and differentiate them from

the rest of society. In my view that is what should happen. If people are

concerned that transgender people do not find a place in a census

questionnaire which simply says male or female, fine, have other. But we

cannot have either because to have that would somehow cause offence. In

which case I cannot say on the census, or I can say on the census

that I am a woman, but the sender 's overall will no longer be reliable

as the principal source of statistical information about men

and women in the country. That cannot be right.

Is that a problem for planning and services going forward if you cannot

have reliable figures for numbers of male and female and those who don't

identify as either? Absolutely but this is not a concrete proposal or

about terminology. I read it as changing the language of sex to

gender. Not denying whether you are male or female but changing the

language of sex to gender. I agree with that. It's important to

understand what the make-up of the country, in terms of male, female

and transgender. It's important to note that ensuring that somebody has

equal rights doesn't take away from equal rights of others. Equality is

equality and that is where we should come from as a base. As the

trans-community gets more awareness in the wider community, there are

more people seeking treatment at a relatively young age. Isn't that

long overdue? It may well be that there was treatment that such people

required that they weren't getting in which case I'm very glad if they

are now getting it. What worries me is, specifically as far as children

are concerned, what is often a passing phase of thinking that you

are of the opposite sex, which passes quite normally, is being

medicalised and these children are having a label hung around their

neck and inappropriate medical intervention is taking place. That's

what worries me. That takes away the right of a child to be a child. Is

too much medical or invasive surgery being offered to children who are

too young to be certain about whether they want to change gender?

I don't think we are anywhere near that point at the moment. The gender

recognition, the equality act of 2010 needs to be updated. It is to

set -- simplistic to say it is a passing phase. We need to be mindful

of how people feel about their sexuality. How we address those

situations has to be done with care and compassion every time we have a

conversation about it. Do you think people who are uncomfortable or

sceptical about this issue who say it may be a passing phase or who say

there is too much noise around transgender or gender issues in

general, do you think that is trans-phobic in your mind? Every

time we are talking about somebody else's equality rights, whether it's

about women, people of colour, there's an uproar. Now it is about

transgender people and there is an uproar. I think we need to take it

with care and compassion as we talk about these issues. We talk about

the act coming before Parliament, we need to make sure everybody feels

comfortable when talking about where they are within themselves. The only

people who are likely to be uncomfortable whom are called

transcode -- trans-phobic for calling themselves men or women. As

we saw with the case of Jermaine Greer they are likely to be held off

the stage. These are intolerant attitudes masquerading as

compassion. I want to talk to you about Jared O'Mara. I will be using

language that some people could consider offensive. He made comments

over a decade ago and has resigned from the women and equality is

committee. We have had a constituent of his on the programme saying that

he called her an ugly bitch. Is that acceptable? It is unacceptable and

that is ugly and offensive language. I am pleased that Jared O'Mara has

gone on a journey. This was only a few months ago and not 15 years ago

when he made those comments. Is he the change man he says he is? He

denies he says those things. We have two Agbo as that. Without a shadow

of a doubt, it is completely unacceptable language without a

shadow of a doubt. I saw the clip. You could see that that lady was

quite emotional about that situation. It's wrong. Absolutely

wrong. I haven't seen it all, or heard, I know he has denied it. Has

he denied saying that to Sophie Evans? Apparently. From what I've

read. I don't know. If the allegations are proven to be true,

what should happen to Jared O'Mara? If it's proven to be true then it

has to go through due process and if that person wants to make an

official complaint to the police, they are well within their rights.

