0:00:37 > 0:00:41Hello and welcome to The Daily Politics.
0:00:41 > 0:00:44Bed occupancy rates at almost 95% - 11,000 ambulances were delayed
0:00:44 > 0:00:47by over 30 minutes - those are the latest perfomance
0:00:47 > 0:00:49statistics from NHS England.
0:00:49 > 0:00:57Can the health service survive many more winters like this?
0:00:57 > 0:01:02Crime recorded by the police in England and Wales is up -
0:01:02 > 0:01:04as are violent crime, knife crime and sex offences.
0:01:04 > 0:01:07But the official crime survey suggests crime continues to fall -
0:01:07 > 0:01:08so, which figures are right?
0:01:08 > 0:01:11Families Minister Nadhim Zahawi said he left the party early
0:01:11 > 0:01:14and the exclusive Presidents Club won't be holding any more events
0:01:14 > 0:01:16after revelations of sexual harassment at their charity function
0:01:16 > 0:01:23- but do women need more protection against exploitation?
0:01:23 > 0:01:25The government appoint a Muslim woman to head up a new Commission
0:01:25 > 0:01:28for Countering Extremism - but why are some senior
0:01:28 > 0:01:30figures in Muslim community opposing her appointment?
0:01:30 > 0:01:33I'll be talking to former Conservative Cabinet minister
0:01:33 > 0:01:35Sayeeda Warsi, who's called her a "mouthpiece"
0:01:35 > 0:01:39for ministers.
0:01:39 > 0:01:47All that in the next hour, and as Donald Trump,
0:01:47 > 0:01:50Theresa May and the world's rich and famous converge on a ski
0:01:50 > 0:01:56resort in the Swiss Alps, we've managed to keep one member
0:01:56 > 0:01:58of the global elite captive here in Wesminster.
0:01:58 > 0:02:01It's the Mail on Sunday columinst Peter Hitchens.
0:02:01 > 0:02:06I've never been in the global elite, thank heavens!
0:02:06 > 0:02:07Welcome to the programme.
0:02:07 > 0:02:10And let's go straight to Davos, where Theresa May is due to address
0:02:10 > 0:02:12the World Economic Forum this afternoon.
0:02:12 > 0:02:13Our business editor, Simon Jack, is there.
0:02:13 > 0:02:15Simon what - is she going to say?
0:02:15 > 0:02:20Well, she's going to start by making some remarks on technology. She is
0:02:20 > 0:02:27going to call on people to bring more pressure on tech companies to
0:02:27 > 0:02:31do more to remove extremist content from the internet and to make it a
0:02:31 > 0:02:36safer place and ideally to develop artificial intelligence which means
0:02:36 > 0:02:38that this content will automatically come down, artificial intelligence
0:02:38 > 0:02:41which will recognise messages. And she will say that Britain wants to
0:02:41 > 0:02:52be a big part of the AI development. The eagle has landed, Donald Trump
0:02:52 > 0:02:57is here, he arrived helicopter about an hour rego. I think people will be
0:02:57 > 0:03:05looking for one thing. - just how special is our special relationship?
0:03:05 > 0:03:08After they were holding hands at the White House about a year ago,
0:03:08 > 0:03:11relations have soured a little bit and they've publicly clashed on
0:03:11 > 0:03:19Twitter over Donald Trump's tweeting some far right material from
0:03:19 > 0:03:24Britain. Then there was the UK visit - is he coming or isn't he? Is it
0:03:24 > 0:03:27because he didn't like Barack Obama's deal or is it because he
0:03:27 > 0:03:31didn't think he would get a very warm welcome? And the other thing,
0:03:31 > 0:03:37and I can't overemphasise this enough, is that whilst we've been
0:03:37 > 0:03:39here, the darling of the economic forum has become Emmanuel Macron,
0:03:39 > 0:03:44and the reports are that Donald Trump is going to offer Macron a
0:03:44 > 0:03:47visit before he offers Theresa May the same thing. And so when it comes
0:03:47 > 0:03:50to the question, who do I call in Europe? Is it the UK? At the moment,
0:03:50 > 0:03:59that's not clear. Resume oblique, even though you don't get to pick
0:03:59 > 0:04:06your own topic in Davos, there must be a lot of chat about Brexit?Yeah,
0:04:06 > 0:04:08she's going to be asked about the negotiations and how they are going.
0:04:08 > 0:04:11Philip Hammond was just on the main stage and said they thought they had
0:04:11 > 0:04:14made some pretty good progress and they are hoping to get some kind of
0:04:14 > 0:04:17transition deal framework wrapped up by March which if true would give
0:04:17 > 0:04:24businesses up to three years. And the other thing is, once we are out
0:04:24 > 0:04:28after 2019, what happens then? Is Britain free to pursue its own trade
0:04:28 > 0:04:32deals? The big rise for some would be a trade deal with the US. The
0:04:32 > 0:04:35Prime Minister was speaking to the BBC this morning and she said, we're
0:04:35 > 0:04:43up for it, they're up for it. But some of Donald Trump's senior
0:04:43 > 0:04:46ministers including the Treasury Secretary and the economic Secretary
0:04:46 > 0:04:49have made some positive noises that there is an appetite to do that. So,
0:04:49 > 0:04:55both sides are willing. As you will know there's quite a lot of
0:04:55 > 0:04:58questions about whether they are able to do that within the confines
0:04:58 > 0:05:01of Article 50. David Davis is absolutely convinced that he has got
0:05:01 > 0:05:07freedom after March 2019 to negotiate with whoever it likes,
0:05:07 > 0:05:10with the idea that you sign on the dotted line when the transition
0:05:10 > 0:05:12period is over. She will want to accentuate those positive noises,
0:05:12 > 0:05:15and we will be looking for the body language between the Prime Minister
0:05:15 > 0:05:20and the President of the United States.Peter Hitchens, with us
0:05:20 > 0:05:26today, for the duration - Theresa May in Davos not exactly
0:05:26 > 0:05:30centrestage, Simon Jack was telling us - it feels as though this is part
0:05:30 > 0:05:33of the continuing narrative of the problems for Theresa May?What is
0:05:33 > 0:05:38she doing there anyway? Davos was described to me as finding the worst
0:05:38 > 0:05:43restaurant d'you know and going to it and listening to a man talking
0:05:43 > 0:05:48about bitcoin in a Peter Ustinov voice. What is she doing there,
0:05:48 > 0:05:51when...?Representing Britain presumably, if Donald Trump and
0:05:51 > 0:05:56Emmanuel Macron...
0:05:57 > 0:05:59Emmanuel Macron...To whom? Theresa May cannot go on a state visit to
0:05:59 > 0:06:02the United States by the way because she is not head of state. The Queen
0:06:02 > 0:06:07would do that. Whereas President Macron can. As for the special
0:06:07 > 0:06:09relationship, I thought everybody now knew that the special
0:06:09 > 0:06:12relationship was a joke and a myth and it does not exist and if she's
0:06:12 > 0:06:17looking for it in Davos, she will not find it there, either.If she is
0:06:17 > 0:06:20going to meet a Donald Trump, and that has been hurriedly arranged,
0:06:20 > 0:06:24for them in Davos, does she have to try and restore better relations?I
0:06:24 > 0:06:28don't know what you can do. The man is such a completely loose cannon
0:06:28 > 0:06:32that it's impossible to know what he would do next and what he would make
0:06:32 > 0:06:38of any meeting at all and whether it would benefit her not. In whose eyes
0:06:38 > 0:06:44does somebody's outstanding improved by meeting Donald Trump? I cannot be
0:06:44 > 0:06:49alone in thinking that. It is a baffling thing for politicians who
0:06:49 > 0:06:51fail at home, they try to prance around on the international stage
0:06:51 > 0:06:55looking more important than they are. And it doesn't seem to me to be
0:06:55 > 0:07:04a wise thing to do, it seems to me yet another, how shall I put this,
0:07:04 > 0:07:07possible putsch against her are being planned.Former Prime Minister
0:07:07 > 0:07:11David Cameron is also in Davos and he has been overheard by the
0:07:11 > 0:07:21television cameras talking about Brexit...
