0:00:12 > 0:00:14It's 100 years since Parliament passed a law giving some women the
0:00:14 > 0:00:19vote for the very first time. As we celebrate this important milestone,
0:00:19 > 0:00:29we'll be asking how much real progress has been made.
0:00:52 > 0:00:56Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
0:00:56 > 0:00:59The government is in hoc to "hard Brexiteers" who should be
0:00:59 > 0:01:01"slung out of the party" says Anna Soubry.
0:01:01 > 0:01:03Is the leading Conservative Remainer on the verge of leaving
0:01:03 > 0:01:06the party herself?
0:01:06 > 0:01:09The East Coast mainline could be nationalised
0:01:09 > 0:01:11after the private operator reveals it's losing millons.
0:01:11 > 0:01:16Has railway privatisation failed?
0:01:16 > 0:01:18The Prime Minister calls for a crackdown on online
0:01:18 > 0:01:19abuse against women.
0:01:19 > 0:01:22We'll hear from Katie Price about the abuse she and her
0:01:22 > 0:01:26family have suffered.
0:01:26 > 0:01:30And we're taken on a tour of one of the front lines in the battle
0:01:30 > 0:01:33for votes for women, the Palace of Westminster.
0:01:33 > 0:01:35This is the place where Emily Wilding Davison, the suffragette,
0:01:35 > 0:01:43hid overnight on census night, in April 1911.
0:01:46 > 0:01:49All that in the next hour and with us today as we celebrate
0:01:49 > 0:01:51100 years of votes for women is Justine Greening,
0:01:51 > 0:01:54a trailblazer in many ways.
0:01:54 > 0:01:57The first comprehensively-educated Education Secretary and the first
0:01:57 > 0:02:00openly gay female Cabinet minister, she left her job in last month's
0:02:00 > 0:02:02reshuffle, of course, after refusing another Cabinet position.
0:02:02 > 0:02:05But she has agreed to take up position in our studio
0:02:05 > 0:02:08for the next hour.
0:02:08 > 0:02:11Welcome to the programme.
0:02:11 > 0:02:13Thank you for having me.
0:02:13 > 0:02:15Now, the discord in the Conservative Party has
0:02:15 > 0:02:17grown louder this morning after the leading Tory
0:02:17 > 0:02:22Remainer, Anna Soubry, said that the government needed
0:02:22 > 0:02:25to stand up to 35 or so "hard Brexiteers" who should be
0:02:25 > 0:02:26"slung out" of the party by Theresa May.
0:02:26 > 0:02:29Her call comes after Downing Street confirmed on Sunday night
0:02:29 > 0:02:32that the UK would not be in "the Customs Union" or "a Customs
0:02:32 > 0:02:36union" after Brexit.
0:02:36 > 0:02:39Here's what Anna Soubry had to say to Newsnight's Nick Watt.
0:02:39 > 0:02:44Labour's front bench is itself ideological.
0:02:44 > 0:02:47My front bench probably isn't, but it's in hoc to 35 hard,
0:02:47 > 0:02:50ideological Brexiteers, who are not Tories.
0:02:50 > 0:02:53They're not the Tory party that I joined 40 years ago.
0:02:53 > 0:02:56And it's about time Theresa stood up to them and slung them out.
0:02:56 > 0:02:59Because they've taken down Major, they took down Cameron,
0:02:59 > 0:03:05two great leaders.
0:03:05 > 0:03:07Neither of whom stood up to them.
0:03:07 > 0:03:10Well, if it comes to it, I'm not going to stay in a party
0:03:10 > 0:03:13which has been taken over by the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg
0:03:13 > 0:03:14and Boris Johnson.
0:03:14 > 0:03:15They're not proper Conservatives.
0:03:15 > 0:03:17If that means leaving the party, form some new alliance,
0:03:17 > 0:03:20God knows, I don't know, but we just simply cannot go
0:03:20 > 0:03:24on like this any longer.
0:03:24 > 0:03:26Something is going to have to give, because if it doesn't,
0:03:26 > 0:03:29not only will we get Jacob Rees-Mogg as our Prime Minister,
0:03:29 > 0:03:32we'll get a devastating hard Brexit, which will cause huge
0:03:32 > 0:03:34damage to our economy, for generations to come.
0:03:34 > 0:03:37And I'm not prepared to sit by any longer and put
0:03:37 > 0:03:41up with this nonsense.
0:03:41 > 0:03:48And we're joined now by Conservative Brexiteer, Peter Bone.
0:03:48 > 0:03:52Welcome back to the Daily Politics. First of all, just Dean, after
0:03:52 > 0:03:58seeing that film and your colleague Anna Soubry's comments, has she gone
0:03:58 > 0:04:01too far?I'd anything she particularly wants to see people
0:04:01 > 0:04:04slung out of the party but what she was expressing was a real
0:04:04 > 0:04:08frustration that was triggered by the Sunday papers and a suggestion
0:04:08 > 0:04:12on the front of the Sunday Times that somehow there was a bit of a
0:04:12 > 0:04:17cabal forming on the pretext of Brexit. But fundamentally forming to
0:04:17 > 0:04:21destabilise and undermine our Prime Minister, Theresa May. For a lot of
0:04:21 > 0:04:25us who feel like we are a party that needs to be focused on delivering
0:04:25 > 0:04:31for the British people,
0:04:32 > 0:04:33for the British people, getting us through the period of Brexit, making
0:04:33 > 0:04:37sure we get all of the opportunities that can bring us to be a successful
0:04:37 > 0:04:39country on the other side of it, I want to see us become a country
0:04:39 > 0:04:41where we have equality of opportunity. That's what people want
0:04:41 > 0:04:46to see us focused on. There's a real frustration that there may be some
0:04:46 > 0:04:49people within the Parliamentary party who have other agendas that
0:04:49 > 0:04:54are not focused on the British people.Do you share the frustration
0:04:54 > 0:05:00of Anna Soubry's? With the coverage you have just talked about, of a
0:05:00 > 0:05:05Brexiteer trio, if you like, taking over the government. Boris Johnson,
0:05:05 > 0:05:11Jacob Rees-Mogg and Michael Gove.I do share that frustration. Everybody
0:05:11 > 0:05:17in our party needs to be focused on putting at the front of our mind's
0:05:17 > 0:05:20navigating Britain through Brexit. We are the party in government and
0:05:20 > 0:05:26we should be focused on them and not ourselves. We need to work as a team
0:05:26 > 0:05:29of people in government to make sure we deliver for our country. That's
0:05:29 > 0:05:34what the public expect to see. Right, but you don't agree with Anna
0:05:34 > 0:05:38Soubry when she called for people like that to be slung out of the
0:05:38 > 0:05:43party?Not really because of thing gives a broad church. People like
0:05:43 > 0:05:47myself and Peter, we are friends. There's room for everyone in our
0:05:47 > 0:05:50party. We need to respect the very different opinions people have on
0:05:50 > 0:05:55Brexit. They are different opinions because this is a hugely important
0:05:55 > 0:05:58issue for our country, is not a surprise there is a debate about how
0:05:58 > 0:06:02to do it effectively for the long-term. But I do think that it's
0:06:02 > 0:06:06a debate that has to be tempered with some reasonableness on all
0:06:06 > 0:06:12sides.Right, but who is behind the stories, debriefing, the challenge
0:06:12 > 0:06:17is to Theresa May on the Brexiteer side? You were in Cabinet with the
0:06:17 > 0:06:22likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Do you think they are behind
0:06:22 > 0:06:26it?I've no idea, actually. I'm sure if you talk to the Sunday Times they
0:06:26 > 0:06:30won't reveal where that story came from. But what I do know is that
0:06:30 > 0:06:34actually as a party we need to pull together. Frankly, we need to have a
0:06:34 > 0:06:38debate is that we need to have off-line. It's not helpful to have
0:06:38 > 0:06:42them in public. -- we need to have any debates that we need to have. We
0:06:42 > 0:06:49need to deliver for this country. Was it wise for Downing Street to
0:06:49 > 0:06:52respond, putting out a definitive statement ahead of this week's
0:06:52 > 0:06:56Brexit cabinet committee saying that we are categorically ruling out
0:06:56 > 0:07:03being in not just the customs union that a customs union? -- but a
0:07:03 > 0:07:06customs union.If we are going to have a Brexit that works for the
0:07:06 > 0:07:11long term and is sustainable, represent a very young constituency
0:07:11 > 0:07:15in London that heavily voted to remain. We've got to make sure it's
0:07:15 > 0:07:20pitched in a way that the broad general population can buy into.
