12/12/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

Inflation reaches a six year high

as it continues

to run well ahead of wages.

How much worse off

will it make us feel?

World political and business leaders

gather in Paris to discuss progress

in tackling climate change,

but how much can be achieved

when the President of the world's

second biggest polluter -

Donald Trump - is not taking part?

The government wants to make

it easier for people

to change their gender.

But could any change to the law be

detrimental to the feminist cause?

And the Royal Mail released a stamp

to mark our accession

to the EU in 1973.

So why aren't they producing

one to mark Brexit?

All that in the next hour,

and with us for the whole

of the programme today is that

darling of daytime TV,

Richard Madeley.

I've thought that was me!

It is you!

First today - inflation

has risen again.

The headline Consumer Prices Index

stood at 3.1% in November -

that's well ahead of wages

which grew at just 2.2%.

It means that the governor

of the Bank of England, Mark Carney,

must write to the Chancellor

to explain why inflation is running

so far ahead of the 2% target

the government has set.

Let's talk to our economics

editor, Kamal Ahmed.

So, a pre-Christmas crunch for

consumers, with inflation at 3.1%,

have it peaked there?

Well, that is

the big question. The Bank of

England certainly believes the

present under this autumn would be

the high point for inflation. The

main reason for that is because when

you have a currency shock which is a

lot of the reason for this

inflation, so obviously, Sterling

dropped heavily after the

referendum, and when you have a

currency shock like that, that tends

to feed through the system

relatively

quickly and then feed out of the

system because inflation is a

comparative number one on the next.

Once you are a year on from the

referendum, it tends to lessen. The

Bank of England put a lot of store

by that. They thought 3.2% would be

the peak and then it would fall next

year. I have brought my sheet of

numbers with me. If you look at the

numbers which affect what people

buy, looking at clothing, food, and

alcohol, the numbers are 4.1%

inflation in food, 4.5% inflation in

alcohol and 3% inflation in

clothing.

So that is quite painfully

high.

For the things that people

buy, and that is not including

transport, that is up 4.5%. That is

few and tickets. The things that

people buy means 3.1% is not what

people are experiencing when they go

to the shops. So actually, that

squeezes very sharp, but the Bank of

England leaves and most economists

believe we are at about the high

point of it.

Does that mean there

will be a sharp fall or will we take

proper bit and then stick around

2.93%?

The banks as they have to get

back to the 2% target over a

three-year period. The idea is that

next year inflation would fall and

most are predicting between two and

2.5%. Now, because of the sterling

shock feeding through, there does

seem to be a lot of evidence that

that will happen. We must not forget

that things happen which are not

forecast. Several example, the

closure of the big oil pipeline in

Scotland has meant there is some

upward pressure on the oil price.

The oil prices going up anyway. It

could go up faster. People are using

more fuel because it is very cold

and that means inflation is

affected. Inflation is difficult to

forecast because things happen and

that can produce inflation

pressures.

Mark Carney had to write

to the Chancellor to explain why

there has been this rapid rise in

inflation and you wonder, fine, he

writes a letter, but apart from it

being a bureaucratic procedure, what

does it actually do?

We are drowning

in protocols. I know we will come

onto Brexit but that is a classic

example currently. Can I ask about

the numbers, if what we are

experiencing is 4.5%, what is

dragging it down to 3.1%?

Did the

currency. It is called washing out

of the system. Input prices that

producers are seeing in terms of

what they are buying from abroad,

because the reason inflation comes

because they Sterling change,

because it is more expensive to buy

from abroad. That figure is starting

to fall off because the sterling

effect is washing three. That is

tapering in its effects. But other

things like the oil price are

starting to push inflation in the

other direction. Also what is called

the push through. So for a while

retailers soak up the input price

inflation they are suffering because

they are buying food from abroad,

but after a bit it starts to be

pushed through to the consumer and

that is what is happening now. That

bubble has moved from the retailers,

the cost of importing food has been

pushed onto the consumer, so they

are starting to experience that

through bubble.

What about the

action that can be taken by the Bank

of England? Does he have suggestions

how to bring it down?

So they have

raised interest rates slightly or

doubled them from not .2% -- 0.25%

to not .5%. Raising interest rates

tends to take money out of the

system. They have done that and also

they take predictions on things like

the sterling effect, on things like

commodity prices, but of course,

when you have quite strong global

growth as you do, that has

inflationary effects. It tends to

push up inflation. So it is a

delicate balancing act. We will not

see the letter until next year. By

then, we will have other inflation

figures in December, which could be

a little lower. The letter writing,

as you said which is quite a

bureaucratic protocol, we will not

see what the letter looks like until

next February.

You're too young to

remember the inflation we had in the

70s. It would make this conversation

laughable.

But we have had such low

inflation for so long and that is

the difficulty, particularly before.

Thank you.