0:07:34 > 0:07:38A mistake not a disaster, is what David Cameron described Brexit as
0:07:38 > 0:07:41jest of course you were on the other side of the EU referendum, but are
0:07:41 > 0:07:46you surprised to hear him say that? No. He did not really understand
0:07:46 > 0:07:51what he was doing. And also he would say that, wouldn't he? Before the
0:07:51 > 0:07:56vote he would have said it was a disaster. Now that it has happened,
0:07:56 > 0:07:59he is quite rightly viewed by many people as responsible for it and he
0:07:59 > 0:08:06has to say it's a mistake. A mistake not made by him, of course, but by
0:08:06 > 0:08:08the British people for voting to leave in the referendum which he
0:08:08 > 0:08:12himself called! You voted to leave... I didn't vote, I took no
0:08:12 > 0:08:17part in the referendum, I hate referendums.But you wanted Britain
0:08:17 > 0:08:20to be in the EU?I want Britain to be independent but not in this way.
0:08:20 > 0:08:26What do you make of how the negotiations are going?I was a
0:08:26 > 0:08:29industry correspondent for many years and it would be foolish to
0:08:29 > 0:08:33imagine that negotiations will not end at the last minute if they will
0:08:33 > 0:08:38reach a conclusion, when the last minute comes. The only question is,
0:08:38 > 0:08:41what form the compromises take.And you would like Britain to stay close
0:08:41 > 0:08:45to the single market and the economic area?I think the Norway
0:08:45 > 0:08:49option is the best one for us and I think it would satisfy several
0:08:49 > 0:08:53things. First of all it would avoid the terrible consequences of
0:08:53 > 0:08:57becoming a third country if we left, which would be very, very difficult.
0:08:57 > 0:09:00These aren't terrorists, these are huge bureaucracies on the frontiers
0:09:00 > 0:09:04which we would face if we became a third country trading with the
0:09:04 > 0:09:08European Union. And also, because of the little-known but important
0:09:08 > 0:09:11Lichtenstein option it would give us the chance to control our borders as
0:09:11 > 0:09:16well.This is what Brexiteers Mike Jacob Rees-Mogg describe as being a
0:09:16 > 0:09:21vassal state, not defining the rules but having to accept them?He can
0:09:21 > 0:09:27say that if he likes. But the problem is this. 40 years of being
0:09:27 > 0:09:32in the European Union, much of Britain's muscle has atrophied, and
0:09:32 > 0:09:37we really aren't in a very strong position to march out into total
0:09:37 > 0:09:41independence at the moment. And if we tried to do so I think we might
0:09:41 > 0:09:48stumble. It's perfectly sensible for a politician who is making a name by
0:09:48 > 0:09:51being a billeted on this issue to speak like this. But the trouble is
0:09:51 > 0:09:54there will have to be a compromise. Those of us who take the future of
0:09:54 > 0:09:57the country seriously, or even try to do so, must wonder what sort of
0:09:57 > 0:10:01compromises that could be, which would suit both sides. This was not
0:10:01 > 0:10:05a huge, overwhelming vote to leave, it was a narrow one, and therefore
0:10:05 > 0:10:12we have to accept there will be a compromise.
0:10:12 > 0:10:14Now it's time for our daily quiz.
0:10:14 > 0:10:17According to reports in the press, Donald Trump told Theresa May
0:10:17 > 0:10:19she could be like a world famous politician.
0:10:19 > 0:10:20So, our
0:10:20 > 0:10:21question is - which one?
0:10:21 > 0:10:22Was it a) Winston Churchill?
0:10:22 > 0:10:23b) Margaret Thatcher?
0:10:23 > 0:10:25C) Ronald Reagan?
0:10:25 > 0:10:26Or d) Neville Chamberlain?
0:10:26 > 0:10:29At the end of the show, Peter will give us the correct answer.
0:10:29 > 0:10:31This morning, NHS England released the latest figures
0:10:31 > 0:10:32on the organisation's performance.
0:10:32 > 0:10:35In the week ending 21st January, pressure on the service continued -
0:10:35 > 0:10:37with 11,000 ambulance delays of over 30 minutes -
0:10:37 > 0:10:41and bed occupancy levels of 94.8%.
0:10:41 > 0:10:43These figures are a very slight improvement in comparison
0:10:43 > 0:10:48to the previous set of weekly figures when there was a bed
0:10:48 > 0:10:50occupancy level of 94.90% of beds, and 12,600 last ambulance delays
0:10:50 > 0:10:53of over 30 minutes.
0:10:53 > 0:10:55Labour have seized upon the issue.
0:10:55 > 0:11:01Tonight, they will hold an NHS rally outside the Houses of Parliament -
0:11:01 > 0:11:03in support of "the heroes that work there".
0:11:03 > 0:11:07And yesterday at PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn attacked
0:11:07 > 0:11:10the PM about NHS funding, calling the extra £2.8 billion pledged
0:11:10 > 0:11:13in last autumn's Budget "thin gruel".
0:11:13 > 0:11:16Theresa May said the NHS had been "better prepared" than ever before
0:11:16 > 0:11:18for winter pressures, and the Government was ensuring
0:11:18 > 0:11:22that the NHS receives more funding.
0:11:22 > 0:11:25But she faces trouble on her own benches over the issue too -
0:11:25 > 0:11:27Boris Johnson reportedly called for extra NHS funding
0:11:27 > 0:11:30at this week's Cabinet, and backbenchers Jacob Rees Mogg,
0:11:30 > 0:11:32Mark Pritchard and Nick Boles have all said the health
0:11:32 > 0:11:35service needs more money.
0:11:35 > 0:11:37And frustration was vented by some Tory MPs on Twitter -
0:11:37 > 0:11:40including Johnny Mercer and Sarah Wollaston -
0:11:40 > 0:11:45after the PM deflected an invitation by 90 MPs across the parties to set
0:11:45 > 0:11:49up a cross-party group to enhance sustainability in the NHS.
0:11:49 > 0:11:52Joining us now is Carol Jagger, who works at the Institute
0:11:52 > 0:11:54of Ageing in Newcastle.
0:11:54 > 0:11:56She has warned that we might be underestimating the future increases
0:11:56 > 0:12:02in demand on the NHS.
0:12:02 > 0:12:07Thank you very much for joining us on the programme. You've done
0:12:07 > 0:12:11research which shows that as we're living longer, with more complicated
0:12:11 > 0:12:14conditions, our health care is going to get more complicated as well?
0:12:14 > 0:12:20Yes, I have. And if I can just say a little bit about what we did... Al
0:12:20 > 0:12:28model takes people aged 35 and over, and with lifestyle factors, obesity,
0:12:28 > 0:12:34smoking and physical inactivity, and other factors, it simulates how
0:12:34 > 0:12:39they're doing to age in terms of accruing diseases. And yes, we found
0:12:39 > 0:12:47that most of the increase will be in what we term complex
0:12:47 > 0:12:52multi-morbidity, four or more diseases.And that is more context
0:12:52 > 0:12:55to manage and it's going to cost considerably more money?Yes, it is.
0:12:55 > 0:13:04But I think also it's about organisation, too. It all boils down
0:13:04 > 0:13:09to money but it is really, we will need better training for health
0:13:09 > 0:13:13professionals and longer consultation times for GPs as well.
0:13:13 > 0:13:17So, we talk a lot about funding for the NHS, whether it's adequate or
0:13:17 > 0:13:21not, and your warning us that we're going to look at substantial
0:13:21 > 0:13:27increases in the future - can the NHS really ever have enough money?I
0:13:27 > 0:13:32think it has to be a longer term plan double we've got at the moment.
0:13:32 > 0:13:38It isn't something that we can just shore up for a couple of years.
0:13:38 > 0:13:40Basically our research is showing that this is going to continue for
0:13:40 > 0:13:44the next 25 and 30 years, and it isn't going to get better. And
0:13:44 > 0:13:50actually more worryingly, we also found that people, younger people,
0:13:50 > 0:13:54who are ageing into the older population, are coming in with more
0:13:54 > 0:13:59disease as well.Thank you very much for explaining that, Carol Jagger.