0:07:20 > 0:07:24Right, was that a mistake, that was not brought in the terms that you
0:07:24 > 0:07:28see it?A lot of people voted to come out of the EU. They want to see
0:07:28 > 0:07:33us get on with that decision. They recognise that it is complex. It's
0:07:33 > 0:07:38very hard to sum it up in terms of what we want as their hard Brexit or
0:07:38 > 0:07:44a soft Brexit. They want to see the government get into this second
0:07:44 > 0:07:47phase of negotiations. Helpful talks that we had yesterday with Michel
0:07:47 > 0:07:52Barnier. They want to see us approach those pragmatically. When
0:07:52 > 0:07:56people see any hint of some kind of ideology behind it, where it's more
0:07:56 > 0:08:01about how we feel then how we think, they start to get worried that we
0:08:01 > 0:08:06won't approach this with a clarity of thought that is about putting the
0:08:06 > 0:08:09country's interests first ahead of anything that relates to our party.
0:08:09 > 0:08:12Has Downing Street restricted the government's options with that
0:08:12 > 0:08:18statement?I hope not. I think we have a variety of agreements with
0:08:18 > 0:08:22countries around the world on all sorts of things. Whether it's on
0:08:22 > 0:08:27climate change, the UN and Nato. We should be a country that regularly
0:08:27 > 0:08:31collaborates with other countries and goes into partnerships when it's
0:08:31 > 0:08:35in our national interest. That's precisely how we should approach
0:08:35 > 0:08:38this second phase in negotiations with the European Union. We have to
0:08:38 > 0:08:42put our country's interests first, we have to be pragmatic and sensible
0:08:42 > 0:08:47and have a night on the future will stop in making sure that this is an
0:08:47 > 0:08:50outcome that is sustainable for everyone in the country -- we have
0:08:50 > 0:08:55to have an eye on the future. There are those that are happy and those
0:08:55 > 0:08:59that are unhappy about what happens. We need to go somewhere together.
0:08:59 > 0:09:02That needs to be sustainable post-Brexit.Right, that's
0:09:02 > 0:09:06compromised. Were you happy with that statement when it came out? Did
0:09:06 > 0:09:10you celebrate the fact that Downing Street said we would categorically
0:09:10 > 0:09:14be out of any customs union?Good afternoon. 416 days before we come
0:09:14 > 0:09:21out of this dreadful European Union, I am 100% behind the Prime Minister
0:09:21 > 0:09:24and government. They are getting on and negotiating and succeeding. What
0:09:24 > 0:09:29was said was no different to the policy... It was always. You could
0:09:29 > 0:09:33not be in the customs union and do separate free trade deals with other
0:09:33 > 0:09:36countries, therefore we would never be in the customs union.Right, but
0:09:36 > 0:09:44you are one of the 35 Brexiteers... I am not!You are in the group of
0:09:44 > 0:09:47Brexiteers that Anna Soubry is referring to unless she told you
0:09:47 > 0:09:52otherwise. Are you a real conservative?First of all, I am not
0:09:52 > 0:09:58part of any group. I don't know... You spoke to Anna Soubry and she was
0:09:58 > 0:10:01referring to you?She said there is a group and as far as I'm aware
0:10:01 > 0:10:06there is no group and I'm not part of any group. I am a Conservative,
0:10:06 > 0:10:09Justin and I have been friends since we won the candidates together.
0:10:09 > 0:10:15There are differences of opinion --
0:10:15 > 0:10:20. I'm sorry if that is breaking news.I think we have noticed that.
0:10:20 > 0:10:22There are differences of opinion within the Labour Party. We
0:10:22 > 0:10:26delegated a decision whether we stayed in and whether we came out of
0:10:26 > 0:10:30the British people. They decided we should come out. I actually don't...
0:10:30 > 0:10:34I think the Conservative Party in the Commons is more united than
0:10:34 > 0:10:41ever. Whether you voted for leave or remain, most MPs accepted you
0:10:41 > 0:10:44support what the British people have decided.Are you celebrating in the
0:10:44 > 0:10:50way that Peter can't wait to leave this dreadful EU superstate?I think
0:10:50 > 0:10:54Peter's right, actually, there is a broad consensus around the
0:10:54 > 0:10:59Parliamentary party about getting on with this but doing it...But there
0:10:59 > 0:11:02is no consensus, is there?Some of the soundings off we have heard is
0:11:02 > 0:11:06not representative of where the broad parametric party is at the
0:11:06 > 0:11:10moment. For most people watching this, that they complete sideshow,
0:11:10 > 0:11:13they want to see us focused on being a party in government and
0:11:13 > 0:11:17delivering. Not just on Brexit but on a much more important, long-term
0:11:17 > 0:11:22domestic agenda.But the reason they are sounding off and the reason it
0:11:22 > 0:11:25is open season is because that there is a lack of leadership at the top.
0:11:25 > 0:11:30If Theresa May took the advice of Anna Soubry and got a spine, as she
0:11:30 > 0:11:35put it, would there be the same sort of civil war breaking out?You can't
0:11:35 > 0:11:40say Civil War!I'm putting this to Justine and then I will put it to
0:11:40 > 0:11:43you.I tend to agree with Peter.
0:11:46 > 0:11:49Every single Prime Minister will always have people in their
0:11:49 > 0:11:52Parliamentary party who are happy to run to a journalist and say that
0:11:52 > 0:11:56they think that the Prime Minister is doing a terrible job, that they
0:11:56 > 0:12:00are not the right person. It was the same for David Cameron, it was the
0:12:00 > 0:12:04same for John Major and it's the same in the Labour Party as well. In
0:12:04 > 0:12:10a way, this is the nature of the beast for any Prime Minister.
0:12:10 > 0:12:13We need to back up Theresa May as she gets on with this incredibly
0:12:13 > 0:12:17challenging job and that is what people want to see.What was your
0:12:17 > 0:12:21reaction to Anna Soubry's comments about people being slung out of the
0:12:21 > 0:12:27party? Is she showing loyalty?Anna is entitled to say whatever she
0:12:27 > 0:12:30likes. She was having a fairly bad day. One of the problems in politics
0:12:30 > 0:12:36is there is too much personal abuse. Justine and myself, we've had death
0:12:36 > 0:12:40threats. For colleagues to attack other colleagues is unhelpful but I
0:12:40 > 0:12:43defend her right to say whatever she wants to an Brexit. But she to
0:12:43 > 0:12:47accept the fact that the decision was made by the British people.Do
0:12:47 > 0:12:51you fear she might leave the party if Theresa May doesn't get a grip of
0:12:51 > 0:12:59the situation as she I can't speak for Anna but I don't think she will,
0:12:59 > 0:13:02she is a very passionate person and that is what you see.That is a good
0:13:02 > 0:13:05thing. I am absolutely sure she will remain part of our Conservative
0:13:05 > 0:13:09Party. I certainly hope so.One of the things she said would make her
0:13:09 > 0:13:12leave the party is if the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg were to lead it
0:13:12 > 0:13:16sometime in the future. Could you be in a party led by Jacob Rees-Mogg?
0:13:16 > 0:13:20LAUGHTER One of the things I have learned as
0:13:20 > 0:13:25a minister was not to answer hypothetical questions. We have a
0:13:25 > 0:13:29Prime Minister, we have a leader, there is not a leadership contest.
0:13:29 > 0:13:32But I thought being liberated from being a minister, you can answer
0:13:32 > 0:13:37questions like that, can you imagine being in a party led by someone like
0:13:37 > 0:13:42Jacob Rees-Mogg?That might be a bit of a stretch. Admittedly. But what
0:13:42 > 0:13:47matters to me in any of those circumstances is what my own
0:13:47 > 0:13:51community thinks and who they feel is right. But we have a Prime
0:13:51 > 0:13:53Minister.Do you think Jacob Rees-Mogg could become Prime
0:13:53 > 0:13:58Minister?I suppose it could but I think we have an excellent Prime
0:13:58 > 0:14:01Minister. I take the view that she will deliver a superb Brexit and
0:14:01 > 0:14:05lead us into the next general election. I would serve under
0:14:05 > 0:14:09whoever is leader of the Conservative Party. I've always been
0:14:09 > 0:14:12a Conservative and I will stay a Conservative, whether I particularly
0:14:12 > 0:14:15liked a leader or not. As long as the leader has been selected
0:14:15 > 0:14:20properly then I will support them.I think that goes broadly for the
0:14:20 > 0:14:24Parliamentary party and many activists. We are all people who
0:14:24 > 0:14:27have campaigned and served under a number of leaders of our party over
0:14:27 > 0:14:31the years. In practice, that will remain the case going forward, I'm
0:14:31 > 0:14:33sure.Thank you.