What should happen politically? Is it acceptable for him to keep the

Labour whip? I'm not sure whether he was an MP at the time but what I'm

calling for is an HR department in Parliament. There have been many

situations that have happened in Parliament where you need an HR

department to address that. Labour has a strong and robust harassment

policy which anybody could complain to. Should this be investigated by

the party? I'm sure it will be investigated by the party. It's an

acceptable language. You are the shadow equality is minister, will

you be asking the party to investigate? It will be

investigated. It is unacceptable language. What I'm saying is, it's

not just this one instant or person. There are many issues that need to

be dealt with the same way. Let's talk about all circumstances that

happen. All racist incidents, sexist incidents, by sitting politicians,

let's look at those in the same robust way as we have talked about

Jared O'Mara. Now, do the Conservatives have

a problem appealing to young people? Ben Bradley, the 27-year-old

who won his Mansfield seat from Labour, is setting up a group

of all Conservative MPs under 35, to discuss how the party can

reconnect with young voters. We'll speak to him shortly,

but first here's Emma When you think of politicians,

you probably But now there are some

new kids on the block. A younger cohort of Conservative MPs

are clubbing together WhatsApp group has been up

and running for a couple of days. People are being added

to it all the time. The number of Conservative MPs under

the age of 35 swelled at this year's general election and they believe

they have a unique role to play. The party is fortunate

to have quite a good number We've got to make sure our voice

is heard in the main policy debate. We need to get together,

we need to come up with answers to some of the big challenges

about the future, how do we help people get

on the housing ladder, how do we make sure the economy

works, how do we make sure we've got These are all big issues and,

actually, younger MPs in the party have a big role to play in making

sure we get the answers right. We realised there's quite a lot

of those in that 25-40 age group - where we didn't do exactly

brilliantly in the election - and these kind of young

professionals, young families, are absolutely the sort of voters

that the Conservatives We want to use our experience

and the fact that we can relate to these people to,

kind of, do a bit of message Thank you for inviting

me here today! At this year's general election

youth voter turnout not only jumped but almost two thirds

of 18-29 -year-olds who voted chose But Conservatives have

been fighting back. Over the summer, younger

conservatives met for what was And this new group of young MPs hope

to change the party's image further. You can't continue to put forward

very good, very experienced politicians but who are often maybe

in their 60s, don't really People feel like, I can't

relate to you, so why So, part of that is actually showing

that the Conservatives have quite a broad range of MPs from all walks

of life and all backgrounds. Are you trying to make

the Conservatives cool? I don't know if politicians

can ever be cool. What we are trying to do is at least

make as little bit more relatable. Emma Vardy there with Conservative

MP Paul Masterton. We are joined by the brains behind this group then

Bradley. We will go over to Barry who is on college green. Give as the

odds on who will be the next Tory leader. At the moment, Boris Johnson

is the red-hot favourite. Around 20% chance. The old guard, David Davis,

5-1. Jacob Rees-Mogg 13-2. And yet led to some is coming up in the

market. -- Andrea Leadsom. We have some younger people in the market.

Heidi Alexander has come into 66-1. Then Bradley, a 100-1 chance. The

time is right for the Young Turks to step up to the plate. 100-1, do you

fancy your chances? You could jump up like Andrea Leadsom. Why has

Labour been better at attracting younger voters? About inspiring

people. You are never going to reach people unless you tell people you

are going to Mike life better for them. Jeremy Corbyn had this

message. I totally disagreed with him but we didn't have his positive

message. They had a positive message that was communicated more

effectively. I think we are too defensive. We need to promote

actively the reason why our policies are what they are. Too often, we let

them set the agenda and we sat back and defended ourselves. The

challenges, if we want to appeal to younger people, not just students,

people opt to about 45 who didn't work for us, those of others younger

MPs need to get involved in that. It is not just about younger MPs.

Jeremy Corbyn is not a young man by anyone's estimation. He's managed to

do it. He has a very different style of politics to most other MPs on all

sides. What he does have is the ability to go out and connect with

people. We need to show our diversity and that we can engage

with different groups of people. Do you think it is going to be a

straightforward as that? The point about Jeremy Corbyn in very

interesting. Not just that he is relatively old and it's not that he

went to last and Brie and wowed them. That came after. --

Glastonbury. Certain young people will gravitate towards the idealism

of the Labour programme. I would say unrealistic idealism. What young

people really related to was that they believed Jeremy Corbyn was

authentic. They believed he would always be true to what he believed.

Same thing as Jacob Rees-Mogg. He came up the sweepstake. Just time

before we go to find the answer to our quiz.

The question was which of these pictures is the odd one out.

So, Melanie, what is the correct answer?

It is the one on the bottom right because it is not Jeremy Corbyn but

somebody a impersonating him. Tracey Ullman, I think.

Thanks to all my guests, especially Melanie.

The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.

Andrew will be back at 11:30 tomorrow for live coverage