03/11/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

Former Shadow Cabinet Minister

Kelvin Hopkins is suspended

from the Labour Party

following allegations that he

behaved inappropriately with one

of the party's student activists.

How much did Jeremy Corbyn know

about these allegations when he

appointed him to the Shadow Cabinet?

Further allegations

emerge about the conduct

of the Defence Secretary,

Michael Fallon.

But has the choice of

Gavin Williamson as his replacement

just exacerbated concerns

about Theresa May's handling

of sexual harassment claims?

It's the anniversary of the 1917

Russian Revolution -

a seismic historical event -

but is it one that should be

celebrated or just marked?

And 2017 has been a pretty big year

in British politics.

We'll look at how cartoonists

have chronicled it.

All that in the next hour, and with

us throughout are Iain Martin -

he edits a website called Reaction -

and the left wing

commentator Rachel Shabi.

Welcome to both of you.

We'll talk about the latest

revelations concerning Labour MP

Kelvin Hopkins in a moment,

but first new allegations have

emerged about former

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon.

According to the Sun and the Mail,

Mr Fallon made lewd

comments to Andrea Leadsom,

the Leader of the House

of Commons, six years ago.

He is also said to have made

derogatory comments about other MPs

and members of the public.

The papers claim Mrs Leadsom went

to the Prime Minister and her Chief

of Staff Gavin Barwell

with the information

after Downing Street refused

to investigate Sir Michael

for inappropriate behaviour.

A source close to Michael Fallon

"categorically denies" the claims,

and Andrea Leadsom has

declined to comment.

In the last few minutes Downing

Street has issued a statement saying

the Leader of the How's Andrea

Leadsom did not and has not asked

the Prime Minister to

position of Sir Michael Fallon when

he was Defence Secretary. Iain

Martin, let's try to undertake some

of this, if we can.

If we take Michael Fallon, who

resigned over allegations of

impropriety, do you think Andrea

Leadsom's comments were the tipping

point in that resignation?

The

situation is extremely murky but

that seems to be the case, and if it

now imagines the Defence Secretary

Michael Fallon was removed on the

say-so of operations coming from the

Chief Whip and not directly from

Andrea Leadsom to the Prime Minister

we are in extremely strange

territory. That is why Conservative

MPs asking fundamental questions

about the role of the Chief Whip and

remember one of his chief jobs is to

collect intelligence on the

parliamentary party.

Is the Prime

Minister, Theresa May, responsible

for installing party discipline, and

in that role, she knows things about

MPs and senior members of the

Government, and would have been in

possession, one would assume, of

those comments alleged against

Michael Fallon. It does mean

questions are going to be asked,

further questions.

Gavin Williamson is being someone

with very little experience is now

running a key department in the

Cabinet.

There are lots of questions

to answer and people keep mentioning

house of Cards, the drama, and it

seems that Gavin Williamson regarded

it not so much as fiction but as an

instruction manual.

Do you think

apart from resigning that Michael

Fallon may be forced to, you know,

be suspended?

I think that is

possible. There is even talk of a

by-election. Things are moving so

fast, and there are so many

allegations about other people that

it is difficult to say, but I don't

think by-elections can be ruled out.

Rachel Shabi, the word witch hunt

has been used. Do you think that is

fair when it comes to investigating

complaints made about sexual conduct

of MPs

no, it is not remotely fair

and also an extraordinarily

inappropriate word to use given the

origins of the word witchhunt, and

this has been horrifying, this

couple of weeks. And, you know,

there are people who are going to

feel anxious about it, but fine. You

should feel anxious about it. There

are going to be allegations about

abuses of power, and that will make

people in power feel uncomfortable,

but that is not to say that those

allegations shouldn't be made and

should not be taken seriously. Of

course they should. Something has

gone fundamentally wrong for a long

time. There has been not only an

abuse of power, with the sex abuse

and harassment in itself, but as we

are now ceiling, there has been an

abuse -- as we are now seeing there

has been an abuse of keeping and

attaining power and that will come

to light in the next few weeks, who

knew what and when and what did they

cover up in the pursuit retention of

power?

It is these allegations of

power and perhaps -- allegations is

90 but both parties that these

things were not properly

investigated. How much do you think

political loyalty has trumped proper

investigation of sexual misconduct?

That is the real thing and we are

seeing it and I would emphasise it

is a cross-party thing. We cannot

single any party out for it, but the

IDR, what we saw with the

revelations over the weekend that

Theresa May was briefed about

people's various abuses and

instances of harassment, so the

extent to which these issues were

known about. And that is the thing.

It is not only the abuse and

harassment which obviously is

excruciating enough, but the idea

that you know about it but don't do

anything about it. You are sending

out into society and message of

acceptability, that not only is it

OK but people might actually be

rewarded for it. That is the bit

that is really toxic and dangerous

in our society.

And people feel

public servants should be above, be

expected to behave in a way that is

sending out a message, whether

criminal or moral behaviour we are

talking about. If we look at the

Government, though, and the impact

it is having on whether Theresa May

is really getting a grip of this

situation, and we will talk about

Labour in a moment, comparisons are

being made between this Government

and John Major's. Tweets have been

going out from within Westminster,

fin de siecle, back to basics. Is

that fair?