0:14:33 > 0:14:35And for more reporting and analysis of Brexit,
0:14:35 > 0:14:40check out the BBC News website, that's BBC.co.uk/Brexit.
0:14:40 > 0:14:42Now, the Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, has announced
0:14:42 > 0:14:45that the company that runs the East Coast Mainline,
0:14:45 > 0:14:48which operates trains to Scotland and the North of England,
0:14:48 > 0:14:50will hand the franchise back to the Department of Transport
0:14:50 > 0:14:53in the next few months and the rail line could end
0:14:53 > 0:14:54up being nationalised.
0:14:54 > 0:14:58This is the third time a franchise company has failed
0:14:58 > 0:15:00to complete its terms on the East Coast main line.
0:15:00 > 0:15:06GNER, part of the Sea Containers conglomerate, failed in 2007.
0:15:06 > 0:15:09The franchise was taken over by National Express
0:15:09 > 0:15:13but they defaulted in 2009.
0:15:13 > 0:15:16The East Coast main line was taken into public ownership under
0:15:16 > 0:15:20Gordon Brown's Labour government.
0:15:20 > 0:15:23And its term as a publically-owned railway route was extended under
0:15:23 > 0:15:25the Coalition government until 2015, when it was returned
0:15:25 > 0:15:28to private ownership.
0:15:28 > 0:15:31Virgin Trains East Coast, an operator owned 90% by Stagecoach
0:15:31 > 0:15:36and 10% by Virgin has run the route since 2015.
0:15:36 > 0:15:40But yesterday, Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said
0:15:40 > 0:15:44the company had overbid and the franchise could once again
0:15:44 > 0:15:47become "directly operated by the Department for Transport",
0:15:47 > 0:15:49a plan supported by the Labour Party who want to renationalise
0:15:49 > 0:15:53the East Coast main line as well as all railways across the UK.
0:15:53 > 0:16:00The East Coast Mainline franchise was taken into public ownership
0:16:06 > 0:16:09This is what Chris Grayling said in the common just today.
0:16:09 > 0:16:10It's very straightforward.
0:16:10 > 0:16:12Stagecoach got its numbers wrong, they overbid
0:16:12 > 0:16:13and it is now paying a price.
0:16:13 > 0:16:15Now, contrary to widespread speculation and rumours,
0:16:15 > 0:16:18no deal has been done on this railway and I have not yet made
0:16:18 > 0:16:21a decision on the success operator to run the East Coast Railway
0:16:21 > 0:16:23until the longer-term plans for the integration of track
0:16:23 > 0:16:25and train can begin in 2020.
0:16:25 > 0:16:27There is no question of anyone receiving a bailout.
0:16:27 > 0:16:29Stagecoach will be held to all of its contractual
0:16:29 > 0:16:30obligations in full.
0:16:30 > 0:16:36We're joined now by the Shadow Transport Secretary, Andy McDonald.
0:16:36 > 0:16:40Justine Greening, this is the first time the east Coast franchise as
0:16:40 > 0:16:44failed under private ownership, is it time to renationalise the route?
0:16:44 > 0:16:50I don't think it is, it is time to look at what value for money
0:16:50 > 0:16:53operation on the east coast looks like, clearly.The holder of the
0:16:53 > 0:16:56franchise has found it impossible to make any money in relation to how
0:16:56 > 0:17:02much they are spending on running it and actually it has become untenable
0:17:02 > 0:17:06to continue doing that. That is an underlying fact the government needs
0:17:06 > 0:17:12to look at in relation to what we see on that line in passengers and
0:17:12 > 0:17:14investment, what is the best route and value for money approach to
0:17:14 > 0:17:18making sure we can deliver that and that it doesn't cost the earth for
0:17:18 > 0:17:23the taxpayer and they get a great service.Should renationalisation be
0:17:23 > 0:17:28part of that equation?It is coming under direct ownership and running
0:17:28 > 0:17:34of the government and I think that probably gives a sensible time, I
0:17:34 > 0:17:37think for the Department for Transport to look at what is the
0:17:37 > 0:17:41best way to have a viable, successful east coast franchise. If
0:17:41 > 0:17:46you look at the customer satisfaction ratings, they are very
0:17:46 > 0:17:50good. Clearly, in terms of the financial viability, there is much
0:17:50 > 0:17:54more that needs to be understood in terms of how you get something more
0:17:54 > 0:17:57sustainable in the running of a particular railway line.Chris
0:17:57 > 0:18:02Grayling says Stagecoach got its figures wrong, so do you throw out
0:18:02 > 0:18:08the whole model of the way franchises are wrong?Yes, the
0:18:08 > 0:18:12franchise model is completely and utterly broken. This is the third
0:18:12 > 0:18:17time it has gone belly up in 10-year is. On their own rules, this is a
0:18:17 > 0:18:22failed system. We were told this was the highest quality bid the DFT had
0:18:22 > 0:18:28seen and look where we are. Stagecoach scurry wrong, but what
0:18:28 > 0:18:33with the DFT doing accepting a bid that has failed spectacularly.Let's
0:18:33 > 0:18:38put that to a former Transport Secretary. It is the Department's
0:18:38 > 0:18:43fault as well? If they know the company has over bid, you have to
0:18:43 > 0:18:48accept it?You have to ask the Department for Transport officials.
0:18:48 > 0:18:52But it is difficult when you are looking at a future bid to run
0:18:52 > 0:18:58something to have a sense of the risks around it with total accuracy.
0:18:58 > 0:19:05Even if it has failed three times? It has shown clearly, as Chris
0:19:05 > 0:19:08Grayling said, an overambitious bid by a consortium that wanted to run
0:19:08 > 0:19:14it. In the end they have lost money on it, whilst also having paid to
0:19:14 > 0:19:19themselves £1 billion back to the DFT since 2015. That is why they are
0:19:19 > 0:19:23setting back. But there is a much more important question, how do you
0:19:23 > 0:19:28make sure you get a properly running, affective, value for money
0:19:28 > 0:19:32train service on a key railway line that serves millions of passengers
0:19:32 > 0:19:38every year?Labour will say, not the way it is being run at the moment.
0:19:38 > 0:19:42That doesn't mean their alternative is better.We will come to that in a
0:19:42 > 0:19:47moment but you said it is officials who need to scrutinise these beds
0:19:47 > 0:19:49but ministers must take responsibility for these failures,
0:19:49 > 0:19:56not just civil servants?It is different in this case, the way the
0:19:56 > 0:19:59bidding process works, ministers have this step back from it, so
0:19:59 > 0:20:05there is absolutely no hint of any political interference or
0:20:05 > 0:20:10ministerial avoidance. It is vital officials effectively kick the tires
0:20:10 > 0:20:16are what they present to ministers is a properly vetted proposal.It
0:20:16 > 0:20:20sounds convenient from the ministerial point of view.I don't
0:20:20 > 0:20:27think it is.Ministers never take responsibility for decisions made in
0:20:27 > 0:20:32their name.In the end ministers are responsible, whichever element of
0:20:32 > 0:20:37the public services we are talking about, people expect government to
0:20:37 > 0:20:41be accountable. It doesn't matter who is running for it. It isn't
0:20:41 > 0:20:46ideal for ministers, but that is how the process currently works.Andy
0:20:46 > 0:20:50Macdonald, let's look at the renationalisation proposal Labour is
0:20:50 > 0:20:54putting forward. You say it will be better, it will be more effective,
0:20:54 > 0:21:00how?First of all, there is no risk or competition in the current
0:21:00 > 0:21:05system. That is what we were promised. There has been direct
0:21:05 > 0:21:09award after direct award, there was no competition and no risk. Virgin
0:21:09 > 0:21:14and Stagecoach got it wrong, but they were given an extension. There
0:21:14 > 0:21:19is something very wrong. But it will work better, if we take these
0:21:19 > 0:21:23franchises back into public ownership and run them. I agree with
0:21:23 > 0:21:27Chris Grayling, we should unite track and train but we should do it
0:21:27 > 0:21:31in a nationalised industry.Why would it be better value for money
0:21:31 > 0:21:36and more efficient?It will remove the inefficient and failed
0:21:36 > 0:21:41franchising system from the process, which is immensely costly. It will
0:21:41 > 0:21:44remove the fragmentation and the duplication of costs and it won't be
0:21:44 > 0:21:50paying out dividends to all the state owned companies across Europe.