0:13:59 > 0:14:06With me in the studio is Labour's Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan
0:14:06 > 0:14:09Ashworth and Tory MP Andrew Murrison, who served in the Navy as
0:14:09 > 0:14:16a medic for 20 years. Andrew, it is clear that there is rising concern
0:14:16 > 0:14:18amongst voters about the NHS, 40% saying they think it is the most
0:14:18 > 0:14:21important issue facing the government - is the government
0:14:21 > 0:14:26handling it well?You're right, by far and away it's the biggest issue
0:14:26 > 0:14:30in my constituency mailbag at the moment. I think the garment has
0:14:30 > 0:14:34approached winter pressures, which we have had for the past 30 years,
0:14:34 > 0:14:38quite well this year. We've had advanced planning, more money going
0:14:38 > 0:14:42in, and it has been handled I think quite well.That is a very
0:14:42 > 0:14:47short-term issue for the winter, but chief executive of NHS England says
0:14:47 > 0:14:51he needs £4 billion more and he's not getting it?Yes, well I think
0:14:51 > 0:14:55you should let pitch and a number of my colleagues are saying the same,
0:14:55 > 0:14:59notably Boris Johnson, obviously. I have been arguing for more money for
0:14:59 > 0:15:04the NHS for a very long time. But I think Carol Jagger is absolutely
0:15:04 > 0:15:07right, it's not just about the sum total of money going into the NHS,
0:15:07 > 0:15:10which lags well behind other countries in Western Europe I have
0:15:10 > 0:15:13to say, but it's also about how we structure the NHS and what we do
0:15:13 > 0:15:22within it, we must consider it on preventative health as well.
0:15:23 > 0:15:25preventative health as well.The money is a part of it though and
0:15:25 > 0:15:28your manifesto pledge they would be an increase in spending for every
0:15:28 > 0:15:34year of this Parliament but the National Audit Office says once
0:15:34 > 0:15:41adjusted for age, money will fall this year rather than increase.
0:15:41 > 0:15:45There is more money being spent and more activity than ever before.And
0:15:45 > 0:15:50there is more need than ever before. Yes, there is, and Carol's comments
0:15:50 > 0:16:00are worrying because we are and in the 70th of our NHS, there needs to
0:16:00 > 0:16:03be a root and branch above party consultation on where we go from
0:16:03 > 0:16:10here.Jonathan, you didn't sign the letter calling for a cross-party
0:16:10 > 0:16:18commission on the NHS because --, did you. Is this because you think
0:16:18 > 0:16:26the NHS are already doing a good job I don't need to be in a cross-party?
0:16:26 > 0:16:31No, that is not it and I know that what my colleague saying about
0:16:31 > 0:16:37demanding more money is actually the case. But this is about choices to
0:16:37 > 0:16:39make and I am sceptical that the government would make the decisions
0:16:39 > 0:16:44to give the NHS the funding it really needs. Historically, and we
0:16:44 > 0:16:49are at the 70th anniversary, historically, the NHS for 62 years
0:16:49 > 0:16:54to 4% uplift year by year. For the last eight years, it's gone through
0:16:54 > 0:16:59a tight financial squeeze of a 1% uplift, giving us the crisis we have
0:16:59 > 0:17:06seen on our TV screens, BBC news... But the NHS wouldn't be getting that
0:17:06 > 0:17:131% -- that 4% uplift you were to have won the election? You were
0:17:13 > 0:17:18promising about 2%.We were promising five billion and I would
0:17:18 > 0:17:24have been considerably more than the Conservatives. But we do need a
0:17:24 > 0:17:28long-term plan for the National Health Service.Isn't that why you
0:17:28 > 0:17:31need to take the politics out of it and have some kind of cross-party
0:17:31 > 0:17:34commission that looks at the beach beyond the lifetime of this
0:17:34 > 0:17:38government had restructuring the NHS?I think the problem is the last
0:17:38 > 0:17:42royal commission we had was under Harold Wilson's government had no
0:17:42 > 0:17:47one thing is it really came up with a long-term plan for the NHS when
0:17:47 > 0:17:52they did it in the 70s.That doesn't mean it couldn't be done better now.
0:17:52 > 0:17:59One of the proposals we have, you know we have the Office for Budget
0:17:59 > 0:18:01Responsibility, is generally respected, people accept its
0:18:01 > 0:18:03analysis, we believe we need something like that by health care
0:18:03 > 0:18:09to recommend to government and give independent reports on the funding
0:18:09 > 0:18:12needs of the NHS, the staffing needs of the NHS, to allow government to
0:18:12 > 0:18:16put in that long-term planning which we do agree is needed. I just don't
0:18:16 > 0:18:19think the Royal commission would give us answers on time.Does there
0:18:19 > 0:18:25need to be 's party cooperation in looking at the beach of the NHS?I
0:18:25 > 0:18:31really think there does need to be and the public expects there to be.
0:18:31 > 0:18:36The report Jonathan is referring to has largely been implemented over
0:18:36 > 0:18:39the years and it's not right to say because Royal commissions of the
0:18:39 > 0:18:42past had taken a long time and been expensive, they need to be in the
0:18:42 > 0:18:48picture. We need to be sure this is within a very tight timeline. Within
0:18:48 > 0:18:52two years, a report which is authoritative, which is what a royal
0:18:52 > 0:18:55commission lens. It is certainly not partisan. The public wants that,
0:18:55 > 0:19:00they want politicians to come together and agree something that is
0:19:00 > 0:19:04closest we get to a national religion in this country. If there
0:19:04 > 0:19:09is one thing that unites the parties in Westminster, it is the National
0:19:09 > 0:19:13Health Service. I promise you this, at the next general election, it
0:19:13 > 0:19:19will be at the forefront of people's minds.Peter Hitchens, cross-party
0:19:19 > 0:19:25co-operation on the future of the NHS. It is -- is it the only way
0:19:25 > 0:19:30forward?Yes, I think we are all tired of Labour saying they are the
0:19:30 > 0:19:35only ones
0:19:37 > 0:19:41only ones able to save the NHS. The Conservatives are not trying to
0:19:41 > 0:19:45destroy it even if that is what the media says. The whole approach
0:19:45 > 0:19:48becomes needlessly adversarial because they make the relationship
0:19:48 > 0:19:56bad. We had 18 years of marketisation and 13 years of
0:19:56 > 0:20:03splurge. The truth is that we could spend the entire GDP on the NHS and
0:20:03 > 0:20:07it still doesn't work. A Royal commission could look at the huge
0:20:07 > 0:20:11need for preventative health. The hospital near where I live, you
0:20:11 > 0:20:19approach it three two concentric rings. One is of people smoking and
0:20:19 > 0:20:28the next is a car park. These are two contributors to ill-health. The
0:20:28 > 0:20:33lack of exercise, with terrible provision for public transport
0:20:33 > 0:20:36meaning people drive. The second is lifestyle choices which make people
0:20:36 > 0:20:41ill. Somehow or other, I would personally suggest tax incentives to
0:20:41 > 0:20:44keep people healthy and fit, somehow or other you have to do something
0:20:44 > 0:20:48about that. Then there is the final thing, which is that for the past 50
0:20:48 > 0:20:53years now, all governments have been attacking the family and trying to
0:20:53 > 0:20:58substitute with it for the state. The care of the old which used to be
0:20:58 > 0:21:00done by families is now invariably loaded onto the health service at
0:21:00 > 0:21:03the end of peoples lives and that is a great deal the reason we have
0:21:03 > 0:21:09problems every winter. There needs to be some recognition that the
0:21:09 > 0:21:13destruction of the family, the De Kooning particularly of women
0:21:13 > 0:21:18particularly into paid work has been actually a mistake and we can't
0:21:18 > 0:21:22substitute it either by the health service, the welfare system or
0:21:22 > 0:21:27social services.Some radical ideas there from Peter.Someone has got to
0:21:27 > 0:21:33have them.Is this something that government ever consider, ideas as
0:21:33 > 0:21:40radical as this?Golly, I thought Jonathan was going to go first. I
0:21:40 > 0:21:43like radical and blue sky thinking. Some of the points made I would
0:21:43 > 0:21:48agree with and sympathise with but look, I am a politician and I'm a
0:21:48 > 0:21:53practical person and want something done within a reasonable time frame.