So, it looks like the EU will sign

off on moving on to phase two

of Brexit talks when Theresa May

meets her fellow EU leaders

at the end of the week.

But could there be trouble

for the Prime Minister

back here in Westminster?

Some of her own MPs are insisting

on a "meaningful vote" at the end

of the Brexit negotiations -

and they want that promise written

into the EU Withdrawal Bill that's

currently going through parliament.

The Prime Minister faced MPs

in the Commons yesterday

as she briefed them on the deal

she did last week in Brussels.

The progress so far has required

give and take for the UK and the EU,

to move forward together, and that

is what we have done. Of course,

nothing is agreed until everything

is agreed.

But, there is, I believe, a new

sense of optimism in the talks. And

I fully hope... And I fully hope and

expect that we will confirm the

arrangements that I have said that

today in the European Council led to

this week.

18 months on from the

referendum result, the Prime

Minister scrapes through phase one

of the negotiations. Scrapes through

after a team months. Two month later

than planned, with many of the key

aspects of phase one still not

clear. This weekend Cabinet members

have managed to contradict each

other. Indeed, some have managed to

go even further and contradict

themselves.

Would she confirmed that

nothing is agreed and 11 thing is

agreed is a well-known phrase

meaning details can be revisited

once you have sorted out what the

ultimate test the nation is, but it

doesn't mean that you're going to

tear everything up and start all

over again, while EU citizens are

paying money and regulatory

convergence, if something goes wrong

in future?

Last week we had the

human dating scene of the Prime

Minister being forced out of the

original deal by the DUP, rushing

back to London, the government had

to rewrite the agreement so as to

reach the DUP's approval. We really

have to wonder, who is running the

UK? Is it Arlene Foster or the right

honourable member for Maidenhead?

The Prime Minister said there had

been given take in the negotiations

and she is absolutely right. We are

giving the EU tens of billions of

pounds and they are taking them. As

the Prime Minister has said, that

the money will not be paid unless

there is a final agreement, by

definition, that must mean that we

are not legally obliged to make

these payments, otherwise that would

not be available to us. Can the

Prime Minister explain why she is

paying tens of billions of pounds

which are not legally due to the

European Union, when she is

continuing with a policy of

austerity at home that many of my

constituents simply do not

understand where all this extra

money seems to come from.

And I'm joined now by Oliver Letwin,

who worked at the heart

of both the coalition and David

Cameron's short-lived

Conservative government as a policy

minister and party strategist.

Welcome to the programme. That step

up on Philip Davis there, the

Conservative MP at the end of the

film. He is disgruntled about the

money, up to £39 billion. We have

agreed to pay the EU. He is not the

only Conservative backbencher who

has raised these concerns, saying

they need help selling this steel to

their constituents. How does the

government explain to the voting

public that we have agreed to make

these payments over the coming

decades, without so far anything to

show for it?

I don't think that is

very difficult. In the first place,

this money is money we are paying

for the first and large instalments

of it and then we go on paying it

for a couple of years and then we

stopped that, which is good news.

The rest of the money we pay over

20, 30, 40 years as pensions

crystallise and so on, and so the

net effect is after a couple of

years our contribution is hugely

reduced which is good news.

But

Theresa May said yesterday the offer

is on the table in the context of us

agreeing the next stage and the

partnership for the future. So let's

be absolutely clear, the UK could

walk away without paying a penny if

the EU does not offer us the

prospect of the trade deal in phase

two?

There has been quite a lot of

confusion about this. As far as I

can make out, the position is there

is some unknown quantity that if one

went to court about it, would turn

out to be a legal obligation and

that the UK would always pay. I

don't know and that hasn't been a

legal case to decide, but the next

question is, that part of it,

whatever it is, that we are not

legally obliged to pay, and which is

part of this agreement, and that is

clearly contingent on getting the

deal. How those would sort

themselves out, you would only know

later.

See you would agree with

Philip Hammond the Chancellor, that

we would still need on our

obligations, even if we could not

agree on a trade deal?

Does not

whether I agree, the fact is that

the UK always honours its

international law obligations. The

government is clear about that. That

is not a controversial point in our

country.

But when you listen to some

of the Conservative backbenchers,

they seem to be implying we would

not pay any of the amount...

No, I

did not hear the same as you. I

think the listeners would have heard

Philip Davies saying clearer later

this money we were not legally

obliged to pay. -- he said clearly

that legally we were not obliged to

pay. I think anything we are legally

obliged to pay we would pay anyway,

but we would only pay above what we

are legally obliged to pay if we get

the deal.

We may need to see that

documentation because people keep

calling for some sort of sheet.

I

don't think you will ever see that

unless it was contested in court. I

suspect it is a very come to

question legally speaking, what we

obliged to pay?

What is the EU went

to make an offer on the money that

we have put down, legally binding

before we leave in March 2019?

