19/12/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

The Cabinet are meeting to discuss

what Britain's relationship

with the EU should look

like after Brexit.

It looks like it's all smiles

for now but are there big battles

ahead for the Prime Minister?

Are social media companies doing

enough to combat abusive

comments posted online?

We'll be joined by the chair of

the Home Affairs Select Committee.

The House of Lords debates cutting

itself down to size.

So will the ermine-clad

turkeys vote for Christmas?

If you want some last-minute

Christmas ideas for the political

geek in your family, we're

Parliament's favourite bookworm on

hand with his festive holiday

reading list. All that in the next

hour. With us is Matthew Parris. He

was a Conservative MP once upon a

time. Welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Justice Secretary,

David Lidington, says he wants

to see a "more diverse" judiciary

but has ruled out targets

for appointing more black

and minority ethnic judges.

Mr Lidington has been responding

formally to a review carried

out by Labour MP David Lammy

in to the way in which Black,

Asian and minority ethnic

people are treated in

the criminal justice system.

Among the 35 recommendations

is a proposal calling

for a national target to ensure

there was a properly

"representative"

judiciary and magistracy.

But Mr Lidington says

targets aren't the answer.

I think that is the wrong way to go

about it. The judges today we are

recruiting people who joined the

legal profession 20 is a guess you

need people with a lot of experience

before they start to become a judge.

I think a target is self-defeating.

And it brings in to question the

independence of judges which is a

very important principle. The top

judges are committed to a more

diverse judiciary. We need to

identify and encourage and mental

brightening and women from black and

Asian communities, who are lawyers

and say, do you want to become a

judge one day? This is how you go

about it.

Has the government ducks

what would have been a radical

proposal?

Yes, I think they have.

It's all very well saying it'll be

20 is until someone is a judge but

we could start now. What goes in at

one end of the pipeline will come

out the other end and I don't see a

particular reason why we are going

to have target of any kind the law,

the judiciary should be exempt from

it.

The figures are quite startling

and the review concluded there was

bias within the judicial system and

one way of changing that would be to

make it more representative of the

people they are serving.

I'm sure

that's right and I'm sure the bias

is unconscious. I'm sure nobody is

consciously biased and nobody is

writing rules to stop the

diversification of the judicially.

It is unconscious. Where you have

unconscious buyers, you need to meet

quotas and targets to reverse it.

How long do you think it will take

to eliminate that buys in the system

and therefore reduce the figures

that seemed to see far more people

from minority backgrounds facing a

magistrate?

People need to see black

faces on the bench, actually on the

magistrates bench that has happened

to some degree but further up, the

Whigs, you don't see black faces

often in judges wakes. If you did,

if people did, it would be an

inspiration to younger men and women

from ethnic communities saying,

people like you and me are judges.

How else can you think the

government can tackle this

underrepresentation and also bias

within the system, conscious or

otherwise? David Lidington says we

will reform if we cannot explain

buyers.

I don't think it means

anything but I think he is just

dodging and fudging as he is obliged

to do. It's hard to know how you do

it. The government doesn't choose

judges and we don't want politicians

choosing judges but I think there

are always, behind-the-scenes, ways,

committees of whose names we've

never of Hurd, meetings wouldn't

know about that our

behind-the-scenes in which you can

slowly encourage change. It would be

slow but we should start.

All right,

let's leave it there. Some other

breaking news today.

The Electoral Commission has today

fined the Liberal Democrats £18,000

for breaching

campaign finance rules

during the EU referendum.

Almost all of that fine comes

from the Lib Dems having failed

to provide acceptable

invoices or receipts.

The Electoral Commission said

the rules were clear

and it was "disappointing"

the Lib Dems didn't

follow them correctly.

We asked the Liberal Democrats for

an interview but no one was

available.

The party says mistakes in this case

were a result of human error

and and that steps were being taken

to ensure that they weren't

repeated in future.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

Jeremy Corbyn has given an interview

to Grazia magazine in which he said

he believes he will "probably" be

Prime Minister within the next year.

The question for today

is what was else did we learn?

Was it a) that he's going to be

eating stuffed marrow

for Christmas dinner?

b) that he's allergic to dogs.

c) that he's "an accidental

fashion icon"

because of his dedication

to normcore clothing?

Or d) that he'd secretly like to be

a stand-up comedian?

At the end of the show Matthew

will give us the correct answer.

Theresa May has been holding

a meeting of her full

Cabinet this morning.

Yesterday was a trimmed down

version.

Top of the agenda is the UK's future

relationship with the EU,

the first time the Cabinet has given

the issue formal consideration.

Yesterday, we reported on some

of the major dividing lines among

the Prime Minister key ministers,

we'll talk about that

a little more in a moment.

But first let's take a look at how

the Brexit negotiations

are likely to proceed.

Theresa May says her government

will "aim high" in the next

stage of EU negotiations.

She wants a "bespoke and ambitious"

trade deal with the EU after Brexit.

But the EU's chief negotiator

Michel Barnier has been playing down

the idea of a bespoke deal.

In an interview published today,

he said that Britain

will not get a special deal

for the City of London.

He said:

Which is at odds with

Brexit Secretary David Davis' plans

for a "Canada plus plus plus" trade

deal, or, in plain speak,

a tariff-free area between the UK

and the EU which explicitly

includes financial services.