0:21:50 > 0:21:54The dividends will not be paid out, they will be brought back into
0:21:54 > 0:21:58invest in the railway and provide better fares for the travelling
0:21:58 > 0:22:05public. Are you convinced? I am not, the taxpayer got £1 billion back
0:22:05 > 0:22:08into the DFT because of this franchise. It is one of the reasons
0:22:08 > 0:22:14that the companies run it haven't found it very profitable. None of it
0:22:14 > 0:22:17changes the underlying question, which is how do we make sure we have
0:22:17 > 0:22:22an East Coast railway that is viable financially, delivering for its
0:22:22 > 0:22:26passengers and a great service and how much is it going to cost?By
0:22:26 > 0:22:32putting it into public ownership.We have had a time when the railways
0:22:32 > 0:22:36were nationalised and that was a very long time ago. But what we know
0:22:36 > 0:22:41from that period is the railways did not operate effectively. There was a
0:22:41 > 0:22:46huge amount of waste and it is quite simplistic to say that moving
0:22:46 > 0:22:51towards that approach again will simply solve these problems.Is it
0:22:51 > 0:22:55ideological because Andy Macdonald, Labour says nationalisation is the
0:22:55 > 0:22:59answer to everything and they haven't explored, you haven't
0:22:59 > 0:23:02explored the full costs and figures for some of the nationalisation
0:23:02 > 0:23:08project figures you are proposing. Is it a case, in your mind, it is
0:23:08 > 0:23:12that sure all, whether it is the trains, energy companies, water,
0:23:12 > 0:23:18Royal Mail, come what may you are not prepared to entertain any other
0:23:18 > 0:23:23way to run these big services?The risks are negligible. The
0:23:23 > 0:23:28inefficiency in the railway system is huge. The McNulty report said it
0:23:28 > 0:23:31was 40% more inefficient than it European competitors. It is
0:23:31 > 0:23:35perfectly proper we don't play Russian roulette with our transport
0:23:35 > 0:23:40system. We should have the Probation Service, the prisons. It is a
0:23:40 > 0:23:43nonsense to have these key, public services in private hands for people
0:23:43 > 0:23:47to extract value and make profits. They are too important for that and
0:23:47 > 0:23:53they should be in public ownership. You feel the same about companies
0:23:53 > 0:23:58like Carillion running our public services and today, former
0:23:58 > 0:24:01executives at the company Carillion were at the business select
0:24:01 > 0:24:06committee and the chair challenge the former finance director about
0:24:06 > 0:24:10preparations.
0:24:10 > 0:24:14Do you think you were asleep at the wheel, you were surprised and you
0:24:14 > 0:24:18could have done something different? I don't believe we were asleep at
0:24:18 > 0:24:28the wheel. We were looking to tackle the issues and the key focus from my
0:24:28 > 0:24:33time in the role was to bring net debt down.You feel in the nine
0:24:33 > 0:24:37months you were in the business, you did the right things at the right
0:24:37 > 0:24:48time?I believe I did everything I could have done, essentially. That
0:24:48 > 0:24:52aside, we said at the outset we would look to reduce that. In the
0:24:52 > 0:24:57context of that, there is a lengthy debate around the dividends in
0:24:57 > 0:25:02January, February.We will come on to that shortly. Four months after
0:25:02 > 0:25:10you left the company, went into liquidation
0:25:11 > 0:25:13liquidation with £29 million left, leaving thousands of people
0:25:13 > 0:25:17potentially without jobs and thousands of people saving for their
0:25:17 > 0:25:20pensions without the pensions they expected, but you did everything at
0:25:20 > 0:25:26the right time, well done.Is it convincing hearing the former
0:25:26 > 0:25:30executive of a company like Carillion which has now gone bust,
0:25:30 > 0:25:34putting jobs and pensions of thousands of workers at risk when
0:25:34 > 0:25:38dividends are still being paid and shareholders were still rewarding
0:25:38 > 0:25:42themselves pay rises in the final few months and the government had
0:25:42 > 0:25:46had profit warnings around the company. Is it convincing that model
0:25:46 > 0:25:53now is finished?Carillion had a business model about providing
0:25:53 > 0:25:56services, not just for the government but for many companies in
0:25:56 > 0:26:03the private sector as well. There are two main issues. One is the
0:26:03 > 0:26:08people affected by Carillion's failure, whether they are people who
0:26:08 > 0:26:11depend on public services, help deliver schools, hospitals and a
0:26:11 > 0:26:18whole range of areas. Also the pensioners, and people who had jobs
0:26:18 > 0:26:22at Carillion, including 1400 apprentices...Should the government
0:26:22 > 0:26:26have continue to offer them more contracts when they have the profit
0:26:26 > 0:26:30warnings?It was right to look at the financial viability. The
0:26:30 > 0:26:35contracts that were offered the part of bigger consortiums that have the
0:26:35 > 0:26:39risk that one of the consortium partners might fail managed and the
0:26:39 > 0:26:43others would step in. The bottom line is, the local government and
0:26:43 > 0:26:49Leeds City Council was also giving them contracts. It is one issue.
0:26:49 > 0:26:53There is the second, bigger issue around corporate governance and how
0:26:53 > 0:26:59Carillion got to this place. The issue you raised around dividends
0:26:59 > 0:27:02and debt, the directors and the decisions they themselves for
0:27:02 > 0:27:07taking. It is quite right that government has asked for a proper
0:27:07 > 0:27:11enquiry and investigation into this before any further pay-outs are
0:27:11 > 0:27:17made. Frankly, I think many people will look on what has happened at
0:27:17 > 0:27:23Carillion and see it as a very bad example how companies have been
0:27:23 > 0:27:27badly managed.At least the taxpayer didn't have to bail out Carillion in
0:27:27 > 0:27:32that sense, it is a private company that was allowed to go bust, isn't
0:27:32 > 0:27:37that the system working properly? Let's see how the consequences roll
0:27:37 > 0:27:43out in hospitals, education... Public services have been able to
0:27:43 > 0:27:49continue uninterrupted.The point being, when you let a contract for a
0:27:49 > 0:28:01major piece of infrastructure such as HS2 it is best to have a
0:28:01 > 0:28:04contingency for any eventuality but when the hedge fund managers are
0:28:04 > 0:28:08raking it in by millions, betting on the demise of it, they got it right.
0:28:08 > 0:28:13They understood the company was going down the tubes. To persevere
0:28:13 > 0:28:17was reckless and negligent.So companies like that shouldn't be
0:28:17 > 0:28:22able to run public services?Are we going to learn lessons from this?
0:28:22 > 0:28:27Should they do have been anywhere near this contract given what was
0:28:27 > 0:28:33known at the time. I asked Chris Grayling at the time Lotty confident
0:28:33 > 0:28:38about the stability of this company and he said it was worth prevailing
0:28:38 > 0:28:46with. It was a catastrophic error. We will leave it there. Thank you.
0:28:46 > 0:28:48Now, picture the scene: the Leader of the Free World Donald Trump
0:28:48 > 0:28:51was in bed yesterday, watching one of his favourite TV
0:28:51 > 0:28:52programmes, Fox and Friends.
0:28:52 > 0:28:54They were covering an NHS rally that happened in London
0:28:54 > 0:28:55over the weekend...
0:28:55 > 0:28:58Then Nigel Farage, the well-known media pundit who's very much
0:28:58 > 0:29:00admired by Donald Trump, pops up to say that the NHS
0:29:00 > 0:29:02is under pressure because of too much immigration.
0:29:02 > 0:29:06So far, so predictable, but guess what happened next?
0:29:06 > 0:29:09Donald Trump took to Twitter of course,
0:29:09 > 0:29:12as he often does while lying in bed, to say:
0:29:19 > 0:29:23As you can imagine that caused quite a stir on this side of the pond...
0:29:23 > 0:29:31The Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt tweeted this in response:
0:29:34 > 0:29:38And that sentiment was echoed across the political spectrum...
0:29:38 > 0:29:44The Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn said Donald Trump was:
0:29:48 > 0:29:50And the issue was also addressed in the House
0:29:50 > 0:29:52of Commons yesterday by the Shadow Health Secretary,
0:29:52 > 0:29:53Labour's Jonathan Ashworth.
0:29:53 > 0:29:56Let's take a look...
0:29:56 > 0:29:58On Saturday, thousands of us took to the streets
0:29:58 > 0:30:00to demand a fully funded, universal public
0:30:00 > 0:30:02National Health Service.
0:30:02 > 0:30:04And, by the way, we'll take no lessons from Donald Trump,
0:30:04 > 0:30:06who wants to deny health care to millions
0:30:06 > 0:30:11with a system that checks your purse before it checks your pulse.
0:30:11 > 0:30:13The NHS model isn't broke, but it does need funding.
0:30:13 > 0:30:16If this government won't give it the funding it needs,
0:30:16 > 0:30:21then the next Labour government will.