There are certainly

echoes and parallels. What concerns

me, while I agree with much of what

you see, and there are really

serious allegations and something

really wrong with the culture around

Westminster for decades, I think my

colleague on the Times, Philip

Collins, put it rather well this

morning, saying that the term

witchhunt is completely

inappropriate, if you go back to

where that comes from. Arthur

Miller, the Crucible, the Salem

witch trials, an extraordinary play.

The point is there were no which is

and this time there are.

Of course,

but the difficulty is, and I think

this is why the due process matters,

in among those allegations which are

very serious, on these lists

circulating or stories which are

really the currency of Westminster

rumour, some of them denied by both

parties, some of them involving

consensual behaviour between single

adults, and to lump Paul of that

together and to rely on the tyranny

of the list, it is not a witchhunt

but it does take us into Isaac

extremely dangerous territory --

lump all of that together.

Some

people's lives could be rude over

this and allegations vowed to be

absolutely false. Careers, rather.

You are absolutely right. There has

been a conflation of things that are

harassment and things that are

consensual and frankly none of

anybody's business, but I think we

really need to be wary, when we are

talking about a backlash, already we

are seeing a backlash against women

who have speaking out. Imagine the

extraordinary degree of bravery and

courage you would need.

And young

men.

And young men, then they are

just berated and face this Barrett

of abuse including from some of our

national papers for doing so, so

there is this culture of blaming

women, even when they are the

victims -- this barrage of abuse.

Moving on, on Gavin Williamson,

former Chief Whip, now the new

Defence Secretary, why such a fierce

backlash from his own side?

Jealousy, snobbery?

I don't think

so. There is some snobbery involved.

He is a conference of educated boy,

certainly not the case as far as I

am concerned. -- he is a state

school educated boy. Has alienating

some of his colleagues, which I

don't think his friends realised.

Part of this was to do with the

following Lee McCulloch to the

general election, which he was

closely involved with, he went off

back to Belfast to handle the

discussions with the DUP which were

really quite badly botched

initially. A lot of questions were

asked about the way in which he

handled that. He has also not really

made a secret of his ambition, which

is quicker dangerous thing to do in

politics. He made a speech at the

Conservative Party conference where

most Tory watchers would say that is

highly unusual for a Chief Whip, to

put himself out front and centre,

presenting the brilliant new Tory

intake and almost presenting

himself, some people thought, as a

potential leader, so he has made a

lot of enemies and I think it's

probably discovering that and

probably rather surprised, I would

guess.

As is Theresa May, in

appointing?

Yes, and as you

mentioned at the beginning of the

programme, it is all unscrambled and

I think it will get even more.

So, as we've been discussing, there

are more allegations concerning MPs

published this morning.

Labour are facing criticism

that they failed to act over

an allegation of sexual harassment.

So what are the details?

The Daily Telegraph has published

claims that the MP for Luton North,

Kelvin Hopkins, acted

inappropriately to university

activist Ava Etemadzadeh in 2015.

She says she complained

to the Whips' Office

after the incident.

But was told she "couldn't

take anonymous action."

It's thought Mr Hopkins

was reprimanded at that point

for the alleged incident.

But six months later

Kelvin Hopkins was was asked

to join the Shadow Cabinet,

as a promotion, as Culture

Secretary, after dozens of Labour

frontbenchers quit in the wake

of the EU referendum.

Ava Etemadzadeh got in touch

with the Labour Party again,

this time with the Leader's Office,

but no action was taken.

Last night Kelvin Hopkins

was suspended from the Labour Party,

pending an investigation.

He hasn't made any comment

on the allegations, despite repeated

attempts by the BBC to contact him.

Ms Etemadzadeh told the BBC:

"I'm disillusioned by the party not

just not doing anything,

but then promoting him afterward.

They ignored it."

This morning our cameras

caught up with the Labour

leader, Jeremy Corbyn -

he didn't have much to say...

Good morning, Mr Corbyn.

Good morning.

Nice to see you.

Did you know about Kelvin Hopkins...

Good morning, nice to see you.

Thank you for coming to my road.

Goodbye.

Did you know about Mr

Hopkins' behaviour before

you promoted him, Sir?

Were you aware of

allegations against him, Mr

Corbyn, before you promoted him

to the Shadow Cabinet?

Thanks!

Were you aware of the allegations

against Mr Hopkins, Sir?

Goodbye.

Well, reporters following Jeremy

Corbyn given short shrift by the

Labour leader when asked about these

allegations of sexual impropriety.

I'm joined now from Central Lobby

by the Labour MP, Stella Creasy.

Stella Creasy, welcome to the

programme. Do you think Jeremy

Corbyn and the Leader's Offers where

we about these complaints about

Kelvin Hopkins?

I have no idea, I

wasn't aware of it, but I think it

is a fair question people are asking

and I hope the leadership will come

forward to respond to that concern.

Ava Etemadzadeh who is the

university activist he said she

first complained about him in 2015,

Kelvin Hopkins, yet he was promoted

to shadow culture secretary six

months later. Should he have been

promoted?