I

think the Prime Minister is

completely clear. She is not going

to agree to any amount beyond our

legal obligations, including the

amount she has agreed here, and

finally we get a final deal that is

accepted by Parliament and that

becomes the basis of our future will

relationship. That is clear.

There

is a feeling in some inner party

that the Prime Minister has

capitulated with this deal? The

former Chancellor Lord Lawson, and

we know his views generally when it

comes to Brexit, he thinks the Prime

Minister has lost her nerve and it

is time to get up off our knees.

There may be many voters who agree

with him. What would you say to

others who espouse that sentiment?

I

don't agree with that. I think if

you're going to have a negotiation

like

this, the idea of agreeing something

and making it contingent on a final

agreement is a perfectly proper and

will weigh to negotiate. Clearly, we

have a tough negotiation on the free

trade deal ahead of us. I think we

need to make it perfectly clear that

we are prepared to leave without one

if one is offered to us which is not

acceptable, I think that means all

the preparations the government is

making that Philip Hammond provided

money to make in his budget, for

leaving without an agreement if we

cannot get an acceptable one.

Therefore, I think we have a

sensible negotiation ahead of us.

Was it wise for David Davis to talk

about the deal and statement of

intent only, which seems to have

upset some in Brussels and in

Ireland, because the invitation

there is that phase two could

un-pick everything that has been

agreed in phase one?

I think you

have two propositions. The

government has clearly reached an

agreement about how it would proceed

in relation to withdraw, if it gets

a trade deal that is acceptable. It

is contingent on that but it does

not mean the government will go back

and renegotiate or the terms of this

text as part of getting a free trade

deal. We get a free trade deal and

will it buy this text, or we don't

and the text is off the table. That

seems to me perfectly clear a

sensible answer session. You can

never have a perfect position in

negotiating as I often found in the

collision! But I think you can get a

decent one.

Many felt she wouldn't even make it

to this point as Prime Minister and

trying to bring round the DUP and do

you see that as an achievement?

A small one, these are relative

things.

She has had a horrible few months.

Yesterday she introduced a note of

triumphalism which is understandable

but amateur.

There is so much more to go. It was

over the top yesterday.

Michael Deacon in the Telegraph

newspaper bikers had to a 400 metres

hurdler who jumps over the first at

last and then stops to make a

speech. There is so much language

around this debate. Thank you for

talking in plain English. David

Davis had to issue a clarification

yesterday. I needed clarification of

the whole interview, I have never

heard such jargon.

The whole debate, God knows how you

kept your sanity...

I am not sure I have.

The entire debate is strangled by

semantics.

What did McDonnell say yesterday, it

was ridiculous, Labour doesn't want

to be in the single market or the

customs union, but a single market.

It is Monty Python. Explaining this

to the voters who have tried to talk

about how they will respond, you can

understand why it said the public

will go bananas because they haven't

been prepared for this.

Let us talk about transition, the

next part of the negotiation. The

promised has implied she wants the

UK to remain in the single market

and Customs union during that

period, is that what you understand?

Yes. Will that be the status quo in

terms of still taking laws and rules

from the European Court of Justice?

It is clear from what she said

yesterday that one of the things

which will happen in the next phase,

I agree, it is early days, is that

the terms of that transitional

period will be settled. Questions

like the ones you are all skiing

will be answered in that period --

you are asking.

If there is new legislation in the

midst of that period, does not apply

to us?

There are tricky issues. The basic

proposition as understand it, is

that for another two years we'd be

governed broadly by the same set of

rules as at the moment. During that

period, we would implement all the

changes agreed and whatever deal

there is and the new deal would...

I will come onto what would be

implemented. There has been

confusion around this transition

period. Will your party sign up to

her vision and your vision of

another two years of EU membership

in all but name.

People will be very happy if they

knew there was a free trade deal on

the table that was acceptable, which

there is at the moment, and we'd

only have this transition with a

free trade deal, and if they knew it

would take two years to fill in the

details, then we would be happy to

see current situation maintain.

So the payments continue, freedom of

movement, the ECJ continues.

In order to get to a point where the

free trade deal clocks in and our

businesses have only one change.

You don't have a double cliff edge.

Come the 29th of March 2019, the day

of our departure, we won't have

signed a trade deal by then?

You say that, that is not the

intention. It is important not to

add confusion.

I am looking at what is put on the

table.

Her intention is between the first

step which this is, and the next

step, she will try to negotiate two

sets of things, the finalisation of

this deal, including the

finalisation of the transitional

period, and a free trade deal.

I want to read paragraph six. These

are the guidelines for the second

phase, an agreement on a future

mission ship can only be considered

once the UK has become a third

country, the union will engage in

preliminary and preparatory

discussions to... In other words,

they will only look at the very

start of this trade Ott those are

the guidelines.

That is not what they mean, it means

in international law, you cannot

sign a free trade deal between UK

and EU until the UK has left the EU

because the UK is not a separate

country but of the EU. These words,

preliminary, apply.