0:30:21 > 0:30:24And joining me now is Mike Tanner, a senior fellow
0:30:24 > 0:30:26at the Cato Institute, which is a free-market think tank
0:30:26 > 0:30:29based in Washington DC.
0:30:32 > 0:30:35Welcome to the programme. As you heard, hopefully, politicians across
0:30:35 > 0:30:39the political spectrum in the UK are very keen to condemn the American
0:30:39 > 0:30:43system and say it's much worse than the British NHS model, are they
0:30:43 > 0:30:50right?The fact is, the US system has a great many problems. Although
0:30:50 > 0:30:54the US system is hardly the wild west of free-market systems that I
0:30:54 > 0:30:58think that many in the UK believe, more than half of health care
0:30:58 > 0:31:01spending in the United States comes from the federal government. Most of
0:31:01 > 0:31:04the rest of health care spending is subsidised by the government in some
0:31:04 > 0:31:11way. The entire system is radiated from the top down. So, there's very
0:31:11 > 0:31:14little actual free-market competition in the US system.Right,
0:31:14 > 0:31:19but the Labour Shadow Health Secretary John Ashworth says that in
0:31:19 > 0:31:22America, the basic principle is you check your purse before they check
0:31:22 > 0:31:26your pulse. The Conservative Health Secretary German Jeremy Hunt says no
0:31:26 > 0:31:30one wants to live under a system where 28 million people have no
0:31:30 > 0:31:34cover. -- Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Those are fair points.
0:31:34 > 0:31:39Everybody in the United States has at least emergency care. The poorest
0:31:39 > 0:31:42in the United States have government subsidised health care through our
0:31:42 > 0:31:45Medicaid system. There are certainly problems with some people not being
0:31:45 > 0:31:48able to afford health care. That is simply giving people a piece of
0:31:48 > 0:31:54paper that says everyone has health care and no guaranteed access isn't
0:31:54 > 0:31:58a solution. In the UK access to specialty care is often delayed far
0:31:58 > 0:32:01too long. That means that many of the outcomes are not as good as they
0:32:01 > 0:32:05otherwise could be.Outcomes is one thing but access is another. In
0:32:05 > 0:32:09terms of access, there are many reports around the world that says
0:32:09 > 0:32:13the NHS is the best health care system, certainly, compared to the
0:32:13 > 0:32:17US.In terms of access, it all depends on what you mean by access.
0:32:17 > 0:32:22Do you have access to specialty care or initial care? Outcomes is what
0:32:22 > 0:32:26health care is about. In terms of Council survival rates, the UK does
0:32:26 > 0:32:31not do nearly as well.-- cancer survival rates. Justine Greening,
0:32:31 > 0:32:35why are politicians here so sensitive about criticism about the
0:32:35 > 0:32:40NHS?I think the NHS is something that we all rely on for our health
0:32:40 > 0:32:46care. It is quite an intrinsic part of what our country is. In a sense,
0:32:46 > 0:32:49how we feel about the fact that it shouldn't matter who you are, you
0:32:49 > 0:32:53can have access to health care. You referred to what I think is the
0:32:53 > 0:32:58Commonwealth fund reported that the OECD commissioned. That said the NHS
0:32:58 > 0:33:03also has better health outcomes overall.There are other reports
0:33:03 > 0:33:06that say our outcomes aren't as good in terms of delivery on things like
0:33:06 > 0:33:11cancer care survival rates. Absolutely. I don't think anybody is
0:33:11 > 0:33:15saying that the NHS is perfect. That's the debate we are having in
0:33:15 > 0:33:18our country at the moment, how can we catch up on some of the areas
0:33:18 > 0:33:22that we need to and make sure that it can do as well in the 21st
0:33:22 > 0:33:25century for our country as its been able to do in the 20th century.Was
0:33:25 > 0:33:31it right for Jeremy Hunt to respond to Donald Trump on the NHS?I think
0:33:31 > 0:33:35Donald Trump is a man who routinely tweets. He is president of the
0:33:35 > 0:33:41United States. At the moment. He will continue to tweets after he
0:33:41 > 0:33:44stops being president.Shouldn't Jeremy Hunt have risen above it?I
0:33:44 > 0:33:48think it is up to Jeremy Hunt he wants to respond. I don't think any
0:33:48 > 0:33:51of us should be particularly surprised the Donald Trump continues
0:33:51 > 0:33:55to tweet. I have no doubt that ruck will be able to report in future
0:33:55 > 0:34:00programmes on more Donald Trump tweets -- that the Daily Politics
0:34:00 > 0:34:04will be able.You heard what Mike Tanner says, there is criticism
0:34:04 > 0:34:09about the NHS, the British health care system. Are you saying that
0:34:09 > 0:34:12politically, they cannot take that sort of criticism or at least feed
0:34:12 > 0:34:17it into the debate about how to improve the NHS?Donald Trump will
0:34:17 > 0:34:21do his tweets. The most important thing is the debate that we have
0:34:21 > 0:34:26here in the United Kingdom about what kind of NHS we want, how we can
0:34:26 > 0:34:30make sure it remains accessible and free at the point of delivery.
0:34:30 > 0:34:33Fundamentally, Howard also adapts to the fact that people are living
0:34:33 > 0:34:37longer, we can treat people for more things -- how it also adapts. That
0:34:37 > 0:34:41costs more money. We need an NHS that is properly funded and
0:34:41 > 0:34:44effective in providing treatment for people who rely on it. Which is
0:34:44 > 0:34:49basically all of us.Mike, how do US politicians broadly view the NHS
0:34:49 > 0:34:52here?
0:34:52 > 0:34:56The NHS is something of a bogeyman in the United States. We think of
0:34:56 > 0:35:02the NHS and equate with rationing and poor care. Some of which is
0:35:02 > 0:35:05driven by horror stories not particularly true all that often are
0:35:05 > 0:35:09exaggerated. But the fact is that the NHS is a model for how that
0:35:09 > 0:35:12simply spending more money will not yield better outcomes. You have
0:35:12 > 0:35:18essentially doubled in the last two decades the percent of health care
0:35:18 > 0:35:22spending of percentage of GDP in the UK. During the period when you are
0:35:22 > 0:35:25raising that, in the last Labour government, you saw almost no
0:35:25 > 0:35:30increases in efficiency or improvement in outcomes. If not a
0:35:30 > 0:35:33case of simply spending more money. No, but you spend a lot more money
0:35:33 > 0:35:39in the US, don't you? As you say, in terms of access and am some areas of
0:35:39 > 0:35:42delivery, it doesn't actually prove to be a winning health system -- and
0:35:42 > 0:35:46in some areas.Spending more money is not always the answer. Although I
0:35:46 > 0:35:50will say that the US spends more money largely because our larger GDP
0:35:50 > 0:35:55per capita. We're pretty much exactly where you predict. Health
0:35:55 > 0:35:59care economists would say it is a superior good, as your incomes rise
0:35:59 > 0:36:05as a country, you spend more money on it.The former Conservative
0:36:05 > 0:36:08Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, said the NHS is the closest thing the English
0:36:08 > 0:36:12people have too a religion. Do you agree?I don't think we do political
0:36:12 > 0:36:17religion, but it is pretty close to that. I think it is because it is so
0:36:17 > 0:36:20fundamental. You can't have a healthy economy unless you have
0:36:20 > 0:36:24healthy people. The debate we are having right now focuses on three
0:36:24 > 0:36:30areas. One, how can the NHS cope with the fluctuations Michael
0:36:30 > 0:36:34Winter?Does it need to put in more money? How does it need to cope with
0:36:34 > 0:36:38more underlying issues and we can be treated for longer and for more?And
0:36:38 > 0:36:43how do you tilt it too was focusing on prevention. As a health care
0:36:43 > 0:36:46system, fundamentally it works efficiently. That is not just in
0:36:46 > 0:36:50terms of money but it keeps people healthier so we don't have so many
0:36:50 > 0:36:55people getting unnecessary diseases and treatment.You heard from Mike
0:36:55 > 0:36:59Tanner that money isn't necessarily the silver bullet, what about Nigel
0:36:59 > 0:37:02Farage saying that the system is creaking because of high levels of
0:37:02 > 0:37:08immigration.