I was not involved in how

they managed this, but I don't think

any

of the young men or women involved

in these cases should have to go to

the media for people to look at it

and ask, is this the appropriate

response? That is why a lot of us

are calling for an independent

third-party system to be able to

properly investigate these instances

and make sure the victims are able

to be confident if they come forward

that they will be believed, until

there is any evidence to the

contrary, and that the appropriate

action will be taken.

Was she dealt

with properly in this case?

I can't

tell you, Jo, because I was not

involved in this particular incident

but I understand why people are

concerned, and I can hear Ava's

concern and she is incredibly brave

to have come forward and be in the

public domain to what I am

frustrated by is that at the moment

this is what seems to be happening

without a proper system to

investigate these things, and that

anybody, whether a member of staff

or a volunteer, can feel confident

it will be taken as easily.

Clearly

it was not taken seriously enough in

her mind, and that she couldn't make

an anonymous complaint, why not?

We

don't have, as I say, an independent

third-party system, but...

But why

couldn't you make an anonymous

complaint to the Labour Party at the

time?

We don't have a system in

place with these complaints can be

investigated independently of people

who may know... As Bex Bailey said

when she came forward, she was

offered career's advice, and clearly

the situation has to change and the

question is what is the right

change. For me and all of us we are

saying we need an independent system

so there is no question of anybody's

friendship with anybody or career

will come into it and it is all

about allegation.

When you look at

it, as you say, these are the

questions being asked. Rosie

Winterton was Chief Whip at the

time, and surely the Chief Whip, the

head manager of the party, and its

activities, would have called the

Leader's Offers about the

allegations against one of its MPs?

I was not involved directly in the

management of it and my

understanding from what Ava said is

she was unhappy with how rosy manage

the situation, but you would have to

ask the leadership. What I am

saying, rather than having

individual show trials and

particular examples, we need to get

this right. We can't keep waiting

until we have a proper process to

investigate these things properly,

and yes, there are sanctions, and

you might have heard me already say

there is a good case location for

bringing back recall. I voted for it

before. I think there are cases

where members of Parliament can

bring Parliament into disrepute.

You

are doing interviews, but why isn't

the leadership? Why is Jeremy Corbyn

running away from reporters when

Labour is claiming it is being open

and transparent on this, and yet he

was very brusque with a reporter

just asking about sexual propriety

within the party?

From what I do

know Jeremy and his team have taken

this incredibly seriously this week.

Those of us coming forward asking to

change this, there have definitely

been a lot of meetings. You will

need to as Jeremy and his team...

We

tried, that is the point.

I am a

backbench Labour MP who is

determined there needs to be change

coming out of this.

This is something men and women have

to learn to cope with. It is

damaging to everyone.

Would you like

Jeremy Corbyn or one of the senior

team to be doing interviews and to

say that Labour is taking this

seriously?

Are you trying to give me

a job in the Labour Party press

office?

It sounds like they needed.

We have to show as a party of

equality that we take these matters

seriously, but I also recognise that

this is being taken seriously by the

Labour Party. As someone who has

been involved in conversations about

what change looks like, I'm

confident that people recognise that

the status quo cannot continue. It

cannot appear that anybody is

treated with favours.

If we look at

the allegations that have been made

against the MP Jared O'Mara, making

historical sexist and offensive

remarks, Bex Bailey, who you

mentioned, allegations that she was

raped and then discouraged from

reporting it by a Labour official,

James greenhouse, who was an intern,

was sexually assaulted by Labour MP.

And he said he couldn't make an

anonymous complaint. Now these

allegations with Kevin Hopkins. Are

you embarrassed by your party?

I

feel we have let these young people

down. I was working with Bex Bailey,

try to raise concerns about how we

got a process in place, not knowing

of her personal experience. So I am

heartbroken when I hear these

stories. That is why this has to

change. That conversation is taking

place. Many of us will push to make

sure we get the best independent

third-party report in process, so

there are proper sanctions and

everybody can be confident that when

an allegation is made, it is treated

seriously.

You say you will

guarantee that this will be

independent...

A lot of us recognise

how serious this is and we are

determined to see it change. We are

trying to come up with the

processes. Show trials in the media

will not change the process so that

people can come forward. We need a

proper and independent process.

But

people have had to come to the media

to get these things brought to light

in the first place. The Labour

leadership are not willing to answer

basic questions on an issue that

they say they are addressing.

Yesterday, I had Dawn Butler, your

colleague, the shadow women and

equalities minister, saying we had

put robust policies in place, but

couldn't tell me what they were. Who

do you go to in the Labour Party if

there is a new system to complain?

Who is the third-party personal?

That is not there at the moment.

So

there are not robust procedures?

That is what we are pushing for. A

hotline staffed by people who know

those you want to complain about

probably isn't good enough. We need

somebody independent who can deal

with anonymous concerns and can

support somebody. Someone with an

independent sexual violence advice

experience.

Was it right that these

people could not make complaints

anonymously at Labour Party and is

it credible that the leader's office

could not have known about this

complaint against Kelvin Hopkins.

On

the first point, I agree with

Stella. It is absolutely not right.