At the same time, newspaper reports

suggest Michael Gove will use

today's meeting to argue for Britain

to pull out of the EU's

Working Time Directive.

The Directive restricts

the working week to 48 hours,

and Gove and others think scrapping

it would allow British workers

to top up their pay.

But other Cabinet members believe

scrapping the Directive

would weaken employment rights.

Let's talk to our correspondent

Ben Wright who's in Downing Street

where the Cabinet has been

meeting this morning.

So, have you had your it to the door

to hear whether they are all singing

from the same hymn sheet, as I think

Boris Johnson once said?

, I imagine

the message coming out of various

rabid ministers via their special

advisers will be one of unity around

the table. In fact, this morning,

Philip Hammond tweeted, and he

doesn't tweet very much, saying he

disagreed with the report in the

Telegraph suggesting there are big

disagreements in the subcommittee

yesterday and that he was in a

lonely minority arguing for close

alignment with the EU after Brexit,

so he stresses there is harmony.

That is exactly the message they

will want to send out from Number

Ten today. The Cabinet broke up 20

minutes ago, so they have gone back

to their departments. The issue of

the working Time directive would not

be on the agenda today. And was keen

to stress the government plans to

maintain and enhance workers' rights

after we've left the EU. I think

what to do's meeting was all about

was discussing the broad principles

of the sort of trading arrangement

the UK hopes to get with the EU

after Brexit. I don't think they got

into specifics, pretty broad brush,

and I imagine the Prime Minister was

telling her cabinet they should aim

high and they can get the best of

both worlds.

Does that mean that

after the recess, both sides, one

that wants closer alliance and one

that wants divergences, will be

plotting how to secure that Brexit

in time for January?

They will

because the window is tight. We know

that the EU want to nail down the

terms of the transition agreement

early in the New Year and I think

they will come forward with their

negotiating guidelines for

discussing the second phase and

their idea for how the trading

relationship should work with the UK

after Brexit. They want those

guidelines in place by March and we

expect the Prime Minister to make a

big speech early in the New Year

along the lines of her Florence

speech, setting out the sort of aims

and priorities she wants from that

huge trade relationship. In the next

five or six weeks, this is going to

be argued intensively on the

question needs to be settled so the

harmony wheeze will hear about will

be tested once they get into the

detail of how they envisage this

relationship working in the future.

I think what is going to become

abundantly clear early on is that

the number of red lines the

government have already spelt out,

leaving the single market, no big

money for the EU limits the kind of

deal the UK can get. And the

consistent message from the EU is

that the UK just cannot view the

single market as some sort of buffet

to grace from, picking the best

bits. This comes with very clear

obligations and costs, and if the UK

wants to move away from that, it

will lose a significant amount of

access and I think that is where the

discussion in the cabinet is going

to be.

Thank you very much. Brexit

has seen a boon for one tribe, the

political think tank.

Joining me now are two

of their number, Victoria Hewson

from the Legatum Institute

and Tom Kibasi from IPPR.

Welcome to both of you. Starting

with you, Victoria, do you agree

with Ben that having read lines, so

many of them politically, that will

limit the real?

It sets out some

parameters. Once the policy was

formulated that we would be leaving

the customs union and the single

market and also leaving the direct

jurisdiction of the European Court

of Justice, then that guides you in

a certain direction of working

towards a free trade agreement

albeit a very deep and comprehensive

free trade agreement that should

realistically be able to go much

further than any free trade

agreement before simply because we

start from such a position of

openness towards each other's

markets.

Or does mean there's red

lines will turn pink racing?

We saw

the government was prepared to

compromise on its redline so having

told the EU they could go whistle

about the divorce Bill, having

resisted the role of the European

Court in the protection of citizens

rights, the government caved on

every single one of its red lines.

There is no reason to think they

wouldn't cave on their red lines in

this next phase of negotiations.

But

you want full divergences from the

EU, you are happy to some extent

with what has been set up publicly

by Theresa May. What would that look

like, for our viewers?

I think full

divergences probably not the right

way to describe it. I think having

the right to diverged from EU

legislation is extremely important

but when we talk about divergences,

we don't mean... A full reform and

repeal. Or even reforming and

repealing everything over a time. It

will be a pathway towards doing

things differently and reforming

things where the government of the

day thinks that a particular reform

or change is the best way for the

British economy.

And you're talking

about the body of regulation?

Yes,

it will be coming to force in the UK

and it is a pathway of gradually

reforming to make the economy more

competitive and to improve various

things in the context of

international trade as well.

And

you'd like to see something called

the shared market, what is it?

It is

a fresh proposal for a new model to

govern our relationship with the EU

and based on aligning ourselves in

terms of regulation but allowing for

the possibility of divergences time.

I don't think we want to diverged.

It is a very odd position. It is

both anti-business and anti-worker.

It is a strange position to have so

we propose we should be aligned

because that is in our interests,

the interests of businesses and

workers.

Why do you see it is

anti-business and anti-worker?

It is

one of those things that sounds

persuasive but what most businesses

will tell you that what they want is

a simpler life, they want fewer

regulations, not more. Soap proposal

for regulatory divergences a

proposal to create even more

regulation for business.

Is that how

you envisage it?

Not at all. Most

businesses in this country only

trade domestically in the UK market.

Any business exports will always

meet the regulatory requirements of

its export market. And, so, the

opportunities for improving

competitiveness in our own economy

and also introducing more

competition by way of third-party

trade deals is where the real games

are to be found.