0:37:08 > 0:37:12immigration.The NHS's challenges are far more fundamental. We have a
0:37:12 > 0:37:17growing population in this country, irrespective of the immigration
0:37:17 > 0:37:21pressures. The fact that we are leaving the EU means that we will
0:37:21 > 0:37:24have full control over levels of immigration coming into our country
0:37:24 > 0:37:30in the future. That's a simple distraction, frankly, from the more
0:37:30 > 0:37:34complex challenges that the NHS faces.Is he right, has he got a
0:37:34 > 0:37:39point?We have had a lot of immigration into the UK, but I don't
0:37:39 > 0:37:43particularly feel that that is the key to unlocking how the NHS needs
0:37:43 > 0:37:46to reform, going forward. To make sure that it remains a National
0:37:46 > 0:37:51Health Service that all of us can rely on.Is for Donald Trump to use
0:37:51 > 0:37:57our NHS to beat up the Democrats in America?Politically, it's very
0:37:57 > 0:38:01helpful but Donald Trump will have a new tweet, a new tantrum tomorrow.
0:38:01 > 0:38:05And go to another issue. It will not sustain the political debate for
0:38:05 > 0:38:12very long. Both the US and UK health systems could benefit from a healthy
0:38:12 > 0:38:15degree of free-market competition that both are lacking.Do you agree
0:38:15 > 0:38:22with that?Not really, no. I think we have a sensible model in the UK.
0:38:24 > 0:38:29It is broadly value for money.Even though the Tories are the great
0:38:29 > 0:38:33champions of free-market?We actually passed an NHS bill that
0:38:33 > 0:38:36absolutely limited any Secretary of State's ability to privatise the
0:38:36 > 0:38:39NHS. It was a Conservative government that did that. We have a
0:38:39 > 0:38:43good model. It is about how it adapts and evolves to the challenges
0:38:43 > 0:38:45we face today.Thank you.
0:38:45 > 0:38:48Now, Theresa May is expected to use a speech marking the centenary
0:38:48 > 0:38:51of women being given the right to vote, to warn that public debate
0:38:51 > 0:38:53is "coarsening" and that it poses a "threat to democracy".
0:38:53 > 0:38:56The Prime Minister will tell an audience in Manchester this
0:38:56 > 0:38:58afternoon that social media companies must do more to tackle
0:38:58 > 0:39:02online abuse and intimidation.
0:39:02 > 0:39:04For more on this let's go to Elizabeth Glinka
0:39:04 > 0:39:06who's on College Green.
0:39:06 > 0:39:11It's pretty busy down here, this morning because of the Hundred years
0:39:11 > 0:39:17since women won the right to vote. You can see behind me lots of our
0:39:17 > 0:39:21colleagues chatting behind me. A bit more glamorising than normally
0:39:21 > 0:39:26because of Katie Price, the former glamour model here today to speak to
0:39:26 > 0:39:31MPs about a petition she has raised with over 200,000 names calling for
0:39:31 > 0:39:36abuse online to become a specific offence in law. Katie, this is a
0:39:36 > 0:39:40personal thing for you, isn't it. For those who don't know, tell me
0:39:40 > 0:39:46why you are doing this.It all started with my son, Harvey, who has
0:39:46 > 0:39:48complex partial disability needs and the matter racial abuse it gets, he
0:39:48 > 0:39:54gets mocked for his disabilities, people have done videos on him, you
0:39:54 > 0:39:59name it. He can't speak to defend himself, I can. I've had two people
0:39:59 > 0:40:03arrested by the police stopped they took it as far as they could but
0:40:03 > 0:40:05could not charge them with anything because there is absolutely nothing
0:40:05 > 0:40:08in place. I thought I needed to do something about this which is why
0:40:08 > 0:40:12I'm here today. It is not just people with disabilities, it could
0:40:12 > 0:40:15be anyone, gay, straight, in the workplace, teacher, teenager,
0:40:15 > 0:40:18anything. Something needs to be done about it. There is nothing in place
0:40:18 > 0:40:22whatsoever. I will fight as much as I can to online abuse into a
0:40:22 > 0:40:25criminal offence.People are aware there is a dark side to social
0:40:25 > 0:40:30media. And that there is abuse online. How dark is some of the
0:40:30 > 0:40:36stuff that you have had to face as a family?If anyone is Skuse I am
0:40:36 > 0:40:40freezing. Everyone is allowed freedom of speech. People know when
0:40:40 > 0:40:43you cross the line. Something needs to be done. I couldn't even say on
0:40:43 > 0:40:48here now things that are said about Harvey. It's absolutely atrocious.
0:40:48 > 0:40:53People shouldn't get away with it. If someone said it live like us now,
0:40:53 > 0:40:56you would get in trouble but because it is online and written down,
0:40:56 > 0:41:01people don't seem to take it as serious when it is.What about that
0:41:01 > 0:41:06argument of free speech? Some people will say, that stuff is awful, but
0:41:06 > 0:41:10we have to allow people to say even awful things, because that is part
0:41:10 > 0:41:13of our democracy.Absolutely. You are allowed freedom of speech, of
0:41:13 > 0:41:16course you can say things that people don't agree with. But I can't
0:41:16 > 0:41:19say it on here, but there are certain things that maybe when I
0:41:19 > 0:41:23say, why don't you go and die, things like this, "Why don't you
0:41:23 > 0:41:27kill yourself, I don't like the colour of your skin?" I can't say
0:41:27 > 0:41:31that, you are not allowed to say that. We would have to discover at
0:41:31 > 0:41:36which level do you charge people. -- have to discuss.Abuse online is
0:41:36 > 0:41:40widespread and it happens to people in all walks of life, including in
0:41:40 > 0:41:45politics. What impact has it had on you and your family, on Harvey's
0:41:45 > 0:41:48brothers and sisters?It affects the kids. I have five children and the
0:41:48 > 0:41:52kids are fully aware that they only pick on Harvey. Why? They know that
0:41:52 > 0:41:55he is different. They don't understand why they don't pick on
0:41:55 > 0:41:59them and they pick on Harvey. They want to see something done just as
0:41:59 > 0:42:02much as ours.You will speak to MPs, to this committee this afternoon.
0:42:02 > 0:42:07What message are you going to be trying to drive home.I am counting
0:42:07 > 0:42:11on them to put a good case together and believe in me and take it to the
0:42:11 > 0:42:15next step. So that it is a discussion in government. But I
0:42:15 > 0:42:18can't understand, if no one believes in this, they are morals, no heart,
0:42:18 > 0:42:25no soul. I don't see why anyone would not want to push this. It can
0:42:25 > 0:42:28affect anyone, even MPs have been affected by it.That is something
0:42:28 > 0:42:32that Theresa May, the Prime Minister, is expected to be speaking
0:42:32 > 0:42:35about this afternoon. Katie Price, thank you very much.Thank you.
0:42:35 > 0:42:38Katie will be giving evidence to that committee of MPs this
0:42:38 > 0:42:43afternoon.We can turn into ice cubes now!LAUGHTER
0:42:43 > 0:42:47We are thawing in the studio. Thank you.
0:42:47 > 0:42:50What should Theresa May do about the sort of cases like Katie Price and
0:42:50 > 0:42:54what she has talked about in terms of trolling online?I admire Katie
0:42:54 > 0:42:59Price, she is quite right to raise all of these issues. Effectively,
0:42:59 > 0:43:02what we are seeing is the internet revolution continuing to challenge
0:43:02 > 0:43:06every single aspect of our lives. In this case, the real question is, we
0:43:06 > 0:43:10have a whole load of things that are illegal off-line. But we now have an
0:43:10 > 0:43:14online world and we need to look at what does that mean for the online
0:43:14 > 0:43:18world.Should new laws be brought in to limit what people can say online?
0:43:18 > 0:43:21I don't think it's a question of limiting what people can say, it is
0:43:21 > 0:43:28simply about having the same bars of what is acceptable online as we have
0:43:28 > 0:43:31off-line.How would you enact that? I am not a lawyer. I would make sure
0:43:31 > 0:43:36that we get some lawyers to look at how you understand how incitement of
0:43:36 > 0:43:39hatred and all of those existing laws we have can work in an online
0:43:39 > 0:43:46world. I think that's a process that we need to go through. What you get
0:43:46 > 0:43:50out of that will be that I'm going to hope some sensible proposals that
0:43:50 > 0:43:53tackle the kind of thing that Katie Price and her family have had to put
0:43:53 > 0:43:57up with, which is totally unacceptable... MPs have a abuse as
0:43:57 > 0:43:59well.
0:44:00 > 0:44:04We all experience it to some extent, some more than others. But none of
0:44:04 > 0:44:07it is acceptable. If we want a healthy democracy, it does mean
0:44:07 > 0:44:11people being able to put their point of view, without having to worry
0:44:11 > 0:44:15about a torrent of abuse that will come back at them.Let's leave it
0:44:15 > 0:44:16there.