We won't be implementing... If we

get to an agreement before 2019

March 29, then we leave at 11pm UK

time on March 29, on the 30th, the

UK is an independent country, even

if governed by the transnational

period -- Transitional. So you can

sign an agreement. Once it is

approved by Parliament and the EU,

then it is signed. The second we

leave, then it is implemented in the

next two years. Whether that can be

achieved is another question.

It is a sensible process. Except

what looks likely to happen if you

take everything in the round is

there won't be a Brexit dividend

which has been promised, money

coming back or the ability to sign

free trade deals with other

countries outside the EU, until past

2021.

The dividend is on hold. My

question, as an expense to the Jo

Shuter that you are, we talk about

this first hurdle, do you said

Brussels did link?

I don't think it is a question of

Bling King. I think there was

uncompromising language from

Brussels which looks like it gave

way to a sensible negotiating

position. In the negotiations, you

are dealing inside the room with a

sensible set of propositions, then

you have an audience out there you

have two shown you are being strong

too. These overblown statements you

refer to, they get made, we

shouldn't pay too much attention.

The question is, at the end, do you

get a sensible agreement.

Dominic grieve said so far that it

has been intransigent and he is

planning to put his amendment on the

final deal tomorrow which could mean

a defeat for the Government, should

the Government compromise?

You should distinguish between

proposition one, MPs should have a

vote on whether the final deal put

before Parliament is acceptable to

Parliament?

Should there be time to send it back

to Theresa May?

Should we have the vote on whether

it is acceptable? Yes. That is why

the Government will make that deal

be something that is brought in, in

a separate act. The next question,

should we have the capacity in

Parliament to thwart the will of the

British people by rejecting not only

the deal but the whole process of

Brexit. My answer is definitely not.

We must leave, so do we leave with a

deal or not.

Is that what Dominic Grieve is

trying to do, thwart the will of the

British people?

His amendment provides for us to

vote on whether the deal is

acceptable and if it is all it does

then the Government will bring

forward registration.

I have worked with Dominic, I don't

read that in that way.

Why is it necessary for the dates of

our departure to be written into

that bill?

I don't think it is necessary but it

is not a problem. If you write in a

date and it turns out it is useful

to have another 48 hours or

whatever, you can have emergency

legislation passed to change it.

The advantage of having the date on

the face of it is to allay any

suspicion that Parliament is intent

on doing anything other than leaving

on the 29th of March at 11pm, that

is important for the British people

because they voted for that. I know

this is a question where it is

important but secondary to other

things. Secondary to whether we

maintain a democracy in this

country.

In December 2015, 196 countries

reached a consensus known

as the Paris Climate Agreement -

the deal unites all the world's

nations in a single agreement

on tackling climate change.

This

That ministers from 196 countries

reached a consensus on a set

of targets was hailed

as "historic" in itself.

The key elements of the agreement

are: To keep global temperatures

"well below" 2.0 Celsius,

above pre-industrial times

and "endeavour to limit" them even

more, to 1.5 Celsius.

To limit the amount of greenhouse

gases emitted by human activity

to the same levels that trees,

soil and oceans can absorb

naturally, beginning at some point

between 2050 and 2100.

To review each country's

contribution to cutting emissions

every five years so they scale up

to the challenge.

For rich countries to help poorer

nations by providing "climate

finance" to adapt to climate change

and switch to renewable energy.

But during the 2016

United States Presidential campaign,

then-candidate Donald Trump promised

to withdraw the US -

which contributes about 15%

of the global emissions of carbon -

from the agreement, saying the move

would help the country's

oil and coal industries.

In June, President Trump confirmed

that the US would withdraw

from the Paris climate accord

during a speech in the Rose Garden

at the White House.

He said that he was doing

so to protect American jobs

and the economy in the US.

Today, French President,

Emmanuel Macron, hosts a meeting

in Paris of around 50 world leaders

from Mexican President

Enrique Pena Nieto to Prime Minister

Theresa May

for the One Planet Summit.

President Trump was

reportedly not invited.

Actor and former Governor

of California Arnold Schwarzenegger

downplayed the US withdrawal

from the climate accord yesterday,

saying the rest of the America

would "pick up the slack".

It doesn't matter that Donald Trump

backed out of the Paris agreement

because the private sector didn't

drop out, the public sector didn't

sector didn't drop out,

the universities,

scientists, the engineers,

no one dropped out.

Donald Trump pulled Donald Trump out

of the Paris Agreement,

so don't worry about that.

We at a subnational level will pick

up the slack and continue on.

We're joined now from the Paris

climate change talks

by the Climate Change Minister,

Claire Perry.

thank you for joining us from Paris.

Arnold Schwarzenegger saying it does

not matter that Donald Trump is not

there. Is his absence overshadowing

the conference bearing in mind he is

the world Blixt second most

polluting country?