The idea of someone like Bex Bailey,

bad enough that she was raped, but

then to be told not to talk about it

is appalling and should not happen

in any party. The idea that if

something like that happens to you,

you have to talk about it to someone

who is potentially your superior or

a colleague who knows the people

involved is so transparently

ludicrous that obviously, that has

to go, for all the parties. You

can't have a situation where that is

the procedure. It is not a robust

procedure and I hope all the parties

introduce some kind of independent

system whereby people who are facing

any kind of abuse or harassment are

able to talk about it.

Should Kelvin

Hopkins have been promoted when this

allegation had been raised with the

Labour Party?

With hindsight,

clearly not, but I don't know how

that situation arose. Obviously, the

leadership is not going to talk

about it now because there is an

investigation.

But shouldn't they be

answering questions about these

allegations and what they are doing

about it?

I don't think they can

answer the question of the

allegation while there is an

investigation in place. But

definitely, the entire party should

address the issue of getting robust

procedures in place urgently.

Let me

go back to Stella Creasy. There was

another report by Jo town on the

Conservative side, talking about an

experience she had in one of the

bars, with drinks being spiked. Is

this what is going on? Do you know

of other people who have had their

drink spiked in bars in the Houses

of Parliament?

I know of countless

women who have had their drink

spiked in society.

But in the Houses

of Parliament?

I don't know of

another example. What Jo has

reported is horrific. That is why

this has to change and we have to

take it seriously. Frankly, people

who say they will deal with it

internally, that is not good enough.

And that is a cross all political

parties and across society. The only

thing that is different in

Parliament is that it is behaviour

which if you did in other

workplaces, there would be a proper

HR function and it would be a

disciplinary offence, rightly. That

is not in place and that has to

change.

Stella Creasy, thank you. We

hope to be a interview with Ava

Etemadzadeh, the victim of Kelvin

Hopkins' alleged behaviour, later in

the programme.

The October revolution ushered in 70

years of Communist rule in Russia

and across vast swathes

of Eastern Europe and Asia.

Those events have shaped

politics across the globe

and are still used to define

political allegiances and dogma.

There were no cameras there to film

the moment the Bolsheviks stormed

the Winter Palace in St Petersburg

100 years ago, but this

is how the great Soviet

film-maker and propagandist,

Sergei Eisenstein, chose to portray

the events in his film

October:

Ten Days That Shook the World.

And we can talk to Rob Griffiths

from the Communist Party of Britain.

He is in St Petersburg. There were

two revolutions in Russia in 1917,

the one in February, a popular

uprising which brought to power a

socialist government, and the

second, which was a clue, the

Bolsheviks, which was achieved by

armed force and consolidated through

terror. Should that be celebrated?

Yes, it should, because the

revolution transformed the lives of

millions of people for the better

over the following 60 or 70 years.

In what way did it improve it for

the better?

Provided education and

health services for entire

populations that had not previously

received them. It gave them low-cost

housing, public transport. It gave

them great advances in every field

of life.

Bet against a backdrop of

fear and punishment. The secret

police were set up. Elections were

all but abolished. Everything was

done by force, wasn't it? They

basically said it was their way or

the highway.

Can you still see me?

You have just disappeared. Did you

pull the plug? Can you hear me? No.

I think we have lost Mr Griffiths

temporarily in St Petersburg.

Putin

and the Kremlin do not want to

celebrate the Russian Revolution, so

it is mysterious that it has

disappeared!

Not just a power cut!

Should be celebrated or just marked,

Rachel Shabi?

To have a one note

response to the Russian Revolution

would be wrong. It was so many

things. I am not about to celebrate

the violent, authoritarian murderous

and of Stalin. But because of

Stalin, I am not going to discount

the hope and the cause and the

popular uprising in which the

October revolution began. It is

complicated. It has significance in

lots of different ways and it would

be nice if we could explore all of

those instead of just asking to be

put in one category or another.

But

it was a regime of terror to a large

extent. In the end, did the means

justify the ends?

Of course not, but

that doesn't detract from how it

began and what the sentiment that

began it was, and the defiance and

audacity of what they pulled off in

the early days. I don't think there

was an inevitability to it, although

that is something historians are

still discussing.

But began with

Marxism, which is one of the worst

ideas in human history and has

failed everywhere it has been tried.

The cry of the far left is always,

well, it has never been tried

properly. But it has been tried and

is responsible for the deaths of 100

million people, potentially. It

should not be commemorated. It

should not be seen interims of being

marked. It should be lamented in the

same way we lament the Holocaust is

one of the great catastrophes of

human history. It unlocked the door

to tyranny, to the Gulag, to an

extraordinary degree of repression,

and the price was paid across the

world by the victims of the

Communists.

Do you think the victims

of the camps and the purges, in some

ways and the play because of the

horrors of the Second World War and

the Holocaust? What happened once

the Iron Curtain had fun than

before, do you think there has been

underplayed in history?

I am not

about to start comparing the October

revolution to the systematic

extermination of 6 million people.

Has it been underplayed? I think all

sorts of things have now re-emerged

and been we discussed. --

re-discussed. But I would not want

to compare the predetermination of a

historical event with an ideology.