Think about it from

perspective of a business operating

in the UK, dealing with one set of

regulations at home, another set of

regulations to trade into the single

market, this makes no sense at all,

it is bizarre.

Bizarre, says Tim,

obviously, tom-tom I should say,

food is not agree with your vision.

-- Tomba, I should say. -- Tom. What

is the risk to employees, then you

may fear that your regulation may

roll back on gains that have been

made.

It is not on my list of areas,

where I would like to see

divergences occur at all, but

ultimately, that will be a question

for the government of the day, and

any government which seeks to make

changes will be judged at the ballot

box.

If we cannot have as good a

deal as some people would see it, as

Tom sees it, you would also like to

replicate that kind of relationship,

what is wrong with full diverging?

Why not go for a full cutting point

with the EU? Well, I think, between

what Tom and what Victoria says, you

see the grounds for possible

agreement, and that is, you may call

it the divergences of parallels.

LAUGHTER

Not another term(!) LAUGHTER

The agreement is that we stay as we

are for the moment, we stay a

aligned, but we retain the right to

diverges we want to, my guess is we

would not want to, in the end it

would not make sense, 40% of trade

is with the EU, but there you have

the sort of fudge that I could see

sticking, if I can stick to one

metaphor(!)

is that the fudge you

see?

To an extent that is correct,

we would only diverged, just because

you can, does not mean that you have

two, and you would automatically

embark on a programme, bonfire of

red tape, the hyperbole that is

often used, in this debate. It will

simply be where there is a good

reason to change something, the UK

Government will be able to do so,

and it will do that by balancing the

downside risks of any frictions that

will then result in trade with the

EU, against trade with the rest of

the world, against the domestic

market. So many areas that are ripe

for reform, the Treasury, for

example, produced an 80 page report

last year about areas in financial

services regulation where they could

make improvements and improve

competitiveness, to make it more

proportionate, and less costly and

bring it up to date with

technological developments.

Is that

achievable when Michel Barnier says

we will not get a bespoke trade

deal, which allows us to pick the

bits we would like and discard the

rest, particularly around financial

services?

His comments on financial

services, as I understand them, from

the papers this morning, that they

are never OK with any free trade

deal, is not true, they are included

in all...

They were not in Canada.

They were, there is a whole

chapter... What it does not do is

give mutual recognition of your home

state, you would still have two

apply for a licence. But, a starting

point with Canada, we are much

further advanced, so there was

certainly a lot of scope.

Is that

just a starting negotiating position

from Michel Barnier, and the EU will

move when it comes to securing a

trade deal, because they need us, as

so many politicians claim, as much

as we need them, if not more.

So,

78% of Europe's capital markets are

based in London, it is really

important for the whole of the

single market, but we should look

carefully at what Michel Barnier has

said, he has not said there can be

no bespoke arrangement, one he has

said is there can be no cherry

picking, that means, you cannot have

the benefits without the

obligations, that should be obvious

to all of us. What they are saying

is, there is more room for

compromise but the compromise cannot

be one-sided, cannot be that we want

all the benefits and will not take

any of the burdens, have your cake

and eat it, that is not a tenable

position for either side.

Which

burdens would you be prepared to

accept, in order to get the full

combo offensive deal that you think

would be good for Britain?

As an

example, if we are to benefit from

regulatory development of the

European Union, we should make a

contribution towards that, we need

to continue some form of financial

contribution, that is a reasonable

situation, we cannot so we want all

the benefits of institutions and

frameworks and rules but we are

simply not prepared to pay the fare

share.

You would accept paying into

an EU budget beyond the Clemente

Sinn on transition period, we are

going to be paying into a certain

extent, but paying substantially

more in order to have the benefits?

Let's see what a fair contribution

is, it is not one of those things

you can put a number on but you have

to commit something if you want to

benefit.

Freedom of movement, one of

the other key pillars of the single

market...?

I find the rhetoric

around the indivisibility of the

four freedoms slightly ridiculous,

it is not the holy trinity... The EU

may say it is but they have

compromised on freedom of movement

in the past, contra Mize in with

Lichtenstein, in terms of the number

of people going in, they have

compromised on Switzerland, certain

sections, there is high and

deployment, they get preferential

job applications... And the deep and

, offensive free trade agreement

with Ukraine. -- compromised with

Liechtenstein. They have contra Mize

in the past.

The new sense of

optimism that Theresa May has, do

you share?

No, she has found another

cul-de-sac to go up. She has

agreement on phase one, by saying

that we will stay in the single

market, and the customs union, until

we can think of a way of not having

a hard border in Northern Ireland...

But she is keeping afloat, in

politics, keeping afloat is often

the first thing you have to do.

In

terms of what will fly, with those

who voted leave, do you think there

will be an acceptance around

continuing to pay into EU budget, if

there was a good enough deal in the

end of it?

I think that would be

fine, as Sam has suggested, if you

wish to continue to participate in a

particular programme it is perfectly

reasonable to pay a cost towards

that. There will be several agencies

where, actually, it will be of

reciprocal benefit because the UK

has contributed greatly to financial

services regulatory bodies, where it

will be very useful for the EU as

well to continue having access to

our resources.

We have a few moments

to discuss this, thank you very

much.

And for more reporting

and analysis of Brexit,

check out the BBC News website,

that's bbc.co.uk/brexit.

