06/02/2018 Daily Politics

It's 100 years since Parliament

passed a law giving some women the

vote for the very first time. As we

celebrate this important milestone,

we'll be asking how much real

progress has been made.

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

The government is in hoc to "hard

Brexiteers" who should be

"slung out of the party"

says Anna Soubry.

Is the leading Conservative Remainer

on the verge of leaving

the party herself?

The East Coast mainline

could be nationalised

after the private operator reveals

it's losing millons.

Has railway privatisation failed?

The Prime Minister calls

for a crackdown on online

abuse against women.

We'll hear from Katie Price

about the abuse she and her

family have suffered.

And we're taken on a tour of one

of the front lines in the battle

for votes for women,

the Palace of Westminster.

This is the place where Emily

Wilding Davison, the suffragette,

hid overnight on census

night, in April 1911.

All that in the next hour

and with us today as we celebrate

100 years of votes for women

is Justine Greening,

a trailblazer in many ways.

The first comprehensively-educated

Education Secretary and the first

openly gay female Cabinet minister,

she left her job in last month's

reshuffle, of course, after refusing

another Cabinet position.

But she has agreed to take up

position in our studio

for the next hour.

Welcome to the programme.

Thank you for having me.

Now, the discord in

the Conservative Party has

grown louder this morning

after the leading Tory

Remainer, Anna Soubry,

said that the government needed

to stand up to 35 or so "hard

Brexiteers" who should be

"slung out" of the party

by Theresa May.

Her call comes after Downing Street

confirmed on Sunday night

that the UK would not be

in "the Customs Union" or "a Customs

union" after Brexit.

Here's what Anna Soubry had to say

to Newsnight's Nick Watt.

Labour's front bench

is itself ideological.

My front bench probably isn't,

but it's in hoc to 35 hard,

ideological Brexiteers,

who are not Tories.

They're not the Tory party that

I joined 40 years ago.

And it's about time Theresa stood up

to them and slung them out.

Because they've taken down Major,

they took down Cameron,

two great leaders.

Neither of whom stood up to them.

Well, if it comes to it,

I'm not going to stay in a party

which has been taken over

by the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg

and Boris Johnson.

They're not proper Conservatives.

If that means leaving the party,

form some new alliance,

God knows, I don't know,

but we just simply cannot go

on like this any longer.

Something is going to have to give,

because if it doesn't,

not only will we get Jacob Rees-Mogg

as our Prime Minister,

we'll get a devastating hard Brexit,

which will cause huge

damage to our economy,

for generations to come.

And I'm not prepared to sit

by any longer and put

up with this nonsense.

And we're joined now by

Conservative Brexiteer, Peter Bone.

Welcome back to the Daily Politics.

First of all, just Dean, after

seeing that film and your colleague

Anna Soubry's comments, has she gone

too far?

I'd anything she

particularly wants to see people

slung out of the party but what she

was expressing was a real

frustration that was triggered by

the Sunday papers and a suggestion

on the front of the Sunday Times

that somehow there was a bit of a

cabal forming on the pretext of

Brexit. But fundamentally forming to

destabilise and undermine our Prime

Minister, Theresa May. For a lot of

us who feel like we are a party that

needs to be focused on delivering

for the British people,

for the British people, getting us

through the period of Brexit, making

sure we get all of the opportunities

that can bring us to be a successful

country on the other side of it, I

want to see us become a country

where we have equality of

opportunity. That's what people want

to see us focused on. There's a real

frustration that there may be some

people within the Parliamentary

party who have other agendas that

are not focused on the British

people.

Do you share the frustration

of Anna Soubry's? With the coverage

you have just talked about, of a

Brexiteer trio, if you like, taking

over the government. Boris Johnson,

Jacob Rees-Mogg and Michael Gove.

I

do share that frustration. Everybody

in our party needs to be focused on

putting at the front of our mind's

navigating Britain through Brexit.

We are the party in government and

we should be focused on them and not

ourselves. We need to work as a team

of people in government to make sure

we deliver for our country. That's

what the public expect to see.

Right, but you don't agree with Anna

Soubry when she called for people

like that to be slung out of the

party?