0:21:53 > 0:21:58I very much welcome Jeremy Hunt's 10-year time frame, far more
0:21:58 > 0:22:00realistic than the five-year one we have been dealing with up to this
0:22:00 > 0:22:06point. We have to work with society and what people want and expect in
0:22:06 > 0:22:10the 21st century. Lifestyle, absolutely important. Smoking has
0:22:10 > 0:22:13gone down quite significantly in recent years. The great driver of
0:22:13 > 0:22:20health inequalities is gradually being addressed. But there are other
0:22:20 > 0:22:25health-related lifestyle issues and I think particularly obesity, so it
0:22:25 > 0:22:29would be a mistake in any review simply to look at how to patch
0:22:29 > 0:22:33people up when they become sick. We also need to look at why they become
0:22:33 > 0:22:36sick and how government can do things that aren't going to make
0:22:36 > 0:22:39matters worse, because we need to remember government interventions
0:22:39 > 0:22:44have a habit of making things worse rather than better.Labour argue a
0:22:44 > 0:22:47great deal about the funding for the NHS and we could pick through the
0:22:47 > 0:22:51numbers and show that actually even the Labour Party wasn't promising
0:22:51 > 0:22:55the annual 4% uplift that the NHS traditionally gets but this goes
0:22:55 > 0:22:58beyond money, doesn't it? Is it not a mistake to be constantly
0:22:58 > 0:23:06criticising the government for the funding they are giving the NHS
0:23:07 > 0:23:08funding they are giving the NHS and not looking at some of the
0:23:08 > 0:23:10underlying structural issues? Absolutely, there are loads of
0:23:10 > 0:23:12fundamental issues which need to be attacked. Funding is a fundamental
0:23:12 > 0:23:17issue, as indeed is staffing at the social care system. The two are
0:23:17 > 0:23:20interlinked because as we have heard there are lots of elderly people
0:23:20 > 0:23:26trapped in hospitals. I would say driving a lot of that is the £6
0:23:26 > 0:23:31billion worth of cuts, not the beginning of women into the world of
0:23:31 > 0:23:36work as Peter described it. I actually think women working is a
0:23:36 > 0:23:41good thing and more women should be encouraged into the world of work.I
0:23:41 > 0:23:48didn't say anything about equal pay...I think the problem around
0:23:48 > 0:23:52social care and lack of care for our elderly is not to do with women
0:23:52 > 0:23:57being in work. Why don't some of the men is that home to look after them?
0:23:57 > 0:24:06Fine by me if you can persuade them to do it.
0:24:06 > 0:24:10to do it. I am only opposed to the huge pressure on women to go out to
0:24:10 > 0:24:16paid work when in many cases they would rather be at home raising
0:24:16 > 0:24:19their children...This is a significantly contentious debate but
0:24:19 > 0:24:23at the debate for another day, I'm afraid. We will have to leave it
0:24:23 > 0:24:27there.
0:24:27 > 0:24:29The Home Office has appointed a Muslim human rights campaigner,
0:24:29 > 0:24:32Sara Khan, to lead a new commission to counter extremism.
0:24:32 > 0:24:35Labour say the appointment fails to acknowledge that most
0:24:35 > 0:24:36Muslims have no confidence in the government's
0:24:36 > 0:24:37Prevent strategy.
0:24:37 > 0:24:39Adding to the criticism is former Faith and Communities
0:24:39 > 0:24:40minister Baroness Warsi.
0:24:40 > 0:24:43I spoke to her earlier from our Leeds studio and began
0:24:43 > 0:24:45by asking her why she thought Sara Khan wasn't qualified
0:24:45 > 0:24:46for the role.
0:24:46 > 0:25:01I'm sure Sara is a perfectly nice human being but this is a very
0:25:01 > 0:25:05important role, one which will determine the kind of country that
0:25:05 > 0:25:08our children will grow up in. For that role, there are certain
0:25:08 > 0:25:11characteristics which are essential for the person leading in that role
0:25:11 > 0:25:16and one of those is that this person has to be independent, somebody who
0:25:16 > 0:25:20can robustly challenged communities and robustly challenged government.
0:25:20 > 0:25:26Why do you think Sarah Khan would not be independent?I think there is
0:25:26 > 0:25:31a whole plethora of reasons about how Sara came about, the campaigns
0:25:31 > 0:25:35she has run, the book she wrote, who was it written by? How much of this
0:25:35 > 0:25:41has been done at the bequest and behest of the Home Office? And
0:25:41 > 0:25:45agencies attached to the Home Office. It is important to me that
0:25:45 > 0:25:51whoever comes into this comes in in a position of strength. This person
0:25:51 > 0:25:54will to challenge communities, take on some of the cup issues. This
0:25:54 > 0:25:59person has to be deeply respected and connected to the communities in
0:25:59 > 0:26:03which he operates.Surely your criticism of her two day then is
0:26:03 > 0:26:08undermining that and will make her job harder?I made my views clear
0:26:08 > 0:26:13about this appointment months ago, I wrote about it and put an extract of
0:26:13 > 0:26:16that out yesterday. I have been talking about the importance of this
0:26:16 > 0:26:22role and how important it is that we appoint the right person. Remember,
0:26:22 > 0:26:27Sarah, this person is going to have to do have some really tough
0:26:27 > 0:26:33conversations from a position of strength where someone may not be
0:26:33 > 0:26:37agreeing with that person but they will have to have a discussion. This
0:26:37 > 0:26:41person will have to engage broadly and deeply with all communities and
0:26:41 > 0:26:45sadly Sara has been an advocate of the government's policy of
0:26:45 > 0:26:50disengagement which has meant more and more people, individuals and
0:26:50 > 0:26:53activists, have been considered beyond the pale and have been
0:26:53 > 0:26:57disengaged. For these and another -- a number of other reasons, it is
0:26:57 > 0:27:00that the government have the opportunity to make a very good
0:27:00 > 0:27:04appointment, and there were some very good candidates in the final
0:27:04 > 0:27:13run to this role, and they chose not to do so.Are you disappointed it
0:27:13 > 0:27:18wasn't you, is that partly why you feel like this?I can only be
0:27:18 > 0:27:21disappointed if I had applied and I didn't apply because I did not feel
0:27:21 > 0:27:29I have the time for it. But there were good people in the running,
0:27:29 > 0:27:33including a prosecutor who took on the greening gangs and to contact
0:27:33 > 0:27:39issues that questioned and prayed communities. That is the type of
0:27:39 > 0:27:45person we needed in this role. Someone independent, brave,
0:27:45 > 0:27:48experienced, somebody with great gravitas in this area. Sadly, that
0:27:48 > 0:27:54is not the route the government chose to take.You have also been
0:27:54 > 0:27:58very critical of the government's anti-terrorism policy, prevent. You
0:27:58 > 0:28:03have said it is toxic and should be paused. You still feel that way?My
0:28:03 > 0:28:08view is that we need something in our countries -- counterterrorism
0:28:08 > 0:28:13policy that does people upstream underway to terrorism. But what is
0:28:13 > 0:28:20clear and this is not just my view but the view of counterterrorism
0:28:20 > 0:28:27services, police, academics, across the political divide, when many
0:28:27 > 0:28:31people look at this and say it is time for an independent review of
0:28:31 > 0:28:36prevent. It's a view that I hold and that many practitioners who practice
0:28:36 > 0:28:44capital letter
0:28:44 > 0:28:51capital letter prevent need a review.
0:28:51 > 0:28:55review.One of the people you mentioned actually supports Sara
0:28:55 > 0:28:59Khan's appointment and says he does not see how she can't be independent
0:28:59 > 0:29:03because she criticised the government.I can only go by my own
0:29:03 > 0:29:09experience and I have known of Sara and her sister who is an official at
0:29:09 > 0:29:17the Home Office for nearly 15 years. I have seen their journey over time,
0:29:17 > 0:29:23they're changing views about Islam, how they manifest it, wearing the
0:29:23 > 0:29:28huge up, not wearing a jab, this is something I have been involved in
0:29:28 > 0:29:32over the years and knowing what I know, having worked inside and
0:29:32 > 0:29:36outside of government, I am disappointed by this appointment
0:29:36 > 0:29:41because I think it will hinder not help our appointment.You criticised
0:29:41 > 0:29:46this appointment of another Toby Young moment on twitter. Does that
0:29:46 > 0:29:50mean that you think Sara Khan can't contain -- can't continue in this
0:29:50 > 0:29:55appointment is not in the past, appointments have been made and when
0:29:55 > 0:29:58it becomes clear the appointment was not the right appointment, the
0:29:58 > 0:30:01government has reconsidered and I sincerely hope the government will
0:30:01 > 0:30:05reconsider this appointment.Only this morning, I have been speaking
0:30:05 > 0:30:09to people who engage in prevent work at the grassroots level and two
0:30:09 > 0:30:13people have said to me that this appointment will actually make their
0:30:13 > 0:30:19life and their job more difficult. These are people who are engaged in
0:30:19 > 0:30:24the government's own prevent work. I spoke to a civil servant this
0:30:24 > 0:30:27morning who said the advice was that this appointment would make things
0:30:27 > 0:30:31more difficult in the fight against extremism.We will have to leave it
0:30:31 > 0:30:36there. Thank you, Baroness Warsi.