Marxism was bad, therefore

everything was bad about the

revolution? I don't think that is a

helpful analysis.

The root of the

Marxist analysis is essentially the

abolition of the basic means of

exchange, the junking of the market

system. In every case where this is

tried, those who then object to that

economic analysis must be contained

and ultimately cracked down on. This

is what happens every time, to

varying degrees, because it has at

its root if false historical

economic analysis, which is a

catastrophe and has never worked

anywhere.

There is a rejection of an economic

system, capitalism, that doesn't

necessarily lead to

authoritarianism, which is what you

are implying. I think that is very

naive...

That is why what is

happening now in the Labour Party is

so significant. The Democratic

Socialists and the mainstream left,

who have always controlled the

Labour Party and took the decision,

in the 1920s, to make Labour a

parliamentary force rather than a

revolutionary force, did something

so important and patriotic, which is

why the Labour Party has throughout

its history until now been a

mainstream bulwark against the far

left...

Just to be clear...

For the

first time in its history the Labour

Party is now being controlled by the

far left and people...

So you're

saying, just to be

clear, the people

now in the Labour readership, they

are pretending to support the NHS

and, you know, free tuition fees,

but actually they want to get into

government so they can overthrow

government, ie themselves? They want

to overthrow themselves, that is

what you're saying? It doesn't make

any sense!

It is how the Bolsheviks

operated, if you look at the

history...

Self-proclaimed

democratic socialist, I think the

clue is in the the parliamentary

system. They are not? Just in your

opinion.

Based on evidence the

people of their association, the

Communist Party of Great Britain,

their writings in defence of Stalin,

their defence of the October 1917

revolution, there is a very smart

group around Jeremy Corbyn, much

smarter than the Labour leader, who

have taken control of the Labour

Party. It is a historically

significant event. I think what the

danger then is, and what worries

mainstream Labour people and

mainstream Labour voters, if they

get in, what then follows is the

Government can do quite a lot

without legislation, quite a lot...

Why have so many people bought it --

why are so many people voting for

Jamie Cording?

-- Jeremy Corbyn.

Said a small group have taken

control.

You agree with that,

Rachel, that there is a small

revolution being planned around

Jeremy Corbyn, that he is surrounded

by people who would like to see

something much more extreme than

socialism?

I think that is

conspiratorial to the point of

hysteria. We are not even talking

about state ownership. This is a

party that clearly supports a mixed

market, they support an increase in

taxation for the very highest level

of earners in society, they support

some renationalisation of utilities,

they support investment in the

welfare state, none of these things

are a revolutionary! By definition,

none of any of these things are

revolutionary.

Controls... When

there is a run on the country...

Don't answer the question with

another question.

When wealth leaves

the country and essentially

everything that is not nailed down

please, do you think John McDonnell

as Chancellor will have to introduce

capital control to stop money

leaving the country -- nailed down

flees.

Do you think getting the

levels of corporate tax to the

levels that currently exist in the

rest of Europe would cause

businesses to flee the UK, and if

so, to where?

I think the cleverness

of the manifesto, McDonnell is a

very smart guy, and that is a really

rather brilliant document, to con

people in that way, when you just

have to look at what he has said

before he was Shadow Chancellor.

Asked who his greatest influences

were, he said Marx, Lenin and

Trotsky.

Just briefly, fascinating

though this discussion is from an

ideological point of view, Rachel,

can you name a successful Marxist

Communist regime that exists today?

No! And not talking about... I'm not

even saying this is support for

Communism. We started by saying what

can we take away from the Russian

Revolution? One of the things you

can take away from that is that, you

know, people who believe in

supporting workers' struggles might

choose to do that through

parliamentary means, through

democratic socialism.

And finally,

on that, do you think by using your

critique of the October Revolution,

which you say should be lamented, it

is actually unfairly staining the

credible cause of socialism in many

people's Maine's?

I don't think it

has. I'm just really old-fashioned.

I just want the proper old stream

Democratic Labour Party back, Gordon

Brown, Tony Blair, and for once the

far left has managed to steal the

Labour Party.

You support of the

Labour Party then, did you, Iain?

I

was raised in a Labour household!

LAUGHTER

Now, should peers in the House

of Lords be restricted to a 15-year

term, rather than being given a seat

for life as is currently the case?

That was the proposal

from the Lord Speaker's

Committee on Tuesday.

This latest bout of introspection

has been prompted in part by claims

from the former Lord Speaker,

Baroness D'Souza, that many peers

were abusing this system -

she made her comments

in a documentary broadcast

earlier this year.

There is a core of peers who work

incredibly hard, who do that work.

And there are, sad to say,

many, many, many peers

who contribute absolutely nothing,

but who claim the full allowance.

I can remember one occasion

when I was leaving the House quite

late, and there was a peer,

who shall be utterly nameless,

who jumped out of a taxi just

outside the peers' entrance and left

the engine running.

He ran in, presumably to show

that he had attended,

and then ran out again

while the taxi was still running.

I mean, that's not normal.

But it is something that does

happen, and I think that we have

lost the sense of honour that used

to pertain,

and that is

a great, great shame.