0:44:16 > 0:44:19So, it's 100 years since the representation of the people act
0:44:19 > 0:44:21gave some women over 30 the vote for the first time.
0:44:21 > 0:44:24It also extended the franchise so most men in the UK could vote.
0:44:24 > 0:44:26Suffragettes and the less militant suffragists
0:44:26 > 0:44:29fought their battles across the UK, but one of the front-lines
0:44:29 > 0:44:30was parliament itself.
0:44:30 > 0:44:33Here's Ellie Price.
0:44:34 > 0:44:38By the time women were granted the vote in 1918, the women's
0:44:38 > 0:44:40suffrage movement had been going on for more than 50 years.
0:44:40 > 0:44:44While, of course, there were numerous significant moments
0:44:44 > 0:44:49within that struggle, a good number of them happened
0:44:49 > 0:44:55right here in Parliament.
0:44:55 > 0:44:58So, we're standing here in central lobby next to the grills.
0:44:58 > 0:45:01Now, the grills, 150 years ago, they weren't here in central
0:45:01 > 0:45:03lobby, they were covering windows in the ladies' gallery.
0:45:03 > 0:45:06So, in those days, women couldn't sit with men in the public gallery,
0:45:06 > 0:45:09they were in the ladies' gallery which was on the other
0:45:09 > 0:45:13side of the chamber, high up above the speaker's chair.
0:45:13 > 0:45:16And the grills covered the window, in order to stop the MPs seeing
0:45:16 > 0:45:18the women watching them.
0:45:18 > 0:45:22And on the 20th of October 1908, two suffragettes
0:45:22 > 0:45:25from the Women's Freedom League, chained themselves to the grill
0:45:25 > 0:45:28as part of a protest.
0:45:28 > 0:45:31The Parliamentary authorities rushed in, couldn't immediately
0:45:31 > 0:45:34get them off the grill, so they took the whole
0:45:34 > 0:45:36thing off the window, frogmarched the suffragettes out,
0:45:36 > 0:45:38still attached to the grill, and sawed them off in
0:45:38 > 0:45:39a committee room nearby.
0:45:39 > 0:45:42The grills were then put back in the ladies' gallery
0:45:42 > 0:45:43and they stayed there until 1917.
0:45:43 > 0:45:45The Parliamentary authorities got very worried about suffragettes
0:45:45 > 0:45:46shackling themselves to things, didn't they?
0:45:46 > 0:45:47That's right.
0:45:47 > 0:45:50As a direct result of the grill incident, parliament then
0:45:50 > 0:45:51bought these, the porter's easy bolt clippers.
0:45:51 > 0:45:54And these were then used afterwards when suffragettes did things
0:45:54 > 0:45:55like chained themselves to statues.
0:45:55 > 0:45:57And they are still kept by the principal doorkeeper
0:45:57 > 0:46:04for possible use today.
0:46:04 > 0:46:06And this became the new front line, didn't it?
0:46:06 > 0:46:09Absolutely.
0:46:09 > 0:46:11So, once women were banned from central lobby, they ended up
0:46:11 > 0:46:15here in St Stephen's where they used to sit and wait for their MPs,
0:46:15 > 0:46:17or go to meetings or see proceedings in the chamber.
0:46:17 > 0:46:18And something happened here.
0:46:18 > 0:46:19Yeah.
0:46:19 > 0:46:21In June, 1909, a suffragette called Marion Wallace Dunlop
0:46:21 > 0:46:24was sitting somewhere here near the statue of Chatham.
0:46:24 > 0:46:26When no-one was looking, she got out an ink pad
0:46:26 > 0:46:29from underneath her cloak and she stamped
0:46:29 > 0:46:30a slogan on the wall.
0:46:30 > 0:46:33It was an extract from the Bill of Rights about the right
0:46:33 > 0:46:36to petition the King and an advert for a suffragette meeting.
0:46:36 > 0:46:38The police quickly arrested her, bundled her out.
0:46:38 > 0:46:40She went to prison and then she went on hunger strike,
0:46:40 > 0:46:42the first suffragettes to go on hunger strike.
0:46:42 > 0:46:50Because of this incident right here in the House of Commons.
0:46:53 > 0:47:01So, where have you brought me now?
0:47:01 > 0:47:04Well, why don't you open the door and we'll have a look.
0:47:04 > 0:47:06So, we're in the chapel of St Mary Undercroft
0:47:06 > 0:47:07to visit the broom cupboard.
0:47:07 > 0:47:09This is a place where Emily Wilding Davison,
0:47:09 > 0:47:11the suffragette, hid overnight on census night in April 1911.
0:47:11 > 0:47:14She crept down here, the evening before, spent the night
0:47:14 > 0:47:17here in the freezing cold and dark and then was found in the morning by
0:47:17 > 0:47:19a cleaner and then they let her go.
0:47:19 > 0:47:22Her census form does indeed record that she was found
0:47:22 > 0:47:24hiding in the crypt of Westminster Hall since Saturday.
0:47:24 > 0:47:26And, of course, she died for her cause.
0:47:26 > 0:47:27Yes, she became a suffragette martyr.
0:47:27 > 0:47:30She was killed following action at the Epsom derby in 1913.
0:47:30 > 0:47:32This is the last spot on our tour.
0:47:32 > 0:47:33St Stephen's entrance.
0:47:33 > 0:47:36100 years ago, this used to be the main entrance into Parliament.
0:47:36 > 0:47:38A century on, there's an artwork commemorating the work
0:47:38 > 0:47:42of the women's suffrage movement and it's called New Dawn.
0:47:42 > 0:47:45The discs that depict the scrolls of the Acts of Parliament written
0:47:45 > 0:47:47in its place light up slowly, depending on the tide
0:47:47 > 0:47:54of the Thames outside.
0:47:54 > 0:47:56And like the decades-long campaign they celebrate,
0:47:56 > 0:47:57nothing changes quickly.
0:47:57 > 0:48:00But the lights never go out.
0:48:00 > 0:48:08We're joined now by the feminist writer, Julie Bindel.
0:48:09 > 0:48:14Justine, you worthy qualities minister, first openly gay woman in
0:48:14 > 0:48:17the cabinet, how far has Britain come in the last 100 years in terms
0:48:17 > 0:48:23of gender equality?I think we have come a long way. It is fantastic to
0:48:23 > 0:48:27see more women than ever before in Parliament. But there is a long way
0:48:27 > 0:48:32to go, we are no way close to having a 50-50 parliament that would
0:48:32 > 0:48:36broadly represent the gender split in our country. Parliament has to be
0:48:36 > 0:48:42more diverse when you look at the numbers of BME parliamentarians,
0:48:42 > 0:48:46people from disabilities, it is not just about gender, Parliament needs
0:48:46 > 0:48:49to be a place that really does represent everyone in our country
0:48:49 > 0:49:00and I think
0:49:01 > 0:49:05we have got a long way to go on that. Having said that, this is a
0:49:05 > 0:49:07brilliant time to celebrate how far we have come and we should be proud
0:49:07 > 0:49:10of that. But there is one thing you can man from the suffragettes'
0:49:10 > 0:49:13campaign is that it took decades so this has to be stuck up for the
0:49:13 > 0:49:16long-term.Why has progress been so slow?It is easy to see why the
0:49:16 > 0:49:20suffragettes are revered now, but they were hated and treated like
0:49:20 > 0:49:25some at the time. Particularly today, those more radical feminists,
0:49:25 > 0:49:30they are called Nazis, because invading Poland is the same as
0:49:30 > 0:49:36wanting the same qualities as men! We have had where women have been
0:49:36 > 0:49:40fighting, there has never not been a women's liberation movement. We have
0:49:40 > 0:49:46to look at the backlash and what men have to lose if we do free ourselves
0:49:46 > 0:49:53from the shackles of our oppression. It is not a quality it is about
0:49:53 > 0:49:57overcoming the oppression in society.One thing that has divided
0:49:57 > 0:50:03society to some extent is the driving force for changing the
0:50:03 > 0:50:13gender recognition act. Why do you think it has caused division?It is
0:50:13 > 0:50:19massively sensitive and I think it is important we look at how the
0:50:19 > 0:50:24gender recognition act has already been in operation for ten years. We
0:50:24 > 0:50:28simply say, can we improve how it works? Probably under 400 people a
0:50:28 > 0:50:34year who get a gender recognition certificate. It is important to keep
0:50:34 > 0:50:40this in context as well. But what struck me as we began the debate as
0:50:40 > 0:50:45to what is the right way to review this, is the very different views
0:50:45 > 0:50:50from women's groups but also in the transgender community.You wanted a
0:50:50 > 0:50:55change in the law to make it easier? We wanted to review the gender
0:50:55 > 0:51:00recognition act, it came in 2004 and see other ways it could be improved
0:51:00 > 0:51:05for the transgender community but do it in a way that genuinely brought