0:30:36 > 0:30:43We are joined now in the studio by Dame Louise Casey. Thank you for
0:30:43 > 0:30:48coming in. Is Sara Khan the right person for this job?Yes, and to be
0:30:48 > 0:30:52fair, whoever was appointed, no matter who they were, would face a
0:30:52 > 0:30:56barrage of criticism, and probably in many areas of the country, people
0:30:56 > 0:30:59going thank not someone is in the, who is we are cracking on. I think
0:30:59 > 0:31:05some of this is incredibly unedifying. If only powerful Muslim
0:31:05 > 0:31:09women and not Muslim women would come together and get behind the
0:31:09 > 0:31:12extremism commission and behind Sara Khan's appointment, that would be a
0:31:12 > 0:31:17much better way forward. The woman hasn't even started yet, and when
0:31:17 > 0:31:22Baroness Warsi was appointed, she herself took some criticism from the
0:31:22 > 0:31:27same sort of cohort at that time. I wish she was onside and supporting
0:31:27 > 0:31:31and making this work, because whoever is in the job...Her
0:31:31 > 0:31:34argument is that Sara Khan is not able to be independent enough of
0:31:34 > 0:31:37government, because she's been so close to the Home Office in the
0:31:37 > 0:31:42past?I find that extraordinary, really. Sara Khan, she is her own
0:31:42 > 0:31:46woman and she will say exactly what she thinks needs to be done. She's
0:31:46 > 0:31:49fearless, feel is around politics and frankly around some of the stuff
0:31:49 > 0:31:55she has had to put up with.We did try and get her on today but you
0:31:55 > 0:31:59wasn't available.I am a poor substitute, but the fact of the
0:31:59 > 0:32:04matter is that it's just not right on the day that a long process will
0:32:04 > 0:32:07have been gone through, this will have had ministerial support, I
0:32:07 > 0:32:10would imagine it is an appointment made very much by the Home
0:32:10 > 0:32:14Secretary. We need to get behind, leave aside all this personality
0:32:14 > 0:32:19stuff. It's not where we need to be. There is a job that needs to be
0:32:19 > 0:32:23done, Sara Khan has got the job, I think she will do it really well, we
0:32:23 > 0:32:27should be supporting her.I'm sorry, I just can't really support the idea
0:32:27 > 0:32:32that there should be a moment official tasked with dealing with
0:32:32 > 0:32:38extremism. The word extremism is no business of the government to define
0:32:38 > 0:32:43any opinion and whether it be extremist or not and trying to stamp
0:32:43 > 0:32:47it out. If people commit crime then they should be prosecuted and
0:32:47 > 0:32:52punished for it if convicted. But the whole idea of a government
0:32:52 > 0:32:55having opinions on people's opinions is repulsive to me and I am amazed
0:32:55 > 0:32:59that we can sit here discussing it in a country which has until
0:32:59 > 0:33:03recently been reasonably free. It is simply not the job of the state to
0:33:03 > 0:33:06interfere in what people think. What they do is another matter.
0:33:06 > 0:33:10Incitement to violence is another matter. But if we accept this, then
0:33:10 > 0:33:15then it is not at all unforeseeable that is not a very long time I could
0:33:15 > 0:33:19be classified as an extremist, subject to government investigation
0:33:19 > 0:33:23and supervision and who knows what else. I really am amazed that the
0:33:23 > 0:33:26way in which people give up the liberties which it took centuries in
0:33:26 > 0:33:31this country to obtain.Let's let Louise Casey address that - is this
0:33:31 > 0:33:35a commission looking at what people think or what they do?I am not a
0:33:35 > 0:33:39government official.No, you're not but we're discussing the appointment
0:33:39 > 0:33:46of.And Sara Khan today has not been a government official. I think it
0:33:46 > 0:33:51would be crazy to think that we don't have a problem in this country
0:33:51 > 0:33:55of the extreme far right getting more extreme, getting more members.
0:33:55 > 0:33:58It would be crazy to think that we don't have people in this country
0:33:58 > 0:34:03that right now as we sit here think that the young girls that died in
0:34:03 > 0:34:08the Manchester Arena bombing attack had it coming to them. That
0:34:08 > 0:34:11actually, in the name of something, that actually that was an acceptable
0:34:11 > 0:34:15way and people think that...Hang on, I don't know what you mean by
0:34:15 > 0:34:22acceptable.In all other areas of crime, we prevent pitch but we don't
0:34:22 > 0:34:25have laws about what people think in this country. It is not laws about
0:34:25 > 0:34:28what people think, it's about a... What do you mean by acceptable,
0:34:28 > 0:34:34then?What I mean is there are young people who are growing up and start
0:34:34 > 0:34:37talking in classrooms and with their friends about things that we would
0:34:37 > 0:34:41find very, very close to what is criminal, and if that was around...
0:34:41 > 0:34:45We are in at the moment some kind of constant for Rory over the
0:34:45 > 0:34:50boundaries between what is acceptable conduct for me in
0:34:50 > 0:34:53published life and in private life and where they cover those
0:34:53 > 0:34:56boundaries of. I do not see anybody questioning that debate.You might
0:34:56 > 0:35:01be but... I question any menace to freedom of speech and thought,
0:35:01 > 0:35:04because these things are very important and they are very easily
0:35:04 > 0:35:08lost. And they are usually very easily lost on a strong emotional
0:35:08 > 0:35:13tide such as the one which you've just been expressing, of these
0:35:13 > 0:35:16people discussing opinions. I think a lot of people's opinions are
0:35:16 > 0:35:20disgusting, but they then must be challenge in a debate. It is not the
0:35:20 > 0:35:25role of the state to prosecute people for what they think. Anything
0:35:25 > 0:35:28short of incitement to. Although we do not have a first amendment in
0:35:28 > 0:35:31this country I think we should practice as far as possible the
0:35:31 > 0:35:37rules which follow from that. Which is, you can say what you like short
0:35:37 > 0:35:41of shouting fire in a crowded theatre falsely. And I think we
0:35:41 > 0:35:44should stick with that. I'm amazed at the way in which, particularly on
0:35:44 > 0:35:47the pretext of fighting terrorism, which actually the government is not
0:35:47 > 0:35:54very good at, actually, we introduce laws and procedures which are
0:35:54 > 0:35:58actually based on the idea that there are somethings we are not
0:35:58 > 0:36:03allowed to think.We understand what you think about that, Peter. Louise
0:36:03 > 0:36:08you were also in the antisocial behaviour tsar and we have got new
0:36:08 > 0:36:13crime statistics out today which show that violent crime and other
0:36:13 > 0:36:16offences as recorded by the police have risen sharply. Robberies up by
0:36:16 > 0:36:2220 29%...
0:36:22 > 0:36:24Overall crimes recorded by police in 44 forces
0:36:24 > 0:36:26across England and Wales rose by 14%,
0:36:26 > 0:36:27while violent crime increased by 20%.
0:36:27 > 0:36:29Robberies surged by nearly a third - 29%.
0:36:29 > 0:36:32In the same time period, knife crime was up by 21%.
0:36:32 > 0:36:33And sex crimes also increased by 23%.