The answer is not at all. What has

happened is the trump headline

withdrawal has reinvigorated other

countries and big businesses and the

big NGOs to say, we get that, we

think it is very disappointing but

it means we will go faster and do

more. The promised is coming here

today to make an announcement about

the Cole Alliance, we hoped to get

50 members by next year, we are over

50 already. She will focus on the

first global electric vehicle

summits in the UK. It is a shame but

Arnie is right, the people creating

the emissions are getting on with

the job of cutting them because

everyone sees it is good business

for the planet as well, and good for

the economy. We have half a million

people in Britain working in this

low carbon sector. It is about jobs

and growth, something the US

president cares about. I hope he can

come back to the party.

But we will get on.

If it's all

about the money? If it is about

richer countries helping poorer

polluting countries to adjust their

economies to move to renewables, the

World Bank said it will take $3

trillion a year for 30 years to

contain the rising global

temperatures.

Should Britain commit more funds?

We

are one of the largest donors of

climate and that -- Finance. If you

look at the cost of renewable

technology it is being delivered

subsidy free. I opened the first

subsidy freak solar farm if you

weeks ago. So the world is moving

very rapidly to a place where

renewables are not a cost trade. We

have got to work together. As we

have been saying is we cannot solve

this problem alone, there are huge

benefits in collaborating and we

need to make sure that is

accelerated. President Macron had a

dinner last night where he made the

point, I don't want to say to my

children in 50 years when we have

lost 3G and the Marshall Islands, we

knew it would happen and we didn't

act. There is a sense of commitment

and optimism and hard work to do.

Britain is leading the pack. We have

cut our emissions more and growing

our economy any -- so we know how to

do it.

But how committed is the British

government, because the commitment

to climate change was questioned

when Theresa May abolished the

Department for Energy and Climate

Change shortly after taking office

last year, so it has sort of been

demoted.

Not at all. I have to

disagree. We are one of the first

countries in the world which has a

binding Climate Change Act. Next day

is the tenth anniversary. If you

want politicians to do the right

thing over a period of time, having

that legislation is a good idea. And

by putting the Department for Energy

and Climate Change into the business

department, we have done something

which is incredibly important which

is to say, as we want our economy to

grow and prosper, we know this clean

grey thing has to be at the heart of

it. We working far more closely with

British businesses and the financial

sector to say, how are we making

this change happen? I don't think it

is a demotion, I think it is a

promotion. People are coming up to

saying Britain has led the world,

you have cut your emissions fast,

you are employing hundreds of

thousands of people, let's do it

together. We should be proud of what

we have done.

Let's have a look at

some of the domestic policies. The

Chancellor has said field duty will

be frozen again, why will the

planned rise be scrapped? Doesn't

that undermine Philip Hammond's view

on clean air commitments?

It is not

just bad air, it is about the

quality and water quality. What he

also did was put in a new tax level

for the most polluting vehicles,

diesel engines, which people were

encouraged to buy under previous

governments, and he also rolled up

plans for a electric vehicle

charging networks. You have to do it

in a structured way. You have to

invest in technologies that cut

emissions, you have to make sure

you're not putting costs up and you

have to create technology. It was a

very measured budget and Britain now

is making one in five of the

electric vehicles which are being

sold in Europe. We have a really

fast take-up of electric vehicles

and the PM

will be announcing this global

summit because we want to be both

driving them and making them in the

UK.

But it is not just about the

rhetoric. The High Court has found

the government's previous attempts

to cut air pollution were so poor as

to be illegal. The government has

said it will not introduce more

clean air zones for charging

electric vehicles, why not?

I think

if you read what the budget said, it

said this new diesel levy will go

directly into clean air funding. It

is about action. We will not be

burning any coal to produce power by

2025. The proportion of energy

coming from renewables is about 25%.

We are actually delivering on our

promises and we have lots more to

do. It has to be done in a way which

does not put up costs. The new

technology we are bringing on is the

same cost as some of the fossil fuel

technologies. There is always more

to do. It is great you are covering

this. I think this is one of the

first live broadcast done from a

climate change Summit!

Hurray! Hull

this is not a win lose trade-off, we

can save the planet and we can boost

British businesses at the same time.

And work with hundreds of other

countries who are here, many of them

are represented by heads of state

today who want to work collectively.

It is a big challenge. It will not

be easy but it is great to see

Britain's leadership here.

Enjoy the summit. Richard Madeley,

do you feel there is enough ongoing

commitment by this government to

actually meet some of the

challenges? Despite what Claire

Perry says about meeting some of the

targets, and future targets do not

look to be online.

This is not my

specialist subject but the pressure

I have is quite positive. I thought

Claire gave a good performance

there. I think she explained quite

genuinely the commitment which is

coming from the government.

Despite

the fact they don't have a cabinet

minister any more?