Now, it used to be a truth

universally acknowledged that

you could only win elections

in Britain from the centre ground.

But was the recent General Election

a return to the traditional battles

between left and right?

Let's just a look at the pitches

from both Theresa May

and Jeremy Corbyn back in June.

And I believe we can and must take

this opportunity to build a great

meritocracy here in Britain.

Now, let me be clear

about what that means.

It means making Britain

a country where everyone,

of whatever background,

has the chance to go as far

as their talent and their hard

work will take them.

A country that asks not

where you have come

from but where you are going to.

It means making Britain

a country that works not

for the privileged few,

but for everyone.

Labour's mission over the next five

years is to change all of that.

Our manifesto sets out how.

With a programme that is

radical and responsible.

A programme that will reverse our

national priorities

and put the interests

of the many first.

We will change our country

while managing within our means.

And we will lead us

through Brexit

while putting

the preservation of jobs first.

Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May

launching their respective

manifestos earlier this year.

But does the traditional left-right

divide explain what's happening

in British politics right now?

Or is there something else going on?

To explain we're joined

by our favourite psephologist

Professor John Curtice from Glasgow.

Is it no longer about left and right

in politics?

It is still about left

and right but the crucial thing is,

in the wake of the election, it is

no longer just about left and right,

because the truth is, despite the

creative ambiguity in which both

parties engage the election campaign

and frankly have continued to engage

thereafter on the question of

Brexit, voters themselves seem to

have decided that Brexit still

matters and also that they reflected

their reviews of Brexit in the way

in which they voted. The

Conservative Party quite clearly

lost ground, among those who voted

remain, who want a soft Brexit, who

are not concerned about immigration.

They gained ground among levers and

those who wanted a hard Brexit.

Labour gain some ground among

levers, among hard Brexit years, but

they gained much more from Remainers

and soft Brexit and those not

concerned about immigration. --

Leavers. Attitudes towards Brexit is

not a left right issue, going back

to what happened in the election, in

the referendum, in June, 2016,

whether or not you are left-wing or

right-wing, made virtually no

difference at all to your chances of

voting remain or leave. Rather, that

referendum, with immigration the

central issue, was where one instead

the crucial division was between

social liberals and social

conservatives, broadly speaking,

those people on one hand who are

happy with a relatively diverse

society where we have multiple

languages and multiple religions and

people do not necessarily all agree

on the social mores to which we

should adhere. In contrast, social

conservatives think we need a much

more cohesive society and much less

comfortable about these things. If

you are a social conservative, you

voted leave in the referendum, a

social liberal voted for remain.

Because people were reflecting views

about Brexit in whether they were

swinging to or from the

Conservatives and whether or not

they were likely to go to labour,

therefore, that distinction between

social conservatives and social

liberals became much more marked

whether or not people voted Labour

or Conservative in June, left and

right did not matter so much as it

had historically. The movement is

rarely explained by whether you are

a social liberal or socially

conservative, not whether you are

left-wing or right-wing.

Matthew,

for you, the whole EU referendum was

extremely important, would you say

that was more important than your

traditional left right politics?

Yes, I have gone slightly mad(!)

LAUGHTER

...

Over Brexit, a lot of people

have, I dream about it and think

about it all the time, I have found

myself feeling I could much more

easily be friends with someone in

the Labour Party that was against

Brexit than with somebody in the

Conservative Party that was in

favour of it.

Have you thought about

voting Labour?

I have thought about

it, but not with Jeremy Corbyn as

leader, that brings us back to the

topic you introduced at the

beginning, I think Labour have with

great success mind the possibilities

of attracting support from the

extreme, from the left, and the

Tories have with great success, mind

the support they thought they could

get from the right.

But they both

dominated the results are they must

also have been taking from in

between...

Yes, and in order for one

to gain a distinctive advantage over

the other, it must be to the centre

they look for the new support. --

decisive advantage.

Do you think

that this is a bubble, that this is

a temporary state of affairs, in

terms of the way people are voting

in their allegiances, to social

liberals and social conservatives,

or do you think that this is going

to be sustained, that it is going to

endure.

We will probably be talking

about "Brexit" this time next year

and the year after that. The

stimulus seems to have brought it

about, the EU referendum, as long as

we are arguing about Brexit we will

see this distinction between social

liberals and social conservatives,

and frankly it creates difficulties

for both political parties. Matthew

is not alone, bearing in mind, the

Conservative Party now has a very

strong, very pro-leave electorate,

whose views of running the economy

is primarily protectionist, and very

much at odds with what you might

regard as traditional centre-right

Conservative voter who runs a

business. As you can now see, there

are views about how the economy

should be run are very much at odds

with those of the Conservative

Party. Meanwhile, the Labour Party

has a tension, in winning over

remain voters, it has won over young

graduates, and it has won that

community much more successfully

than working-class voters but it is

working class voters who the Labour

Party feel they should be

representing. Both parties have

elections as a result of this

process which is at odds of

traditional conceptions of where

their core support lies.

Will the

parties change their offer to bridge

the divide? Within their own

political tribe? Or, will they just

stick to the vaguely traditional

offer that both these parties make

to those sets of people in the hope

that once we get through the Brexit

negotiations, normal business will

resume?