0:36:33 > 0:36:36This must be of concern to you?Yes. Since 2014 in particular, we have
0:36:36 > 0:36:41seen increases and those statistics are robust John White is not about
0:36:41 > 0:36:45extra reporting or awareness. It is very clear that on that particular
0:36:45 > 0:36:49criminal offence, that actually that is going in the wrong direction. And
0:36:49 > 0:36:53my own view, and Peter will probably disagree with this as well, is that
0:36:53 > 0:36:57I actually think it is time for us to step back and think, what is
0:36:57 > 0:37:01happening and we know that this is largely an urban problem, it is a
0:37:01 > 0:37:05specific problem in London. If we asked the police which wards, they
0:37:05 > 0:37:09would be able to tell us which wards. I think the solution does not
0:37:09 > 0:37:12lie in constant policing and enforcement of. We do need
0:37:12 > 0:37:15enforcement and policing, one of the things I'm worried about is the
0:37:15 > 0:37:17reduction of police officers and resources, particularly in the
0:37:17 > 0:37:23magical authors and police -- particularly in the Metropolitan
0:37:23 > 0:37:27Police but nevertheless we ought to know what is happening in those
0:37:27 > 0:37:30families and in their lives, why some of them are dropping out of
0:37:30 > 0:37:33school, why some of them think carrying a knife is in their
0:37:33 > 0:37:36interest, why we are allowing predatory, nasty gangs to take hold
0:37:36 > 0:37:40in some of these wards and not having a bigger response than we
0:37:40 > 0:37:43have at the moment. There needs to be a line in the sand, and I don't
0:37:43 > 0:37:48see one.It has been said that knife crime is going to be a top issue but
0:37:48 > 0:37:52actually some more imaginative ideas like the violence reduction unit
0:37:52 > 0:37:55which operates in Glasgow, where knife crime has been falling
0:37:55 > 0:37:59substantially - why are they not being adopted?Apart from the fact I
0:37:59 > 0:38:02think that the Metropolitan Police are actually very concerned about
0:38:02 > 0:38:05resources in policing at the moment. I think the other thing is that we
0:38:05 > 0:38:10need to find, what started in Scotland, and I saw your piece on
0:38:10 > 0:38:14Sunday, and I was aware of that work, but we need to find a
0:38:14 > 0:38:17different approach. And one of those different approaches is actually
0:38:17 > 0:38:20going into the families where we know that this is a problem and
0:38:20 > 0:38:24trying to work out how we can stop siblings and others growing up in
0:38:24 > 0:38:27those families making the same mistakes. And I think that is not a
0:38:27 > 0:38:32policing issue, it is where things like family intervention, which I
0:38:32 > 0:38:40did Andrew Labour, troubled families, which I
0:38:41 > 0:38:41families, which I did under the Conservatives, needs to be at the
0:38:41 > 0:38:44forefront. You need a different approach to these things, and it IS
0:38:44 > 0:38:46interference, in terms of family life, because at the moment we have
0:38:46 > 0:38:49too many deaths.Is that too much a state interference in family life?
0:38:49 > 0:38:53No, the state is entitled to interfere where there is exactly the
0:38:53 > 0:39:00point. But it would seem to me to be a hugely unexamined aspect of these
0:39:00 > 0:39:06crimes, and that is the increasing almost epidemic use of mind altering
0:39:06 > 0:39:09drugs in certain parts of society, which the state does nothing
0:39:09 > 0:39:13whatsoever to prevent. The possession of drugs is virtually
0:39:13 > 0:39:16unprosecuted in this country now that the process which has been
0:39:16 > 0:39:22going on for 40 years which has excellent rated in recent years,
0:39:22 > 0:39:26effectively letting people off. I have to just mention as well, going
0:39:26 > 0:39:29back to the other subject, you almost always find mind altering
0:39:29 > 0:39:35drugs present in the lives of people who are involved in terrorist
0:39:35 > 0:39:39outrages, whether that would be marijuana or some Chris should
0:39:39 > 0:39:43drugs, or steroids, they are almost invariably present. I have been
0:39:43 > 0:39:48studying this very carefully for some years and they're there. These
0:39:48 > 0:39:52are a subset of violent crime which is unusually closely studied. But
0:39:52 > 0:39:58the refusal of the authorities to attempt to deal with the possession
0:39:58 > 0:40:01and use of mind altering drugs lies behind an awful lot of this.I don't
0:40:01 > 0:40:10agree with that. I think that is part of the problem with how this
0:40:10 > 0:40:13becomes a left-to-right, polarised debate. We know where the level of
0:40:13 > 0:40:18knife crime is very high. Win over wards in London in particular,
0:40:18 > 0:40:22probably Greater Manchester and Liverpool as well. We know that
0:40:22 > 0:40:24there are nasty, predatory gangs that are at the top end of crime and
0:40:24 > 0:40:30they sweep people into it, quite often young people have not got
0:40:30 > 0:40:33brilliant results in school, quite a lot of them are excluded, they're
0:40:33 > 0:40:39not in school, and underneath all of this, it involves a much more
0:40:39 > 0:40:42difficult conversation with ourselves about how we help those
0:40:42 > 0:40:47communities, and it -- in a significantly different way to how
0:40:47 > 0:40:52we do it at the moment. We need to stop this, particularly on knife
0:40:52 > 0:40:56crime, somebody on the left saying it is an outrage and then somebody
0:40:56 > 0:41:01on the right... We need to find a pragmatic way forward. We have too
0:41:01 > 0:41:03many deaths of young men in particular on our streets in London.
0:41:03 > 0:41:08Why won't you consider the drugs issue? You mentioned children in
0:41:08 > 0:41:16school dropping out and... Ask any teacher and you will find that in so
0:41:16 > 0:41:19many cases, particularly where they're bright, the point at which
0:41:19 > 0:41:23they drop out is the point at which they've started using drugs. The
0:41:23 > 0:41:27areas that you've named, are these areas that are free of drugs, that
0:41:27 > 0:41:33have no cannabis farms in them? They are overflowing with drugs, why are
0:41:33 > 0:41:37you not making the connection?It is one of the issues that is at play.
0:41:37 > 0:41:41One of the other jobs I've been responsible for is homelessness,
0:41:41 > 0:41:44where again drugs is a prevalent part of what happens to people who
0:41:44 > 0:41:48are on the streets as is the use of alcohol. I'm not suggesting it is
0:41:48 > 0:41:53not an issue, of course, but that is not going to get the knife crime
0:41:53 > 0:41:56statistics and the lives of young people made safer in London and
0:41:56 > 0:42:00nationally if we just take one issue. We have to look at it in the
0:42:00 > 0:42:05round. And finally, the more people that keep dissing Prevent, the more
0:42:05 > 0:42:13people lose confidence in it, and so the public, who are not part of...
0:42:13 > 0:42:16The counter-terrorism strategy, the more that people keep undermining
0:42:16 > 0:42:20it, the more difficult it is for the police officers and civilians to do
0:42:20 > 0:42:23something about.That sounds like an argument against free discussion.I
0:42:23 > 0:42:28completely disagree.Prevent is a huge topic which we will need to
0:42:28 > 0:42:31discuss at another time.
0:42:31 > 0:42:35A director at the Department for Education has resigned.
0:42:35 > 0:42:37The Families Minister was summoned to Downing Street
0:42:37 > 0:42:40to explain HIS presence at a charity event run by the Presidents Club
0:42:40 > 0:42:42at the Dorchester Hotel in London last week -
0:42:42 > 0:42:44where hostesses were reported to have been sexually harassed .
0:42:44 > 0:42:46where hostesses were reported to have been sexually harassed.
0:42:46 > 0:42:50Nadhim Zahawi said he left the event shortly after 9.30 when he said
0:42:50 > 0:42:52he "felt uncomfortable", but said he did not see any
0:42:52 > 0:42:53of the "horrific" events reported.
0:42:53 > 0:42:56He also tweeted that he would never attend a men-only function again.
0:42:56 > 0:42:59The government were asked to respond to an urgent question on the story
0:43:02 > 0:43:07What the Department for Education needs to do, and in fact
0:43:07 > 0:43:10all departments, all public bodies in fact, needs to do is to make sure
0:43:10 > 0:43:12that this sort of behaviour isn't going on anywhere.
0:43:12 > 0:43:15It has to not be tolerated.
0:43:15 > 0:43:19It's not just about forcing people to do the right thing.
0:43:19 > 0:43:25It's actually about changing attitudes.
0:43:25 > 0:43:27I noticed that the organisation wishes to put it
0:43:27 > 0:43:28on to the individual
0:43:28 > 0:43:36members where actually what happened was that women were bought as bait
0:43:37 > 0:43:39for men who are rich men not a mile from where we stand,
0:43:39 > 0:43:41as if that is an acceptable behaviour.