Not really because of thing

gives a broad church. People like

myself and Peter, we are friends.

There's room for everyone in our

party. We need to respect the very

different opinions people have on

Brexit. They are different opinions

because this is a hugely important

issue for our country, is not a

surprise there is a debate about how

to do it effectively for the

long-term. But I do think that it's

a debate that has to be tempered

with some reasonableness on all

sides.

Right, but who is behind the

stories, debriefing, the challenge

is to Theresa May on the Brexiteer

side? You were in Cabinet with the

likes of Boris Johnson and Michael

Gove. Do you think they are behind

it?

I've no idea, actually. I'm sure

if you talk to the Sunday Times they

won't reveal where that story came

from. But what I do know is that

actually as a party we need to pull

together. Frankly, we need to have a

debate is that we need to have

off-line. It's not helpful to have

them in public. -- we need to have

any debates that we need to have. We

need to deliver for this country.

Was it wise for Downing Street to

respond, putting out a definitive

statement ahead of this week's

Brexit cabinet committee saying that

we are categorically ruling out

being in not just the customs union

that a customs union? -- but a

customs union.

If we are going to

have a Brexit that works for the

long term and is sustainable,

represent a very young constituency

in London that heavily voted to

remain. We've got to make sure it's

pitched in a way that the broad

general population can buy into.

Right, was that a mistake, that was

not brought in the terms that you

see it?

A lot of people voted to

come out of the EU. They want to see

us get on with that decision. They

recognise that it is complex. It's

very hard to sum it up in terms of

what we want as their hard Brexit or

a soft Brexit. They want to see the

government get into this second

phase of negotiations. Helpful talks

that we had yesterday with Michel

Barnier. They want to see us

approach those pragmatically. When

people see any hint of some kind of

ideology behind it, where it's more

about how we feel then how we think,

they start to get worried that we

won't approach this with a clarity

of thought that is about putting the

country's interests first ahead of

anything that relates to our party.

Has Downing Street restricted the

government's options with that

statement?

I hope not. I think we

have a variety of agreements with

countries around the world on all

sorts of things. Whether it's on

climate change, the UN and Nato. We

should be a country that regularly

collaborates with other countries

and goes into partnerships when it's

in our national interest. That's

precisely how we should approach

this second phase in negotiations

with the European Union. We have to

put our country's interests first,

we have to be pragmatic and sensible

and have a night on the future will

stop in making sure that this is an

outcome that is sustainable for

everyone in the country -- we have

to have an eye on the future. There

are those that are happy and those

that are unhappy about what happens.

We need to go somewhere together.

That needs to be sustainable

post-Brexit.

Right, that's

compromised. Were you happy with

that statement when it came out? Did

you celebrate the fact that Downing

Street said we would categorically

be out of any customs union?

Good

afternoon. 416 days before we come

out of this dreadful European Union,

I am 100% behind the Prime Minister

and government. They are getting on

and negotiating and succeeding. What

was said was no different to the

policy... It was always. You could

not be in the customs union and do

separate free trade deals with other

countries, therefore we would never

be in the customs union.

Right, but

you are one of the 35 Brexiteers...

I am not!

You are in the group of

Brexiteers that Anna Soubry is

referring to unless she told you

otherwise. Are you a real

conservative?

First of all, I am not

part of any group. I don't know...

You spoke to Anna Soubry and she was

referring to you?

She said there is

a group and as far as I'm aware

there is no group and I'm not part

of any group. I am a Conservative,

Justin and I have been friends since

we won the candidates together.

There are differences of opinion --

. I'm sorry if that is breaking

news.

I think we have noticed that.

There are differences of opinion

within the Labour Party. We

delegated a decision whether we

stayed in and whether we came out of

the British people. They decided we

should come out. I actually don't...

I think the Conservative Party in

the Commons is more united than

ever. Whether you voted for leave or

remain, most MPs accepted you

support what the British people have

decided.

Are you celebrating in the

way that Peter can't wait to leave

this dreadful EU superstate?

I think

Peter's right, actually, there is a

broad consensus around the

Parliamentary party about getting on

with this but doing it...

But there

is no consensus, is there?