And the current Lord Speaker,

Lord Fowler, is here now.

Do you think there will be enough to

restore confidence in the House of

Lords, when they have a perception

it is full of old men who turn up to

speak, or not, and spend a lot on

expenses?

I don't think that is a

true perception. I don't think that

clip you should from my predecessor

is the true position as far as the

House of Lords is concerned. We were

never given the opportunity of

actually replying, which I think is

the case with all the rules of the

BBC.

What would you say in response

now?

I would say there may be some

who do what she alleges, but most

actually work rather hard. We have

over 300, 330, who sit on the select

committees, who work, you know, each

week on select committees, and what

we are doing now is to try to bring

the numbers down, and for the first

time in history we are going to have

a cap on the numbers of peers in the

House of Lords. It has never been

done before in this country. I think

it is universal overseas, but never

been done before.

And the number is?

It will come down to under the House

of Commons and 600 from about 820,

so we are getting rid of the

quarter, and if I may say so, there

are not that number of organisations

who buy their own volition decide to

reduce themselves by almost a

quarter...

You said yourself there

are a few passengers in the current

House. Will they be the first to go?

I think that is very likely. It is

what the process will be, that the

party groups will decide the process

by which, you know, existing members

go, and they know who the passengers

are. Much better than anybody else,

and I can't believe that someone who

has made next to no contribution

will act to survive.

Even though

some of those in defence say, well,

it is about people to take round the

Houses of Parliament, ambassadors,

do you believe that?

I believe we

should be ambassadors but I think

one of the troubles there have been,

and again we are tackling this,

peers when they are first appointed,

they are not actually told what is

expected of them. I think this is a

most extraordinary mission. And

what...

Couldn't they find out

themselves?

I can think of cases,

again, one case in particular, where

someone who had just been appointed

was having doubts, literally, within

days, you know, this is ridiculous.

What we are doing is to have the

commission saying to people, now,

look, this is what is expected of

you. If you don't want that then,

you know, don't...

There is the

door, right.

LAUGHTER

In the past figures like Gordon

Brown have called for the Lords to

be replaced by an elected Senate

alongside a more federal UK

structure. What you think of that?

I

think the idea of a Sennett is

right. In other words, we are

looking and reviewing what the

Commons is doing. The Commons is the

elected chamber, and they have the

final say. Whether you want two

elected chambers, side by side, I

think is quite another matter. At

the moment we accept the elected

Commons is superior. If I go in as

an elected peer, my whole attitude

changes and I will say my vote is as

good as the man next.

They are doing

quite well at scrutinising what

legislation there is at the moment

in the House of Lords?

We are, but

we very rarely come to bunfight at

the OK Corral with us trying to

insist by our ways -- we very rarely

come to a gun fight at the OK

Corral. We accepted as the House of

Commons who have the final say, and

that is right, but I think we have

the constitutional duty of actually

checking what the Commons do.

Let's

talk about regeneration in terms of

the building itself. You are a fan

of that, broadly speaking. He

recently visited Ottawa were

Canadian MPs and senators have moved

out of the existing parliament

building to facilitate maintenance

work. I don't know if it is on the

same sort of scale we are speaking

about here in the Houses of

Parliament. Would you like to see

that happen here for the maintenance

work needed?

Yes. They are moving

out, to be fair. By this time next

year in Ottawa.

Yes, we can see the

pictures I think being shown right

now.

Both the Commons and the Senate

will have moved out, all the members

will have moved out of the main

parliament building, and the

contractors will go in, and that has

been decided, and they will be out

for some years, and I think that is

by far the most effective and

efficient way of doing the repairs,

and doing the reconstruction. The

situation in the House of Lords by

any stretch of the imagination is

not good. I mean, we have over 1000

asbestos sites, over 1000. We

actually don't know how many

precisely we have got. We have

electric fault all over the place.

We employ 24 full-time fire

inspectors, 24 hours a day, going

round checking for any fires, and

there are, and there have been, and

this is ridiculous. No other

organisation does that.

Right, but

you still need agreement, don't you?

From the Prime Minister, and all the

parties?

From the House of Commons.

Do you think that is good to be

forthcoming?

I very much hope so. I

think there was a pretty good

agreement in the Lords this should

be done. I think we will have a

debate, hopefully, before Christmas,

and presumably a motion will be put

on the table on this. The Government

is setting up a committee now to

look at the exact costs, and that is

fine.

Costs are potentially huge?

That is what they are looking at to

find out and I think it is very

difficult to tell. If you see the

costs are, for example, £4 billion,

no one will write that check. It is

over a period of a decade probably

your speaking.

If that doesn't

happen and the Commons don't agree,

and you don't move out, what are the

risks?

I suppose we would have to do

it some other way. We would be

building around, and there would be

the risk something would go wrong. A

fire, something fell down the other

day...

There are dangers to members, the

staff, and actor to the people who

come. I don't think anyone is in any

doubt at all that something needs to

be done. It is not a question...

I

think they agree that but there does

not seem to be a way of finding

agreement, we have done so many

interviews about this, no one has

moved out and the one looks like

they are going to in the near

future.