0:43:41 > 0:43:42It is totally unacceptable.
0:43:42 > 0:43:44It is appalling that that continues and I support
0:43:44 > 0:43:48the minister and her response.
0:43:48 > 0:43:51We all have our duty to do to make sure that those dinners
0:43:51 > 0:43:52don't ever happen again.
0:43:52 > 0:43:55They chose to treat the hostesses in this way, to make them parade
0:43:55 > 0:43:58across the stage in front of men, to make them wear black
0:43:58 > 0:44:01skimpy outfits and specify the colour of their underwear.
0:44:01 > 0:44:07They chose to ask them to drink before the event.
0:44:07 > 0:44:10Does she agree all of the organisers including the Presidents Club
0:44:10 > 0:44:12and all of the private companies involved in organising this should
0:44:12 > 0:44:14be investigated for breach of the law and breach
0:44:14 > 0:44:16of the charity rules?
0:44:16 > 0:44:19Cross-party is absolutely the word and maybe that
0:44:19 > 0:44:22work starts from today.
0:44:22 > 0:44:24Some men, especially rich and powerful men,
0:44:24 > 0:44:32feel entitled to women.
0:44:32 > 0:44:34They view their bodies as playthings and they thinnk
0:44:34 > 0:44:35that lecherous pawing
0:44:35 > 0:44:37and groping of women is acceptable behaviour.
0:44:37 > 0:44:39That a charity is prepared to facilitate that behaviour
0:44:39 > 0:44:41as long as wealthy men are opening their cheque-books
0:44:41 > 0:44:43beggars belief.
0:44:43 > 0:44:50May I suggest to the minister that this is more than a collective
0:44:51 > 0:44:53misjudgment, that this is a deliberate sticking up of two
0:44:53 > 0:45:00fingers to those that they perceive as being the PC culture.
0:45:00 > 0:45:07So, pretty clear what MPs thought up the Presidents Club event. Peter
0:45:07 > 0:45:11Hitchens, our US outraged?I am not surprised but I am a puritan and
0:45:11 > 0:45:17perhaps a prude and I find events of this kind as repulsive as anybody
0:45:17 > 0:45:23and more repulsive than some. What I am interested to see it but having
0:45:23 > 0:45:27long opposed the permissive society of which this is an aspect, I am at
0:45:27 > 0:45:35last having allies among the left wing feminists who have seemed
0:45:35 > 0:45:42critical of this in the past. This is a factor of it.It seems that
0:45:42 > 0:45:45something has changed because this may not have made the headlines it
0:45:45 > 0:45:50did yesterday that had happened a year ago.It is interesting to see
0:45:50 > 0:45:53the Financial Times entering scooped journalism. But no, it wouldn't have
0:45:53 > 0:46:00done.This follows on from Harvey Weinstein and all of this. Does it
0:46:00 > 0:46:05mark a major shift in which we will get critical of all sorts of things
0:46:05 > 0:46:09that have been going on, maybe even to the discomfort of you?I don't
0:46:09 > 0:46:14know. It is possible. It is also possible that it could be another
0:46:14 > 0:46:18occasion for people to stand up in public and say how good they are. I
0:46:18 > 0:46:26was at the cinema at the weekend and I had to sit through a pre-film film
0:46:26 > 0:46:30watcher with all sorts of great and good person saying they were against
0:46:30 > 0:46:36something like this. Sure, they can say that, but the problem -- the
0:46:36 > 0:46:39question is, do they really oppose the changes in our society which
0:46:39 > 0:46:44have taken place over the last 40 or 50 years which lead to this? We used
0:46:44 > 0:46:55to have a situation where there was lifelong marriage
0:46:55 > 0:46:59lifelong marriage and the respectable chastity. These are
0:46:59 > 0:47:02supposedly respectable people behaving in a very disrespectful way
0:47:02 > 0:47:06in an expensive London hotel. Theresa May has said that she
0:47:06 > 0:47:10thought that kind of objectification of women in this case had been left
0:47:10 > 0:47:15behind. She talks about it and it obviously hasn't because we have lap
0:47:15 > 0:47:18dancing clubs all over the place, the Chippendales performing, it's
0:47:18 > 0:47:23not just women.The people who own them used to give money to the
0:47:23 > 0:47:27Conservative Party.I don't know if they still do. Will we see a shift
0:47:27 > 0:47:36away from a gentrification? -- a shift away from objectification?I'm
0:47:36 > 0:47:45not sure. It would have to be an enormous shift. What is it that the
0:47:45 > 0:47:49and I have to call them this politically correct critics in this
0:47:49 > 0:47:56case, what is it that we need in law to prevent this happening again?
0:47:56 > 0:47:59Now, defence spending has been in the news again
0:47:59 > 0:48:01after Sir Nick Carter, head of the army, warned
0:48:01 > 0:48:04earlier this week that Britain's military risked falling behind that
0:48:04 > 0:48:05of its potential enemies without additional investment.
0:48:05 > 0:48:08His comments come amid widespread speculation about possible cuts
0:48:08 > 0:48:10to personnel and equipment and calls to increase defence spending to 3%
0:48:10 > 0:48:12of GDP from some MPs.
0:48:12 > 0:48:14But what about Trident - out nuclear missile deterrent -
0:48:14 > 0:48:15which will soon need replacing?
0:48:15 > 0:48:17Would the money spent on a replacement be
0:48:17 > 0:48:21better spent elsewhere?
0:48:21 > 0:48:27Here's my guest of the day, Peter Hitchens, on his soapbox.
0:48:35 > 0:48:38Britain's defence policy is like a man who spends so much
0:48:38 > 0:48:41on insuring himself against alien abduction that he can't afford
0:48:41 > 0:48:44cover for fire and theft.
0:48:44 > 0:48:48Army chiefs have been warning this week that our conventional defences
0:48:48 > 0:48:52are frighteningly short of equipment, men and money.
0:48:52 > 0:48:55But what they won't say in public is that a major reason
0:48:55 > 0:49:00for the squeeze is the vast expense of building four new Trident
0:49:00 > 0:49:04submarines, leviathans, hugely bigger than this 1960s relic,
0:49:04 > 0:49:12HMS Ocelot, veteran of countless top secret missions
0:49:13 > 0:49:16against the Soviet Union.
0:49:16 > 0:49:19Unlike Ocelot here, the new Trident boats are museum pieces before
0:49:19 > 0:49:20they've even been laid down.
0:49:20 > 0:49:23Like her, they're Cold War weapons but built 30 years
0:49:23 > 0:49:27after the Cold War ended.
0:49:27 > 0:49:33Elaborate, complex and huge, they were designed to deter
0:49:33 > 0:49:35the enormous Soviet armies in East Germany, which
0:49:35 > 0:49:37long ago melted away.
0:49:37 > 0:49:40And they're a superpower weapon, decades after we cease
0:49:40 > 0:49:41to be any such thing.
0:49:41 > 0:49:44If we were a superpower, we could make our own missiles
0:49:44 > 0:49:51rather than lease them from the USA, as we more or less do.
0:49:52 > 0:49:56Israel, a country with many irreconcilable enemies and under far
0:49:56 > 0:49:59more risk of attack than we are, doesn't have anything
0:49:59 > 0:50:02like so elaborate or costly.
0:50:02 > 0:50:04So, why should we?
0:50:04 > 0:50:12The choice isn't between Trident and nothing.
0:50:19 > 0:50:22The new submarines will come in at somewhere between £31
0:50:22 > 0:50:28billion over 35 years - the government estimate -
0:50:28 > 0:50:31or £175 million, if you DON'T believe the government estimates,
0:50:31 > 0:50:36as I tend not to do.
0:50:36 > 0:50:40You can't help thinking that some of this money will come out of funds
0:50:40 > 0:50:48that could otherwise be spent on usable, conventional weapons.
0:50:48 > 0:50:53The Tories, and Labour Blairites, think Trident is a very useful
0:50:53 > 0:50:57weapon with which to attack Jeremy Corbyn.
0:50:57 > 0:51:05But everyone in government knows that many in the military privately
0:51:05 > 0:51:07think it a vainglorious waste of money.