It is going to be difficult for the

parties because we are reaching the

point in the Brexit negotiations

where the hard choices will have to

be made and where what Brexit

actually does mean becomes more

apparent. For example, if in the end

the Conservative government actually

does and secure annex it from

freedom of movement or something

that looks like it, it will be in

trouble because that is what it is

electret expects. Meanwhile if the

Labour Party ends up looking too

hard on Brexit, it will put up risk

that young voters will not vote for

it. These next few months will be

important because Brexit is likely

to be the central issue, it will be

difficult for the parties to

triangulate over these various

divides. They are going to have to

take a position.

And now for a special Christmas

treat, here is some proper

Parliamentary navel-gazing.

Because this morning the House

of Lords has been debating the...

Er...

House of Lords.

Yes, you heard that correctly.

Specifically the Lords have been

debating a proposal to reduce

the size of the so-called upper

chamber to a mere 600 peers.

Let's have a listen.

The committee have been encouraged

by the response of noble Lords and,

indeed, to those outside the house

as well. For their part the

government have made clear they are

interested in finding out whether

the committee's inclusions command

widespread support in the house. And

I hope in today's debate, as which

we can see involves almost 100 noble

Lords, this will serve that purpose

and demonstrate the proposals have

strong backing.

I'm joined now by Baroness Taylor -

she was on the Committee which has

produced the report calling

for a reduction in the size

of the House of Lords.

Welcome to the Daily Politics.

Reducing it by a quarter, 15 year

terms, minimum 15% crossbenchers.

Why?

There's a great deal of

pressure and criticism of the House

of Lords because it is so large. A

lot of people don't appreciate the

work the Lords does. They see us in

the chamber, the picture you've got

there in everybody in their ermine.

You look so lovely in it.

They don't

realise the work goes on. Heck of a

lot of really good work goes on in

the House of but it is large. Prime

ministers have used the House of

Lords to give rewards to friends and

colleagues, and if we carry on like

this there will be no end to the

size of the House of Lords are what

we're trying to do is not only

reduce the size of the House of

Lords now that actually make sure

there is a sustainable reduction and

that is why we are suggesting a cap

of 600.

The proposals are being

debated. How will you progress

forwards on this?

The idea that it

is long-term, we should aim at 600,

we should say that from now on any

new pier should survey capped time

of 15 years. And that will allow

existing members to retire and for

every two that retired, only one

person can be appointed. So, that

will allow existing members to serve

out their term. They were promised

life peerages and they can keep them

but new members can only served for

15 years. And we are also seeing the

Monica News their power to create

non-sitting peers so if you want to

recognise some tea for public

service, you can give them a peerage

but not a seat in the House of

Lords.

Is this radical enough or

incremental?

All peers should be

non-sitting. What is my lord, my

lady, and ermine got to do with the

House of Lords legislative job? They

shouldn't be called Lords. We just

need 300 people who really know

their subject, who were once -- were

not once great doctors or engineers

but who are great right now. You'd

need a body not in control of the

Prime Minister. Somebody said one

queue or for admiring the House of

Lords is to watch it.

You'd be

surprised how many people do watch

the House of Lords.

But do they

admire it when they watch at?

We get

letters and e-mails saying we watch

this debate, what about this, what

about that. It is good quality

debate.

It may be but you can still

retain good quality debate with 200,

300 peers.

We did originally when we

had the report from the Labour

Party, we suggested 450 on the basis

of numbers necessary to fill the

committees and we're not saying 600

and that is it forever, that is what

we are suggesting and the house onto

a smaller number. Baroness Boothroyd

said a significantly smaller number,

she wants to be hundred 50, as you

would. What we are trying to

establish as the direction of

travel. We're not going to be

changed by legislation.

Because you

will not get it through?

Partly

because of that but also because any

legislation that gives the House of

Lords a legitimate democratic

mandate will challenge the house of

commons more and the last thing we

want is to elected chambers at

loggerheads with each other.

Do you

agree with that?

I do. We should

have a grand revising committee and

it should be an honour to serve on

the committee and you shouldn't

serve more than five years, you

should be chosen according to

qualifications rather than according

to who you were once acquainted with

in politics or elsewhere and you

shouldn't have all the trappings,

toss it all out, all the old

codgers.

I think they speak very

highly of you, to!

I think he is

auditioning for a position.

I'm too

old!

Do you think the public would

support of getting rid of the

trappings and having it as a

professional body that scrutinises,

so no cafes, no bars, no ermine?

Most workplaces have tea rooms.

But

you know what I mean. I've no

problems getting rid of the ermine.

I've got no problem with the title

but what we are trying to focus on

is what is the role of the House of

Lords?

It is to be the second

chamber, the second chamber, to hold

the government to account, and we

want to do it any more focused way

and if will reduce the numbers, we

well have more respect for the house

and people understand its role and

see the actual value added it gives

to the country.

What about the

political aspect of it? In terms of

how they are appointed to this grand

committee that you have thought

about, would they still be political

appointees? Would it represent the

House of Commons?

I'd say not. I

don't include need more than one

legislature, one elected legislature

and what you'd be looking for in a

grand revising committee would be

expertise. I'd have thought your

political inclinations should have

very little to do with it.

Do you

agree with that?

I think you do need

expertise and we have a good deal of

expertise and we need tactical

proposals.

There are too many of

youth.

There are, and we sing let's

reduce it and make it more

manageable, see it is more focused

and get more public respect too many

of you are people who once did

something.