Some of

the soundings off we have heard is

not representative of where the

broad parametric party is at the

moment. For most people watching

this, that they complete sideshow,

they want to see us focused on being

a party in government and

delivering. Not just on Brexit but

on a much more important, long-term

domestic agenda.

But the reason they

are sounding off and the reason it

is open season is because that there

is a lack of leadership at the top.

If Theresa May took the advice of

Anna Soubry and got a spine, as she

put it, would there be the same sort

of civil war breaking out?

You can't

say Civil War!

I'm putting this to

Justine and then I will put it to

you.

I tend to agree with Peter.

Every single Prime Minister will

always have people in their

Parliamentary party who are happy to

run to a journalist and say that

they think that the Prime Minister

is doing a terrible job, that they

are not the right person. It was the

same for David Cameron, it was the

same for John Major and it's the

same in the Labour Party as well. In

a way, this is the nature of the

beast for any Prime Minister.

We need to back up Theresa May as

she gets on with this incredibly

challenging job and that is what

people want to see.

What was your

reaction to Anna Soubry's comments

about people being slung out of the

party? Is she showing loyalty?

Anna

is entitled to say whatever she

likes. She was having a fairly bad

day. One of the problems in politics

is there is too much personal abuse.

Justine and myself, we've had death

threats. For colleagues to attack

other colleagues is unhelpful but I

defend her right to say whatever she

wants to an Brexit. But she to

accept the fact that the decision

was made by the British people.

Do

you fear she might leave the party

if Theresa May doesn't get a grip of

the situation as she I can't speak

for Anna but I don't think she will,

she is a very passionate person and

that is what you see.

That is a good

thing. I am absolutely sure she will

remain part of our Conservative

Party. I certainly hope so.

One of

the things she said would make her

leave the party is if the likes of

Jacob Rees-Mogg were to lead it

sometime in the future. Could you be

in a party led by Jacob Rees-Mogg?

LAUGHTER

One of the things I have learned as

a minister was not to answer

hypothetical questions. We have a

Prime Minister, we have a leader,

there is not a leadership contest.

But I thought being liberated from

being a minister, you can answer

questions like that, can you imagine

being in a party led by someone like

Jacob Rees-Mogg?

That might be a bit

of a stretch. Admittedly. But what

matters to me in any of those

circumstances is what my own

community thinks and who they feel

is right. But we have a Prime

Minister.

Do you think Jacob

Rees-Mogg could become Prime

Minister?

I suppose it could but I

think we have an excellent Prime

Minister. I take the view that she

will deliver a superb Brexit and

lead us into the next general

election. I would serve under

whoever is leader of the

Conservative Party. I've always been

a Conservative and I will stay a

Conservative, whether I particularly

liked a leader or not. As long as

the leader has been selected

properly then I will support them.

I

think that goes broadly for the

Parliamentary party and many

activists. We are all people who

have campaigned and served under a

number of leaders of our party over

the years. In practice, that will

remain the case going forward, I'm

sure.

Thank you.

And for more reporting

and analysis of Brexit,

check out the BBC News

website, that's BBC.co.uk/Brexit.

Now, the Transport Secretary,

Chris Grayling, has announced

that the company that runs

the East Coast Mainline,

which operates trains to Scotland

and the North of England,

will hand the franchise back

to the Department of Transport

in the next few months

and the rail line could end

up being nationalised.

This is the third time

a franchise company has failed

to complete its terms

on the East Coast main line.

GNER, part of the Sea Containers

conglomerate, failed in 2007.

The franchise was taken

over by National Express

but they defaulted in 2009.

The East Coast main line was taken

into public ownership under

Gordon Brown's Labour government.

And its term as a publically-owned

railway route was extended under

the Coalition government until 2015,

when it was returned

to private ownership.

Virgin Trains East Coast,

an operator owned 90% by Stagecoach

and 10% by Virgin has run

the route since 2015.

But yesterday, Transport

Secretary Chris Grayling said

the company had overbid

and the franchise could once again

become "directly operated

by the Department for Transport",

a plan supported by the Labour Party

who want to renationalise

the East Coast main line as well as

all railways across the UK.

The East Coast Mainline franchise

was taken into public ownership

This is what Chris Grayling said in

the common just today.