Absolutely, but

she dealt with that well. I am

comfortable with Britain's stance on

global warming. I think we are ahead

of the pack in many ways. I think

countries look up to us. We are

ahead of America which are not a bad

place to be after what Trump said. I

am not pessimistic. It is patchy,

obviously, but our hearts are in the

right place and our intentions are

good.

Let's leave it there.

The UK-wide 2004 Gender

Recognition Act was originally

seen as ground-breaking.

It allowed transgender people

to apply for legal recognition

of the gender in which they lived

without undergoing either

gender reassignment surgery

or other medical treatment.

But those who've gone

through the process have argued

that the requirements placed

on applicants are still intrusive

and distressing, because it requires

a diagnosis of gender dysphoria,

a condition where a person's

biological sex and identity

does not match.

Now, the Government is considering

making that process easier,

as Ellie explains.

That is all we have got time for

this week. Make sure you tune in

again next week. Follow me on social

media. All the rest of it. Two

players out this week, we have the

wonderful Love.

Sophie Cook began

transitioning decades ago, but she

only stopped being Steve in 2015.

She now hosts a radio show in

Brighton, a few miles down the road

from Shoreham where she stood as a

Labour candidate in the general

election.

At the point where I

transitioned, I had a point where I

either ended my life or changed it.

I had struggled with this pain since

I was seven years old, feeling

emotionally detached from who I was

and not feeling like I was the

person I was meant to be. One of the

problems is, in the past it has been

left down to doctors and judges to

rule on people's identity. No one

can actually presume to know more

about from an's identity than they

do themselves.

The glitzy Pink

category News awards in October,

where the Al GDT website awarded

Justine Greening politician of the

year, for her plans to reform the

Gender Recognition Act, something

her boss said she was committed to.

We have set up plans to reform the

Gender Recognition Act, streamlining

and the medical lives in the process

for changing gender. The entrance is

not an illness and it should not be

treated as such. -- being trans is

not an illness.

What people need is

a medical diagnosis of gender

dysphoria and then they need to

prove they have been in transitioned

the two years. When it is launched,

the government's consultation will

look at taking away that need for

medical diagnosis, and freed up for

the individual to self diagnose

their gender. For some there are

practical and philosophical problems

for making gender a personal choice.

Should somebody identified

themselves as a woman, they could

claim the right to be housed in a

refuge service with vulnerable women

who would find it extremely

distressing and potentially

intimidating to be housed with that

person. There is also the

possibility that people will do that

specifically to gain access, and I

don't think anything has been built

into the discussions so far that has

really taken into account the

potential for malicious use.

Just

difficult to quantify how many

people have or are planning to

change gender. Around 300 gender

recognition certificates are granted

each year. The government said it

would launch its consultation this

autumn, but it has not yet.

We're joined now by the feminist

author Julie Bindel and Jane Fae

a campaigner on sexual liberty.

Why should it be made easier to

transition?

Because it is a dog's

breakfast at the moment and it takes

us back to where we were 40 years

ago, because 40 years ago we had a

self identification system and these

guided not moving and there were no

problems whatsoever.

What concerns

do you have, Julie?

First of all the

use of the word gender when we are

talking about sex. I believe that

gender is a social construct. It is

something which is imposed upon

girls at birth. It benefits boys. It

means we are supposed to behave in

particular ways that quite frankly

disadvantage us as girls and

advantage boys. When I was growing

up I had two brothers and I wanted

the freedom that they had earned the

privilege that they were given

because of the sexes and patriarch

Lee, and quite frankly, had I been

taken to a gender reassignment

clinic back in the 1970s, I would

have happily become a boy and there

was no such thing as dysphoria for

me, the dysphoria came not from a

medical condition which meant I was

born in the wrong body, but as a

girl I saw I had less freedom and

less privileges than boys and I was

treated very unfairly by the outside

world.

Taking those points, what do

you say? Bag I'm confused. First and

foremost you are suggesting that you

know what would have happened.

I had

a friend he was very definitely

lesbian who went to a gender

specialist and the gender specialist

sent them away. Secondly, what we

are talking about today is the

Gender Recognition Act and that has

nothing to do with what might have

happened to you back then.

With all

due respect I have interviewed

several people who have been through

medical transition, social

transition who deeply regret it, who

were diagnosed in 20 minutes by a

psychiatrist who has been struck

off, because of several people who

went through the surgery and

hormones, and said if they had been

allowed to live in their own skin

without being bullied for being a

real boy, they would be happy. Why

are we medicalising what is clearly

a problem which is imposed by the

patriarch E.

Let's talk about

medicalisation. Is that an issue for

you? Is there a danger in people

thinking when they are young that

they are in the wrong body and

undertaking something which is

difficult to reverse?