There are too many oness,

that is what we need to get rid of.

As someone who is still there, some

of us get revised. You've got to

have government ministers in the

House of Lords.

Do you have to have

as many of them? To have to have as

many people who did once have a job

in government as an adviser or

working for a party?

It is a

question of balance and what we've

said in this report is that the

crossbenchers should be 20% and I

think we recognise the rule of

crossbenchers and we appreciate

their role but you do need the

reality that comes from political

experience as well.

One of the

controversial elements of the report

as it makes no recommendations to

change the status is in election of

the hereditary peers or 26 bishops.

Why not? I'm committed to supporting

any legislation that gets rid of the

hereditary by-elections and I'd like

to see the situation with the

bishops change. It is rather strange

that we have one group of religious

people that and not Catholics and

dues and Hindus and Muslims but that

when change without legislation. The

bishops say they will accept the

spirit of the report and they will

cooperate in any way if the house

wants to go in this direction so

there is scope for change and who

falls a got a private members bill

which actually would end the

hereditary by-elections which the

hereditary people are not against.

The Countess of Maher said if you

have a hereditary by-election,

you're making it all male because

there are no women coming up through

that route. There is the build-up of

support for getting rid of the

hereditary by-elections but this

committee couldn't look at

legislative changes because the

government said they wouldn't

support any at this stage.

Thank you

very much for coming in.

Now, yesterday the Speaker

of the House of Commons,

John Bercow praised Mp's

for being "dedicated, hardworking,

committed public servants".

They were debating harassment

in public life following last weeks

report from the Committee

on Standards in Public Life.

Much of the abuse MPs receive

is on social media platforms

and the Home Secretary Amber Rudd

said the government will look

at proposals to create

new legislation to protect people.

Here's a flavour of

yesterday's debate.

Everybody should be

treated with tolerance,

decency, and respect.

Which party and MP stands for how

they choose to vote, campaign,

or present themselves should not be

met with vitriolic and disgusting

messages, suggesting

that they should be hung in public

or get what's coming to them,

or perhaps, most unacceptable

of all, that their unborn

child should die.

The report makes recommendations

for government, for political

parties, social media companies,

the media, law enforcement

and everyone in public life.

This reflects the fact that tackling

abuse is a joint responsibility.

We will consider the recommendations

in detail and we will respond

to them in due course.

When politicians get death

threats as a result of how

they vote in this house,

that is not the primary

responsibility of social

media companies.

If anyone is responsible,

it is the headline writers

who accuse judges of being enemies

of the people, and elected

members of parliament

as mutineers and saboteurs

when all they are doing

is exercising their civil right

to cast their vote in

this House of Commons.

In voting as you think fit,

on any political issue, you,

as members of Parliament,

are never mutineers...

You are never traitors...

You are never malcontents.

You are never enemies of the people.

You are dedicated, hard-working,

committed public servants doing

what you believe to be right.

I'm joined now by the Chair

of the Home Affairs Select

Committee, Yvette Cooper.

She's had representatives

from Facebook, Google and Twitter

before her committee this morning.

Welcome to the programme. You've

spoken to representatives from those

companies and you asked them about

taking down abusive tweets, and to

Google about offensive videos. Are

you satisfied with the actions?

No.

I think they have done more

competitive last time we took

evidence from them back in February.

They have appointed more staff, they

are starting to increase their

standards and to search for things

so that is progress. However we have

had too many examples of things we

had raised with them before which

they clearly recognised, which were

either illegal or breached community

standards, where action wasn't taken

fast enough or at all and that

included anti-Semitic tweets. It

included far right, national action,

video. I had to go to YouTube, to

the top, to make sure it was taken

down.

What is their explanation for

not doing it?

We are working on it,

they say, we are doing better than

we were before. And they are than --

they have huge reach and power and

wealth and resources which is why we

are going to keep pressing them to

do more because in the end public

safety is at risk here.

Put

suspended accounts related to

Britain first. Do you think that is

because they were going to come

before your committee that they got

around to it?

Obviously, you depend

on... You shouldn't rely on

Parliamentary hearings for

organisations like Twitter or

Facebook or YouTube to do the right

thing. They should do it on the end

without a deadline of a

parliamentary hearing. It is welcome

they've taken action. We questioned

Facebook why they haven't taken some

action and on the way in which we

need to look at the off-line and

online activities, if what they are

doing is breaching standards.

I

listened into some of the hearing

this morning and get the impression

they are trying to introduce new

technology to deal with it because

new Twitter accounts have already

appeared representing characters in

Britian First said in a way are you

ever going to get these companies to

do what he wants them to do in terms

of banning these accounts

altogether? New ones will always

appear.

There is always a question

about the pace of technology. I

think it is clear they can do more.

We found too many examples of where

they simply will not moving fast

enough and also where if it was the

Home Affairs Select Committee

reporting things to them, in the end

they did respond but, actually, if

it was people just responding,

pressing the button and clicking,

often Alternaria complains were not

addressed enough. And was another

which concerns me is some of the way

in which the technology is promoting

extremism. If you go on one far

right racist site, actually they

will recommend more. There is

effectively a process of bringing

that can take place through

technology and if it is taking place

for the far right extremism we were

challenging, the fear is it is also

taking place on some of the Muslim

extremism as well.