It's very straightforward.

Stagecoach got its numbers

wrong, they overbid

and it is now paying a price.

Now, contrary to widespread

speculation and rumours,

no deal has been done on this

railway and I have not yet made

a decision on the success operator

to run the East Coast Railway

until the longer-term plans

for the integration of track

and train can begin in 2020.

There is no question of anyone

receiving a bailout.

Stagecoach will be held

to all of its contractual

obligations in full.

We're joined now by the Shadow

Transport Secretary, Andy McDonald.

Justine Greening, this is the first

time the east Coast franchise as

failed under private ownership, is

it time to renationalise the route?

I don't think it is, it is time to

look at what value for money

operation on the east coast looks

like, clearly.

The holder of the

franchise has found it impossible to

make any money in relation to how

much they are spending on running it

and actually it has become untenable

to continue doing that. That is an

underlying fact the government needs

to look at in relation to what we

see on that line in passengers and

investment, what is the best route

and value for money approach to

making sure we can deliver that and

that it doesn't cost the earth for

the taxpayer and they get a great

service.

Should renationalisation be

part of that equation?

It is coming

under direct ownership and running

of the government and I think that

probably gives a sensible time, I

think for the Department for

Transport to look at what is the

best way to have a viable,

successful east coast franchise. If

you look at the customer

satisfaction ratings, they are very

good. Clearly, in terms of the

financial viability, there is much

more that needs to be understood in

terms of how you get something more

sustainable in the running of a

particular railway line.

Chris

Grayling says Stagecoach got its

figures wrong, so do you throw out

the whole model of the way

franchises are wrong?

Yes, the

franchise model is completely and

utterly broken. This is the third

time it has gone belly up in 10-year

is. On their own rules, this is a

failed system. We were told this was

the highest quality bid the DFT had

seen and look where we are.

Stagecoach scurry wrong, but what

with the DFT doing accepting a bid

that has failed spectacularly.

Let's

put that to a former Transport

Secretary. It is the Department's

fault as well? If they know the

company has over bid, you have to

accept it?

You have to ask the

Department for Transport officials.

But it is difficult when you are

looking at a future bid to run

something to have a sense of the

risks around it with total accuracy.

Even if it has failed three times?

It has shown clearly, as Chris

Grayling said, an overambitious bid

by a consortium that wanted to run

it. In the end they have lost money

on it, whilst also having paid to

themselves £1 billion back to the

DFT since 2015. That is why they are

setting back. But there is a much

more important question, how do you

make sure you get a properly

running, affective, value for money

train service on a key railway line

that serves millions of passengers

every year?

Labour will say, not the

way it is being run at the moment.

That doesn't mean their alternative

is better.

We will come to that in a

moment but you said it is officials

who need to scrutinise these beds

but ministers must take

responsibility for these failures,

not just civil servants?

It is

different in this case, the way the

bidding process works, ministers

have this step back from it, so

there is absolutely no hint of any

political interference or

ministerial avoidance. It is vital

officials effectively kick the tires

are what they present to ministers

is a properly vetted proposal.

It

sounds convenient from the

ministerial point of view.

I don't

think it is.

Ministers never take

responsibility for decisions made in

their name.

In the end ministers are

responsible, whichever element of

the public services we are talking

about, people expect government to

be accountable. It doesn't matter

who is running for it. It isn't

ideal for ministers, but that is how

the process currently works.

Andy

Macdonald, let's look at the

renationalisation proposal Labour is

putting forward. You say it will be

better, it will be more effective,

how?

First of all, there is no risk

or competition in the current

system. That is what we were

promised. There has been direct

award after direct award, there was

no competition and no risk. Virgin

and Stagecoach got it wrong, but

they were given an extension. There

is something very wrong. But it will

work better, if we take these

franchises back into public

ownership and run them. I agree with

Chris Grayling, we should unite

track and train but we should do it

in a nationalised industry.

Why

would it be better value for money

and more efficient?

It will remove

the inefficient and failed

franchising system from the process,

which is immensely costly. It will

remove the fragmentation and the

duplication of costs and it won't be

paying out dividends to all the

state owned companies across Europe.