0:51:07 > 0:51:10Field Marshal Lord Bramall, too old to care what politicians say
0:51:10 > 0:51:13or do, openly says what many in the military can only think -
0:51:13 > 0:51:17that we should get rid of it.
0:51:17 > 0:51:19Nobody can call Lord Bramall a pacifist or a defeatist.
0:51:19 > 0:51:24He's living proof that there's a good, hard,
0:51:24 > 0:51:32patriotic argument for disposing of this usable monstrosity, before
0:51:38 > 0:51:45-- unusable monstrosity, before it destroys our real defence system.
0:51:45 > 0:51:50And we are joined in the studio now by the chair of the Defence Select
0:51:50 > 0:51:52Committee and of course Peter Hitchens is still here. Thank you
0:51:52 > 0:51:56very much for coming in, Julian Lewis. What did you make of Peter
0:51:56 > 0:51:59Hitchens argument there that basically the money being spent on
0:51:59 > 0:52:04Trident would be much better spent on conventional weapons and building
0:52:04 > 0:52:10up the army.Unfortunately, we are nowhere near of spending enough on
0:52:10 > 0:52:12defence irrespective of the contribution that Trident's
0:52:12 > 0:52:19expenditure of 31 £241 billion spent over a considerable number of years
0:52:19 > 0:52:25would make any difference to. I always say to anyone using this
0:52:25 > 0:52:29argument, if you think that we would scoop up the money that otherwise
0:52:29 > 0:52:32would be spent on our ultimate insurance policy against nuclear
0:52:32 > 0:52:41aggression, namely the Trident, if even call that would go back into
0:52:41 > 0:52:45defence, you are being unrealistic. We have a commitment to spend 2% of
0:52:45 > 0:52:50GDP on defence as part of our Nato membership, so surely the money for
0:52:50 > 0:52:55Trident would have to go back in? The 2% commitment gets right to the
0:52:55 > 0:52:59heart of the issue. The 2% commitment is nowhere near enough.
0:52:59 > 0:53:04In the ten long years of the Blair government, I was shadow defence
0:53:04 > 0:53:07Minister for the Conservatives and I spent a lot of time arguing that
0:53:07 > 0:53:14they weren't spending enough when they were spending 2.5% of GDP. Even
0:53:14 > 0:53:18when, Peter's point and it's a good point, that the Cold War came to an
0:53:18 > 0:53:28end at the end of the 1980s, then we were
0:53:28 > 0:53:32were spending 4.5% on defence. Even after we took the peace dividend
0:53:32 > 0:53:41cuts, in 1995 to 1996 we were spending 3%. This would be a drop in
0:53:41 > 0:53:47the ocean and we would be losing our ultimate insurance policy.Peter.A
0:53:47 > 0:53:52lot of things are a drop in the ocean, if you like. The army is
0:53:52 > 0:53:55suffering from a serious recruitment crisis and I think one of the issues
0:53:55 > 0:53:58that if they have closed out what's up their recruitment officers. The
0:53:58 > 0:54:09cost is tiny and it is trivial in itself, but the Army now is smaller
0:54:09 > 0:54:17than France was allowed after being defeated after Germany. The Navy is
0:54:17 > 0:54:21in a terrible crisis because of many things, not just the overspending on
0:54:21 > 0:54:25aircraft carriers that we can't use and the fact that all these ships
0:54:25 > 0:54:28don't work and can't move. It also doesn't have enough people and it
0:54:28 > 0:54:34has been losing over the years many experienced NCO type people of the
0:54:34 > 0:54:37type we can't replace and these are not expensive things, but the drain
0:54:37 > 0:54:41of money into Trident is one of the main reasons why these things are
0:54:41 > 0:54:45happening and will continue to happen for 30 years to come. The
0:54:45 > 0:54:50question is, do we need this thing? Also, I think it's part of national
0:54:50 > 0:54:54growing up. We really do need to understand that we are an important
0:54:54 > 0:55:00country but we're not a superpower and we should start behaving as one.
0:55:00 > 0:55:04We have the chance to pull out before renewing it at fast expense
0:55:04 > 0:55:08and that would be a very useful moment of recognition of what we
0:55:08 > 0:55:13really need to be. What do we really need an army for? What do we need an
0:55:13 > 0:55:18army for? What do we need a before? What shape should they have? But
0:55:18 > 0:55:24that needs a moment of profound reflection. The fact the Cold War is
0:55:24 > 0:55:28over would be a good starting point for that discussion. I am sure we
0:55:28 > 0:55:32could spend more, but within what we do spend, transferring the money we
0:55:32 > 0:55:41spend on this to conventional force would make more sense.Can I just
0:55:41 > 0:55:45say, we were not a superpower at any point during the Cold War and we
0:55:45 > 0:55:53spent on average 5% of GDP on defence.But Peter's point is not
0:55:53 > 0:55:58about spending. It's about nuclear weapons as a status symbol.I hope I
0:55:58 > 0:56:01have established that our defence spending is so woefully low that
0:56:01 > 0:56:05until we get to the point where we have the Defence Secretary, and we
0:56:05 > 0:56:09might just have one now, who is prepared to say that we need to be
0:56:09 > 0:56:13spending more in the order of 3% of GDP, this sort of argument will make
0:56:13 > 0:56:18no realistic difference. And you know what, Michael Fallon who
0:56:18 > 0:56:22defended the government blind through all his years of -- as
0:56:22 > 0:56:26Secretary of State for Defence now have an article saying, do you know
0:56:26 > 0:56:31what, we need to be spending at least 2.5% of GDP? I think we are
0:56:31 > 0:56:35winning that argument, Peter, let's not divert onto Trident for the
0:56:35 > 0:56:40money point of view. The argument for Trident is simple. It is not to
0:56:40 > 0:56:44deter the major armies of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Trident
0:56:44 > 0:56:48is to ensure that no country can ever be misled into thinking that it
0:56:48 > 0:56:53could blackmail us into surrender by the threat of using nuclear weapons
0:56:53 > 0:56:59against us
0:56:59 > 0:57:01against us which we would have no means of retaliating for. Even one
0:57:01 > 0:57:04Trident submarine is able to inflict such damage in retaliation, not only
0:57:04 > 0:57:10is it unacceptable, it is unavoidable. It is not a panacea, it
0:57:10 > 0:57:19does not meet...I disagree with you.I will continue if I can. It
0:57:19 > 0:57:22does not deter every form of military threat but what it does do
0:57:22 > 0:57:30is deter military attack which you would not be capable of defending
0:57:30 > 0:57:36against without it.As you well know, British nuclear weapons were
0:57:36 > 0:57:41initially
0:57:41 > 0:57:49initially developed after discussion with the Americans, due to a
0:57:49 > 0:57:55situation where they were made very angry. The building was specifically
0:57:55 > 0:58:01to demonstrate that we were still important. Then this deal was
0:58:01 > 0:58:05dependent on the Americans for our missiles. Then it became an issue of
0:58:05 > 0:58:11whether we could describe -- destroy Moscow. The initiation of these were
0:58:11 > 0:58:20so we could continue to destroy Moscow. These submarines...We won't
0:58:20 > 0:58:24have to leave it there. Thank you very much for coming in, Julian
0:58:24 > 0:58:25Lewis.
0:58:25 > 0:58:28There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
0:58:28 > 0:58:31The question was which world famous politician did Donald Trump say
0:58:31 > 0:58:32Theresa May could be like?
0:58:32 > 0:58:33Was it:
0:58:33 > 0:58:34A) Winston Churchill
0:58:34 > 0:58:35B) Margaret Thatcher
0:58:35 > 0:58:36C) Ronald Reagan
0:58:36 > 0:58:37or D) Neville Chamberlain?
0:58:37 > 0:58:39So Peter, what's the correct answer?
0:58:39 > 0:58:43I don't know, but when they are being rude to other politicians,
0:58:43 > 0:58:47they normally say Neville Chamberlain. But probably Winston
0:58:47 > 0:58:54Churchill.Apparently it was Winston Churchill. He had just watched a
0:58:54 > 0:58:57film and apparently said Theresa May have the potential to be just like
0:58:57 > 0:58:58him.
0:58:58 > 0:58:59That's all for today.
0:58:59 > 0:59:01Thanks to our guests.
0:59:01 > 0:59:03The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.
0:59:03 > 0:59:05Bye bye.