This was

inevitable of the printing press. As

long as somebody can spread around

what they think about some deals,

whether they do it by word-of-mouth

or pamphlet, whether they do it in

letters... All my life in politics

and the media, I have received

horrible letters from people,

calling me the most appalling

things.

Has it got worse?

None of

the letters were filed, I'd open,

laugh and throw them away. If people

are busily on social media, I don't

read it. You can't stop people doing

these things except by a system of

censorship and you'd have to have

hundreds of thousands of sensors on

Google and Twitter the rest actually

pre-approving everything before it

was put up.

Is registration the

answer?

I don't think this is about

preapproval at all, I think that

there is a difference between

promoting free speech and making

death threats.

-- legislation.

We

have a criminal line that needs to

be drawn.

If it is against the law,

of course.

And line against motoring

extremism, and things that become

terrorism. National action, it is a

banned organisation, because of its

danger and the government assessment

of the terror threat...

What about

legislation to enforce these

companies to do it.

We will be

looking at that, the select

committee will be looking at that,

what other measures are needed, we

recommended there should be fines

against social media companies

simply not removing a legal

dangerous content fast enough, and

not responding, but we also want to

look more widely at other

legislative proposals, something

must be done.

You would support sums

legislation making them be seen as

publishers, not platforms, then they

would be liable?

We have asked them

for more evidence, committees have

made the proposal, we have not

looked at that yet and we want to do

so. In the end, this is about

promoting democracy and free speech,

it is about making sure that

nobody's voices are drowned out by

racism or by extremism, and about

making sure that all voices can be

heard. Social media is the new

forum. For discussions. It is really

important everyone should feel part

of that and you do not get some

people drowned out by extremism...

Nobody is drowned out by extremism

but... Illegal, I agree with you, if

it is illegal, people should be

stopped, but I am suspicious of your

word dangerous, I have known so many

politicians with so many different

ideas of what might be dangerous. If

it appeared in print. The law is the

law, the law... The law should be

adhered to, but I think I wide range

of opinion, including offensive

opinion, including violent opinion,

so long as it does not incite

breaking the law, I really don't

think that once you start trying to

distinguish between what is free

speech that people are allowed and

what is free speech people are not

allowed, it is a slippery slope.

We

have laws about incitement.

And of

course you need a very robust

debate, you need people challenge,

people will be offended, there needs

to be those robust debate,

especially when it comes to holding

politicians to account.

Is it

putting off politicians entering

public life, that was the point made

by the committee on standards in

public life, that social media was

the most significant factor driving

abuse and harassment during the

general election and it reached a

tipping point and would put people

off entering politics. Blue nobody

who does not want to be abused

sometimes in unfair term should

enter public life. Because you

always will be.

People should not

face death threats, they should not

find there is a threat that their

children and their staff start to

become fearful. That is the kind of

thing we have seen, the targeted

harassment and bullying, that kind

of threat, which can mean people do

not speak out. It is our job to

speak out in a democracy and we want

more people speaking out, we should

be able to do this in a way that

does not involve the kind of poison

that can end up undermining

democracy. We have to stand up for

democracy and not let it be

undermined.

Diane Abbott brought up

the issue of headlines calling

people new to nears and traitors, do

they have a responsibility to regard

and look at those headlines. --

mutineers.

They do not, of course, I

think the Daily Mail is stupid to

talk about enemies of the people!

The Daily Telegraph is stupid to

talk about mutineers but a newspaper

has every right to characterise

those people whose political

opinions it disagrees with in any

way they like that is not illegal.

Do you think they have a responsibly

to?

With rights come

responsibilities, nobody is talking

about legislation... There is a

responsible at on those

organisations to recognise if that

then leads to death threats, if it

leads to consequences. They have a

responsibility to take very

seriously and most editors do, they

do take very seriously the

consequences...

Mutineer... That

cannot be calculated to consider to

be led to a death threat.

Photographs, targeted photographs.

We know what they were trying to do,

which is to undermine debate on a

really important issue that needs to

be widely debated.

All right.

They

should take responsibility for that.

Thank you for coming in.

There's concern over government

proposals to change the way that

women's domestic violence

refuges are funded.

In future it could mean

the accommodation is no longer paid

for mainly from housing benefit.

Instead, refuges would be

funded from ring-fenced

grants given to councils

but these grants would also

have to cover

a number of different

housing demands.

Charities warn it could mean refuges

will have to close their doors

to some vulnerable women.

Here's Emma Vardy.

Women's refuges provide safety and

time to adjust for women who leave

abusive partners. But under new

proposals, the government plans to

remove refuges and other forms of

short-term supported housing from

the welfare system.

The nationalised

welfare system detected some of the

refuge funding from any local

authority cuts. This will not. The

government will say, we are passing

the exact same amount of money

down... But it will back fill what

councils were spending.

Instead, the

government is looking at giving

grants to councils, which will be

used to pay for all sorts of

short-term housing. As well as

refuges, it will cover accommodation

for other individuals, too, such as

ex-offenders and those with drug

addictions. The problem, some fear,

is that because many women in

refuges come from outside a local

authority's area, councils may

direct more money to other

vulnerable groups, such as people

who are homeless or those who are

elderly.

Where these contracts are

decided one-year in advance, what it

means, by November, if a local

authority has run out of money, and

100 more women turn up around

Christmas who need beds, what will

happen in those circumstances?

The

government is consulting on

proposals. One Conservative MP who

has expressed concerns told us he is

urging the government to consider

other options.