There are many

things in life that are difficult to

reverse and there are many things

with a far higher prevalence. There

is medicalisation, if you are aware

of transgender history, you will be

aware of attempts in the past two

oppose transition. The transgender

community does not want to recruit.

Many people with an ideology in this

are people like Julie. We need a

service which says if you're a

lesbian, your listing, if you're

trans, you are trans.

This is

nothing to do with sexual identity.

It is to do with the issue we have

been asked to speak about, the

Gender Recognition Act which has

been the cheapest and easiest thing

that could be designed by the

government to supposedly support

trans people and in fact, completely

ignore the problem is that that

might mean for female born women.

What it would mean a self

identification, and we have to take

this to its natural conclusion,

because I have seen this happening

in other countries, when you have a

man with a beard who does not even

bother putting a bit of lipstick on

and goes along to top shop changing

rooms and says I am a woman, I self

identify as a woman, let me in now.

If I can say...

Did that really

happen?

Yes. There was a 15-year-old

girl in top shop changing rooms and

Topshop is definitely in

contradiction with the equalities

act.

Do you accept that that could

happen, that there is a risk that if

there are men self identifying as

women, but they have not undergone

any sort of medical change, that

they could then impose themselves,

like the woman in the film said in a

woman's refuge or a changing room?

Absolutely no. If you split the law

out, the Gender Recognition Act has

zero to do with those things, that

is the equality act. If you have a

problem with that, go and reform the

equality act. The Gender Recognition

Act was constructed because of the

way the law involved. To putt people

were left stateless and in 2004 were

given gender back. It covers your

birth certificate, it covers your

ability to marry, insurance and

pensions. All of which have now been

washed away.

So this is about legal

rights. What do you take away from

that discussion. Do you sympathise

with what Julie has set out and what

one of the contributors in the film

set out that it could be the logical

conclusion or is it just about

defining legal rights of people.

As

a 61-year-old journalist, you seem

to be saying that mostly men would

self reassign based on sexual

politics. You said as a woman you

would have re-signed because of

sexual politics because he wanted to

be a boy because you saw boys were

getting a better deal.

Like many

goals.

Or you think they will self

reassign because they want to curve

on women in top shop. Although that

may happen, the chances of that

happening are incredibly small and I

think it is I diversion.

I was in top shop a few weeks

back...

They have had quite a big

promotion here!

This lovely woman in

the changing room Soltby an outfit

ii properly should have had and the

male changing room assessment said

something against selling it. The

key outtake is there are male

changing assistance.

Let us bring it

back to the issue. You have made

that point. In terms of legal

rights, if they are improved by what

the Government is doing, would you

support it?

Everyone's should have

their legal rights protected. Women

are a protected category, Sextus

commission is a valid thing which is

why we have segregated spaces

because the law recognises sexual

violence is endemic towards women

and the main perpetrators are men.

It does not mean we are Victorian

ladies wanting smelling salts in

case we see a man near the changing

room. This is about self

identification into a protected

category. So a man can declare he is

a woman, any single bit of

legislation that protects women will

disappear for us. It will be renamed

as gender which has nothing to do

with sex.

The medical construct is

problematic, it does not change

trans rights. It changes the

administration. It does not make it

any more or less likely that a man

will go into a changing room. It

takes away a panel where to get

through that panel you need £500.

£140?

You need letters from GPs, the

total cost is 450. The other thing

is to get there you need a Murtagh

years of living accounts, to do

that, you need your passport changed

to female, your driving licence

changed. By the time you have got

there, you have done all the things

you should have done. I did get my

gender surgery a year after I trial

-- I started transition. But I still

had to wait a year after in case I

change my mind.

It is about the

admin.

Is it too intrusive the process?

It has to be discussed. We have to

talk about it. Programmes like this

are important. You have raised

issues that have never occurred to

me.

On that line about discussing it, we

couldn't even say Jane was coming on

the programme because several

transgender people will bully people

like Jane although Jane will not

giving, from discussing this.

Feminists have wanted to debate

this.

Why do they want to shut you down?

That is relevant to this.

It isn't.

Why has the debate been so

unpleasant?

People suggest it brings in place,

this is about changing the

administrative process. If I want to

put down my money in front of a

committee...

Why is it unpleasant?

It is... I really don't know. Beyond

that I think there has been an

onslaught by the media, the press

have a lot to answer for. This does

not change legal rights at all.

It changes it for women.

The press have put it out there that

it makes changes but it does not.

In a decision that has angered Leave

campaigners, the Royal Mail

has said it won't be producing

a stamp to mark the UK's departure

from the European Union.

Not least because a stamp

was produced back in 1973

to mark our accession to the

European Economic Community.

Here it is.

3p.

You would need 19 of those

for second-class post these days.

Well, should Brexit

be marked by a stamp?

Let's go to Ellie who's

on College Green.

I bet you have written your cards

but you could have been reflecting

on a busy year. And sending them off

with a Brexit stamp. Let us discuss

this. Peter, this isn't going to

happen, because the Royal Mail don't

usually commemorate political

events.