You know, one just hopes

common sense prevails on this. It is

much better and more effective to

have and allow the contractors and

all those people to come in and do

the whole thing, rather than doing

it, you know, there was one

suggestion we should do it over the

space of 20 years. It will also cost

about ten times as much! In politics

there are not too many issues you

see are no-brainers but this does

seem to be one of them.

It is good

to know things move quickly in this

regard. But to go back to the

beginning on tapping the numbers, is

that a good thing?

I think so. I

would be bolder than that. I think

we need post Brexit a complete

rethink of the constitution and I

would rethink the role of the second

chamber and possibly even the

Commons becoming an English chamber.

There are all sorts of ways you

could do it without subdividing

England into lots of regions, as

Gordon Brown suggested, but the move

I think an opportunity is also

missed to go outside London, and I

think MPs and peers should be as

bold as possible.

Where would you

suggest they went

Leeds, for

example. In light of the disrepute

in which the Commons is held and the

reputational problems parliament

has, I think Parliament has to

completely rethink its relationship

with the country.

What about going

to somewhere like Leeds?

If it was

going to go anywhere I would go to

Birmingham, but just to make the one

essential point about the proposals,

we are doing this without

legislation. Everything you are

talking about requires legislation.

I mean, we haven't got... The only

thing we can do is to actually

reduce numbers, basically. It is up

to the Government to introduce

legislation. I haven't regrettably

got that power.

Rachel Shabi, when

it comes to an elected second

chamber, this argument that the

primacy of the Commons would be

undermined, do you agree with that?

There is something about that, yes.

It would change the tone of the

second chamber, and there would be a

problem there, potentially. With the

perception of independence and

allegiance and so forth, but I'm...

I think this conversation is to be

encouraged.

I also think the conversation about

why the second chamber exists is one

that we need to have, because that

seems to have been lost or Brexit,

the function of the second chamber

and Wyatt is a necessary part of our

democracy -- why it is a necessary

part of our democracy seems to have

been eroded.

When Michael Fallon

resigned, he said that some of his

behaviour fell below standards that

are acceptable today, the

implication being that they might

have been acceptable 15 years ago.

Do you agree?

Not really. The case

with Michael Fallon is not entirely

clear, but I think the kind of

sexual harassment were talking about

was not acceptable 15 years ago and

certainly is not acceptable today.

What we have to do now is,

particularly with the people working

for members, we have to find a way

whereby complaints that they make

are taken seriously and are acted

upon. This is a much more serious

issue than some of the things we

have had in the past where someone

has been having an affair with

someone else. That is not what we

are talking about. This is

harassment.

I suppose if there were

allegations of sexual impropriety,

someone might come to you. Have you

ever had anyone report it to you?

No. We have a good system in the

Lords for looking after staff and

staff complaints. As far as I know,

there have not been any in recent

years. But certainly, no one has

come to me. But you are right, if

John Bercow and myself can help in

this way of stamping the whole

process and being independent, we

would be happy to do so.

Norman

Fowler, thank you.

I know there are two months

until the end of the year,

but if you're a cartoonist, you've

already missed your chance to get

into this year's Compendium

of the best political cartoons.

Mind you, it's been a bumper year,

what with that snap general election

no one thought would happen,

the surprise result, and all the fun

of those drawn-out divorce

negotiations with the EU.

Here's Ellie with the top five

political cartoons of the year.

At five, Christian Adams pokes fun

at the three-week summer holiday

Theresa May took walking

in the Swiss Alps.

Critics say the fact

that she was away so long

without appointing a deputy

at a crucial moment in the Brexit

negotiations was a bit cuckoo

when the clock is ticking.

At four, Jeremy Corbyn was depicted

as being lost at sea when the Labour

election campaign launched,

attacked left, right and centre

by sharks in the guise

of Theresa May, Rupert Murdoch

and fat cat lobby groups,

or so it seemed.

Of course, he did manage to secure

that bigger vote from the jaws

of catastrophic defeat.

Who knows what could happen

if there were a sequel?

At three, the Observer's Chris

Riddell imagines Labour's 2017

manifesto as an irresistible sweetie

shop,

with the PM as Cruella de Vil.

If she doesn't scare you,

no evil thing will, or maybe that's

just the cartoonist's take

on her policies on immigration,

Brexit and foxhunting.

The runner-up at number

two, the powerful image

from Peter Brookes

of tower blocks portrayed

as tinderboxes in the wake of

the devastating Grenfell Tower fire.

The event caused a backlash

against Tory cuts amid accusations

that the Government didn't care

about residents' welfare.

And coming in at number one,

Ben Jennings' depiction

of the rather complex workings

of Boris Johnson's conscience.

When the Sunday Times published

the draft pro-EU article BoJo had

written before the referendum,

people began to wonder -

did he really support leaving

the EU, or had he backed Brexit

merely for his own political gain?

Angel or Machiavelli?

And just imagine the

lexiconic nightmare

of having two Borises

whispering in your ear.

Joining us now are Tim Benson,

editor of Britain's Best Political

Cartoons and Martha Richler,

a cartoonist who uses

the pseudonym "Marf".

What makes a great political

cartoon, Martha?

It should be

truthful and funny. In equal parts.