One of the things

that I want to make sure, the

government keep their focus on

change, but understand that two

thirds of women actually seek refuge

outside of their local area, for

obvious reasons, they are running

away from something, they want safe

haven. But also, the local

authorities, whereas they may be

best placed to understand the need

and demand, they may not be best

placed to deliver that, that support

that is needed, because refuges are

not just a bed for a night, they are

specialists services.

The government

told us the number of spaces

available in refuges has increased

by more than 300 since 2010. And it

says that it will make sure that no

victim of domestic abuse is turned

away from the support they need. £40

million of funding has been

committed until 2020, but charities

say that unless the money is

properly directed to the refuges

where it is needed, then a postcode

lottery for victims could mean the

difference between life and death.

Now, how are you all getting

on with the dreaded

Christmas shopping?

Well, if you're in need of a few

more stocking filler ideas

Westminster's resident bookworm,

Conservative MP Keith Simpson,

has compiled his annual

Christmas reading list.

Someone's got to do it!

For those of you who enjoy a bit

of political history,

there's been a couple of books

on Churchill published in recent

months, and Keith's favourite

is six Minutes in May:

How Churchill Unexpectedly Became

Prime Minister, by

Nicholas Shakespeare.

Another acclaimed title

is

Fall Out: A Year

of Political Mayhem,

by Tim Shipman, his follow-up

to last year's All Out War.

This offering from the Sunday Times

journalist tells the inside story

of Theresa May's 2017 struggles,

from the election to her attempts

to secure a Brexit deal.

ITV Political Editor Robert Peston's

take on the extraordinary

events of the last 18 months,

WTF, I hope I don't have to spell

out what that stands for(!),

asks how we got here,

and perhaps more importantly, how

we move forward to sort it all out.

Former Cabinet Minister Oliver

Letwin's Hearts and Minds explains

how the central ideas and policies

of the modern Conservative

party came into being,

while also charting his own journey

from childhood to Margaret

Thatcher's policy unit,

into the very centre of government.

And Auntie's War is an account

of the crucial part the BBC played

in informing the nation

what was happening during

the Second World War,

by our very own Radio 4 presenter

Edward Stourton.

I promise we're not naval-gazing,

this is Keith's list!

And Keith's with us now.

I see that you have got this one in

front of you... You have Auntie's

War in front of you.

I had to bring

my copy in, you did not have it!

LAUGHTER

Typical.

I was discussing it with

somebody before coming on. Very nice

man indeed, you have the official

history of the BBC, and what he does

is, he brings alive the development

of beans the tuition but also the

amazing talented people, both the

regulars and others. I think the BBC

we know and like, or do not like,

today, is largely based on that, and

he writes well. It is the kind of

thing I can imagine, after Boxing

Day, exhausted, you want to read a

book.

This would be it.

It is very

good, Auntie's War.

A rich selection

of books, Christmas, into the New

Year, I suppose that that arduous

events over the last 18 months have

fuelled these books.

Yes, the book

by Tim Shipman, fallout, that is the

ship

second volume, I'm frightened

that he is going to have the right a

third volume, probably called

something like All Out, that covers

the election of Theresa May, the

awful general election, and the

events after that, and it is based

almost entirely on dozens of

interviews that he has done. I spoke

yesterday, to a very close colleague

of Theresa May.

She said, it is not

what he has put in, it is what he

has left out! I have got to tell

you, it does make The Thick of It

look mild in comparison, if I was

the joint chiefs of staff, Tim and

Fiona, I would not want to be

watching that... I would not want to

be reading it...

Does not take my

fancy, also very unpleasant, that

sort of stuff, I think some of them

have watched the thick of it and

think that is how you have do talk

these days, it is not edifying. --

The Thick of It. An awful lot of

navel-gazing near, my book would be

David Coulthard, and is to educate

and, in Zimbabwe, during the short

coalition period. He rescued

Zimbabwe's education system, rescued

closed schools and teachers were not

being paid, there were three

assassination attempts by the

governing party on him. He survived

all free. That is politics, that is

what politics is really all about.

Not all this stuff about who said

what to do.

On a note of that,

Churchill. Jack Gill is always the

centre... The subject... Of some

book. Matthew has nicely brought it

in. -- Churchill.

A couple of books,

Nicola Shakespeare, his six minutes

is about the time, in the thousand,

and, to vote, and it is about the

famous debate, the adjournment

debate, in which Chamberlain loses,

need is not, knee has a majority of

80, but down from a majority of 250.

And he brings alive Churchill. --

Nicholas Shakespeare. And then you

have the darkest hour...

And there

is a film of that.

I have seen it...

It is brilliant! I'm quite looking

forward to it.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was Jeremy Corbyn has

given an interview to Grazia

magazine in which he said

he believes he will "probably" be

Prime Minister within the next year.

But what was else did we learn?

Was it that he's going to be eating

stuffed marrow for Christmas dinner,

that he's allergic to dogs,

that he's "an accidental fashion

icon",

or that he'd secretly like to be

a stand-up comedian.

So Matthew what's

the correct answer?

I know that he does not like cats,

it is quite likely he is allergic to

dogs.

No, fashion icon! Just like

all of us here(!) LAUGHTER

There is Jeremy Corbyn, thank you

very much to all of you. Thank you

for bringing in the box. We will

make sure reread some of them. --