This is a massive historical event.

In 1953, they made a bigger about,

rating going into the EU even

without a vote. This might seem

trivial. It is symbolic which is

very important. It is outrageous

they have already made this

decision.

Eloise, it did happen once before in

1973. This is a momentous event

whether you like it or not.

The reason we shouldn't waste

taxpayers's money is the process

isn't over. There are other steps in

this democratic process. We won't

leave until Parliament votes.

Otherwise we are leaving that

decision to parliaments across

Europe and I don't want to see that.

We should be using issuing stamps

that celebrate things that bring us

together like the royal wedding.

This is ridiculous. The

establishment wanted us to go in in

1973 so they commemorated it. The

establishment doesn't like the fact

we are going out which is why there

is no stamp.

Eloise makes the point it hasn't

actually happened and there are

bigger things to worry about.

She mentions taxpayers, we will be

spending billions on the EU while

we're waiting for this deal.

This is no argument. This is a

simple thing, and historic thing,

going forward into a new era, there

should be some commemoration.

If I may, this is about what people

want. They wanted Parliament to

control and what we have right now,

and I am not in denial, we have seen

what kind of Brexit this Government

wants, they haven't decided.

You don't want a Brexit.

If we can bring it to the narrow

issue of stamps.

People voted for it!

Imagine the unimaginable, we have

mocked up a few options for what the

stamp could look out if it did

happen. Peter?

It would be better that way, at

least the union Jack should be on

the top. I don't want to see the EU

in stamps that will commemorate,

even if we have them, we should not

have the stars of the EU. It is a

new era.

New and exciting.

What do you think?

In the interests of balance, we need

three examples of stamps we might

have if the British people don't

want to Brexit and if the Parliament

votes that.

But they do want to Brexit.

We have a balloon floating away from

the EU.

Theresa May's balloon does not have

a knot in it, it is fizzling out.

I don't want to see the stars, we

have had 14 years of that.

That is a decent compromise.

That could work.

Ripped out. Totally negative. This

is like nothing and this is still a

lie. You have to accept democracy,

Eloise.

Parliamentary sovereignty and

democracy and if we don't have that

vote on the final deal, we are

leaving it to other countries to

decide.

No, we are not, we voted to come

out.

What would you like to see?

Let us wait and see until the end of

the process. This isn't done until

it is done and people don't want to

note it is yet a done deal.

We should have a big union Jack,

things to celebrate, all the things

open to us in the future and not

negative examples.

I will have to stop you there. A bit

like everything over Brexit, a long

process which people will talk about

over a couple of years and whether

it may or may not happen.

I am told the royal bell go through

the process of talking through

things and it takes a few years for

experts to decide what happens in

the end.

Peter is looking at me!

Brexit causing such debates!

Now.

Christmas is just the around

the corner, and there's no Christmas

tradition more cherished

than pulling a cracker

to reveal a tacky knick-knack,

flimsy paper hat and,

of course, a rubbish joke.

UK TV Gold have held a competition

to identify the best Christmas

cracker joke, with quite a few

political jokes amongst them.

Comedy critic Bruce Dessau

judged the competition.

And is ready to pull some crackers

with me and Richard now.

We have got three. You are excited?

Let us pull the cracker. Ready, go.

There goes the knick-knack, get the

joke out. I lost both.

Bruce?

This one came about three in the

chart, question, why did Donald

Trump continuously decorate the

Christmas tree? Answer, because

people kept saying more-on.

Why did Jeremy Corbyn asked people

not to eat sprouts on Christmas Day.

Because he wants to give peas...

A chance.

And the Christmas hats?

But there is no food or alcohol.

You haven't got one?

Richard, don't pretend. You can

between each other pull the last

one. Bruce, it is you again. Shall I

get the joke out. And put the hat

on.

Read that last joke. This actually

one.

It came first.

Make what you will. I didn't choose

the winner.

The great British public chose. Why

was Theresa May sat as Nativity

manager?

She couldn't run a stable

Government!

Strong and stable.

And which was your favourite?

I liked the Donald Trump joke.

And yours?

I liked the Donald Trump joke. Are

you surprised by the high number of

political jokes and the fact they

are good.

I want if Donald Trump cent per

month in himself? It is a reflection

of what people are thinking about.

Maybe we have become a nation of

satirists. We're not a nation

shopkeepers anymore.

Andrew Neil always used to say they

are not talking about these subjects

in the pub. But now they are. Do you

like the tradition of pulling the

Christmas crackers and the jokes

inside?

I do but I have never received a

present better than the little patch

of screwdrivers -- pack of

screwdrivers.

I have drawers full of them.

Thank you for coming in, I feel like

Christmas has started.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

The One O'Clock News is starting

over on BBC One now.

Bye-bye.