Some of the most powerful political

cartoons draw on some funny story

and some truth more all in one. I

don't think it would be possible to

draw a cartoon and then try and

think about caption. It comes all

together to the cartoonist's

imagination.

Do you agree?

And no, I

don't. I don't see how all cartoons

can be funny when they cover very

serious subjects on occasion. Can

you make terrorist attacks funny?

No. So they can be funny. They can

ridicule and satirise those who

deserve it. But again, political

comment doesn't always have to be

funny.

Let's pick a particular

favourite that you have, Tim.

They

are all my favourites.

But talk us

through one of the ones you like,

this one.

This is on the front cover

of the book. It encapsulates the

mess we are in over Brexit. I always

worried about putting a cartoon on

the front cover about whether it

would loses topicality by the time

it comes out.

But you are not

worried in this case! What do you

think, Martha? Do you like it?

I do,

and by the way, I don't think this

is a competition like a race. I

would not be cartooning if I didn't

think I could add something to the

mix, but if I can, I will look at

cartoons all day. I used to get

attention in school for doing that.

All I am ingested in is making sure

we are seen and heard. I think Tim

Benson's selection is immensely

valuable, but there will be a

companion volume and another. It is

a continuing story. I want to get

away a bit from the male-female

opposition if you don't mind. Part

of my issue with Tim Benson to do

with his lack of enthusiasm for

online publishing. A lot of women

are publishing online. I published a

serious political cartoon on sexual

harassment at Westminster, as you

are discussing earlier. And it is

very serious, but it has elements of

humour. Everyone has to laugh at

that detail in the mail online about

the minister with a proclivity for

boys wearing women's perfume.

Is

this sort of thing one should laugh

at? Cartoons are supposed to trigger

thought. They are supposed to be

thought-provoking. Are these things

funny?

They can be, when done well,

like Peter Brooks or Christian

Adams. It depends on your political

viewpoint, of course. I am not a fan

of Steve Bell's work, but I do think

there is a great revival happening

with political cartoons.

If you went

back to ten years ago as a

journalist, one of my concerns was

that the art would die out because

newsprint was fading away. But

actually, things like the iPad have

given it a great boost because they

are backlit and they look fantastic.

I disagree.

Martha's point is that

we have to look broader than the

newspapers, because there has not

been a woman among the six full-time

political cartoonists working for

newspapers to stop isn't this

another way of bringing cartoonists

and cartoons to the national diet,

if you like, without having to rely

on the newspapers?

I don't think it

has anything to do with gender bias.

I think in political cartooning, if

you are good enough, you will get

there. The cream always gets to the

top.

I disagree that this has

nothing to do with gender. The idea

that talent rises regardless of

gender is just absurd.

It is

idealistic.

It does in political

cartooning.

There are all the

invisible obstacles and privileges

in operation.

I see it that

newspapers are archaic and wonderful

in some ways. Traditionally, a

cartoonist who began drawing would

continue drawing and die in his

chair. Jack died in his chair 50

years after starting as a

cartoonist. And his successor

started the morning after. So there

is a kind of continuity that is

wonderful. It is not to replace the

Jacks of this world.

Cartoonists

don't employ themselves.

We have to

leave it there, because I think we

are going to be able to bring you

part of the interview from the lady

we were talking about earlier who

made a complaint against the Labour

MP Kelvin Hopkins. And we can play

that to you now.

The first instance

happened on campus. He hugged me

very tightly and rubbed himself

against me. It made me feel

extremely uncomfortable, and it was

a revolting act. The second incident

was in Parliament, when I went to

have a conversation with him and he

told me, let's not talk about

politics, do you have a boyfriend?

And he also said that if nobody was

in his office, he would have taken

me there. I was shocked.

You have

brought your phone. You have more

than one text message, tell me about

that.

Yes. A few weeks after I

refuse to respond to his calls, he

left that message saying I am an

attractive, lovely young woman and a

man would be lucky to have me as a

lover and if he was young... But he

is not.

And how did you feel?

Again,

I was shocked. I was not really

expecting that. I think someone who

is representing the people in

Parliament should act like that. It

made me feel extremely

uncomfortable. This is why I decided

to do something about it.

This is

Ava Etemadzadeh, who has made

complaints against the Labour MP

Kelvin Hopkins. He has declined to

comment, but he has been suspended

by the Labour Party. How does it

make you feel listening to this

young woman, Rachel?

It is

excruciating to hear these stories

again and again. This woman is so

young. Nobody should be exposed to

what she is exposed to. Every time

you hear these stories, these women

are so brave for coming forward.

They have all my respect as well as

my sympathy for what they are going

through. But every time you hear

these stories, you realise how much

women are held back by these things.

There is another person whose

ambitions, hopes, energy and talents

may have been hindered by these

unwanted acts of harassment that

have a terrible and long-lasting

effect. If you think of all the

women who have been hampered in this

way, it is awful to think of all

that lost ambition as well as the

disrupted lives.

Rachel Shabi, thank

you. We have come to the end of our

programme. Thank you to both of you

for being my guests of the day.

The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now.

We will be back on Sunday with the

Sunday Politics. Bye-bye.