0:51:05 > 0:51:09everyone with it on an issue that is hugely sensitive to lots of
0:51:09 > 0:51:14different people.You are sensitive about this issue and it has divided
0:51:14 > 0:51:21feminists on both sides of this argument, why?Because women are a
0:51:21 > 0:51:24protected sex class and that protection will go. Girls and women,
0:51:24 > 0:51:29those that are used as female, we have oppression to overcome, we grow
0:51:29 > 0:51:37up as girls and we suffer sexual violence, out of proportion to the
0:51:37 > 0:51:42violence men suffer, and that the perpetrators are men. If we lose
0:51:42 > 0:51:48that sex class, it is meaningless. There is no such thing being born as
0:51:48 > 0:51:53agenda, we are born with a set of expectations imposed on us that
0:51:53 > 0:51:59massively disadvantaged girls and privilege boys. You cannot just
0:51:59 > 0:52:02decide to have gender recognition surgery because you cannot take a
0:52:02 > 0:52:06knife to a social construct that is imposed on us. Women will lose our
0:52:06 > 0:52:12rights, it is not about the rights of transgender people not having
0:52:12 > 0:52:17rights, it is half of the population.Do you accept that when
0:52:17 > 0:52:21you are calling for a consultation on the reform of the act to make it
0:52:21 > 0:52:26more streamlined and the medical lives, which is what is worrying
0:52:26 > 0:52:32people like Chouly?We were saying it was time, after having ten years
0:52:32 > 0:52:37of the gender recognition act as to how it was working, respond to some
0:52:37 > 0:52:40of the concerns from the transgender community as to how we can improve
0:52:40 > 0:52:45it. There is a recognition we needed to deal with it sensitively with a
0:52:45 > 0:52:52measured approach. The work, I am sure that is continuing government
0:52:52 > 0:52:57was hopefully aimed at that and try to steer our way to something that
0:52:57 > 0:53:04is complicated and sensitive but do it sensitively let's
0:53:07 > 0:53:11it sensitively let's look at #METTO campaign and Germaine Greer said she
0:53:11 > 0:53:18criticises the campaign and it is tantamount to consent.Jermaine Gray
0:53:18 > 0:53:20has done some wonderful things for the movement but this is not one of
0:53:20 > 0:53:27them. People get together to talk about how they are a victim of
0:53:27 > 0:53:32domestic violence, yes I have been raped. It didn't start in Hollywood
0:53:32 > 0:53:36or from the top-down, it started from the bottom up.Do you support
0:53:36 > 0:53:48the campaign that been running? Absolutely, there has never not been
0:53:48 > 0:53:52a #METOO campaign. Women are a social class that experience these
0:53:52 > 0:53:56things because of our oppression, not because we are victims or
0:53:56 > 0:54:01enjoyed being victims and not because boys are born bad. It is
0:54:01 > 0:54:06nothing natural about this, it is to do with power.But is the debate
0:54:06 > 0:54:11vilifying all men saying men are bad and women are good?I don't think
0:54:11 > 0:54:16so, it is saying there is a long way to go on gender equality. There is
0:54:16 > 0:54:22still an issue in terms of violence against women. The only point I
0:54:22 > 0:54:26would make, some of the most powerful advocates for women have
0:54:26 > 0:54:31been the men I have met. I would love to see more male MPs in
0:54:31 > 0:54:35Parliament coming forward and standing up against things like the
0:54:35 > 0:54:41president and say, if I had been there, I would have walked out. It
0:54:41 > 0:54:46is hugely powerful for the other half of the British public, in other
0:54:46 > 0:54:51words, blokes to say, we want this to change. Overwhelmingly, I think
0:54:51 > 0:54:56they do. If you are a man watching this and this is how you feel, say
0:54:56 > 0:55:00it. You will get a huge amount of support from lots of people.Thank
0:55:00 > 0:55:03you for coming in.
0:55:03 > 0:55:06Now hunger strikes were of course a prominent feature
0:55:06 > 0:55:07of the Suffragette's struggle.
0:55:07 > 0:55:09Today, MPs and political activists are using the anniversary
0:55:09 > 0:55:11to highlight another cause - proportional representation.
0:55:11 > 0:55:13They say they are going on hunger strike to demand
0:55:13 > 0:55:14"votes that matter".
0:55:14 > 0:55:16Amongst them is the Labour MP, Stephen Kinnock,
0:55:16 > 0:55:21who is on College Green.
0:55:21 > 0:55:24Is this really a proportionate response when we have just been
0:55:24 > 0:55:29talking about votes for women, 100 years celebrating the fact some
0:55:29 > 0:55:33women got the vote, you are going on hunger strike over proportional
0:55:33 > 0:55:39representation?We are striking a small blow for the calls we believe
0:55:39 > 0:55:43in, we want to draw more attention to this important issue. It is a
0:55:43 > 0:55:48cross-party campaign which is drawing on the fact that in the 2017
0:55:48 > 0:55:52election, 68% of the votes cast didn't count for anything. We are in
0:55:52 > 0:55:56an absurd situation where we have a disproportionate system that leads
0:55:56 > 0:56:01to poor outcomes. Only around about 106, the so-called swing seat is
0:56:01 > 0:56:06what makes the difference in elections and that skews the whole
0:56:06 > 0:56:11way our political system works. We have seen the unedifying spectacle
0:56:11 > 0:56:14of the infighting in the Cabinet that our political system is broken.
0:56:14 > 0:56:18We need more transparency and we need a system where every vote
0:56:18 > 0:56:24counts, otherwise we are going to be getting more and more into the
0:56:24 > 0:56:26unbalanced and skewed economic outcomes for people and that is what
0:56:26 > 0:56:32is toxic.I thought this was about proportional representation, but
0:56:32 > 0:56:35which style of proportional representation will end your hunger
0:56:35 > 0:56:42strike?Proportional representation is it what delivers the that support
0:56:42 > 0:56:47for our country. It is not just for anoraks and the discussion about a
0:56:47 > 0:56:50particular system, it is fundamentally you get the economy
0:56:50 > 0:56:55you deserve through the voting system. What we need to do is have
0:56:55 > 0:56:58all the parties that are committed to proportional representation
0:56:58 > 0:57:04having this in their manifesto. If we secure a parliamentary majority,
0:57:04 > 0:57:08we should implement a constitutional convention and deliver a new system
0:57:08 > 0:57:12of reform. There is no need for a referendum, it is something that
0:57:12 > 0:57:16should be delivered through manifesto commitments.Damian Green
0:57:16 > 0:57:22has said this hunger strike is just a diet, what do you say?I am not
0:57:22 > 0:57:26claiming we are making the sacrifices women made 100 years ago,
0:57:26 > 0:57:31but the fact is, if we weren't doing it, I wouldn't be on the TV talking
0:57:31 > 0:57:36to you. We are looking to draw attention to this important issue,
0:57:36 > 0:57:40it is a cross-party initiative about striking a blow for democracy. We
0:57:40 > 0:57:46are taking our inspiration from what the suffragettes did. They made
0:57:46 > 0:57:50profound and radical change for democracy and it is a work in
0:57:50 > 0:57:54process, the system is broken and needs to be fixed.Justine Greening,
0:57:54 > 0:58:01are you going to join this hunger strike or diet, or 24 hour fast with
0:58:01 > 0:58:05Stephen Kinnock?No, the way to make our system fair is get on with the
0:58:05 > 0:58:09boundary view which is going to Mimi had broadly the same amount of
0:58:09 > 0:58:17voters in each constituency. Some MPs have voted in with 40,000 votes
0:58:17 > 0:58:22electorate. Others have up to 100,000. The Labour Party should
0:58:22 > 0:58:27support that. I happen to think the local link between an MP and their
0:58:27 > 0:58:30local community is one of the best bits of our politics and I think you
0:58:30 > 0:58:35undermine that at your peril. Quickly, when will you be breaking
0:58:35 > 0:58:40the fast?I will be having dinner with friends at 8pm this evening. I
0:58:40 > 0:58:45am looking forward to that very much.You will be starving by then.
0:58:45 > 0:58:47That's all for today.
0:58:47 > 0:58:48Thanks to our guests.
0:58:48 > 0:58:51The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.
0:58:51 > 0:58:53Andrew will be here for live coverage of Prime Minister's
0:58:53 > 0:58:55Questions tomorrow at 11:30am, do join him then.
0:58:55 > 0:58:57Bye bye.