The dividends will not be paid out,

they will be brought back into

invest in the railway and provide

better fares for the travelling

public. Are you convinced? I am not,

the taxpayer got £1 billion back

into the DFT because of this

franchise. It is one of the reasons

that the companies run it haven't

found it very profitable. None of it

changes the underlying question,

which is how do we make sure we have

an East Coast railway that is viable

financially, delivering for its

passengers and a great service and

how much is it going to cost?

By

putting it into public ownership.

We

have had a time when the railways

were nationalised and that was a

very long time ago. But what we know

from that period is the railways did

not operate effectively. There was a

huge amount of waste and it is quite

simplistic to say that moving

towards that approach again will

simply solve these problems.

Is it

ideological because Andy Macdonald,

Labour says nationalisation is the

answer to everything and they

haven't explored, you haven't

explored the full costs and figures

for some of the nationalisation

project figures you are proposing.

Is it a case, in your mind, it is

that sure all, whether it is the

trains, energy companies, water,

Royal Mail, come what may you are

not prepared to entertain any other

way to run these big services?

The

risks are negligible. The

inefficiency in the railway system

is huge. The McNulty report said it

was 40% more inefficient than it

European competitors. It is

perfectly proper we don't play

Russian roulette with our transport

system. We should have the Probation

Service, the prisons. It is a

nonsense to have these key, public

services in private hands for people

to extract value and make profits.

They are too important for that and

they should be in public ownership.

You feel the same about companies

like Carillion running our public

services and today, former

executives at the company Carillion

were at the business select

committee and the chair challenge

the former finance director about

preparations.

Do you think you were asleep at the

wheel, you were surprised and you

could have done something different?

I don't believe we were asleep at

the wheel. We were looking to tackle

the issues and the key focus from my

time in the role was to bring net

debt down.

You feel in the nine

months you were in the business, you

did the right things at the right

time?

I believe I did everything I

could have done, essentially. That

aside, we said at the outset we

would look to reduce that. In the

context of that, there is a lengthy

debate around the dividends in

January, February.

We will come on

to that shortly. Four months after

you left the company, went into

liquidation

liquidation with £29 million left,

leaving thousands of people

potentially without jobs and

thousands of people saving for their

pensions without the pensions they

expected, but you did everything at

the right time, well done.

Is it

convincing hearing the former

executive of a company like

Carillion which has now gone bust,

putting jobs and pensions of

thousands of workers at risk when

dividends are still being paid and

shareholders were still rewarding

themselves pay rises in the final

few months and the government had

had profit warnings around the

company. Is it convincing that model

now is finished?

Carillion had a

business model about providing

services, not just for the

government but for many companies in

the private sector as well. There

are two main issues. One is the

people affected by Carillion's

failure, whether they are people who

depend on public services, help

deliver schools, hospitals and a

whole range of areas. Also the

pensioners, and people who had jobs

at Carillion, including 1400

apprentices...

Should the government

have continue to offer them more

contracts when they have the profit

warnings?

It was right to look at

the financial viability. The

contracts that were offered the part

of bigger consortiums that have the

risk that one of the consortium

partners might fail managed and the

others would step in. The bottom

line is, the local government and

Leeds City Council was also giving

them contracts. It is one issue.

There is the second, bigger issue

around corporate governance and how

Carillion got to this place. The

issue you raised around dividends

and debt, the directors and the

decisions they themselves for

taking. It is quite right that

government has asked for a proper

enquiry and investigation into this

before any further pay-outs are

made. Frankly, I think many people

will look on what has happened at

Carillion and see it as a very bad

example how companies have been

badly managed.

At least the taxpayer

didn't have to bail out Carillion in

that sense, it is a private company

that was allowed to go bust, isn't

that the system working properly?

Let's see how the consequences roll

out in hospitals, education...

Public services have been able to

continue uninterrupted.

The point

being, when you let a contract for a

major piece of infrastructure such

as HS2 it is best to have a

contingency for any eventuality but

when the hedge fund managers are

raking it in by millions, betting on

the demise of it, they got it right.

They understood the company was

going down the tubes. To persevere

was reckless and negligent.

So

companies like that shouldn't be

able to run public services?

Are we

going to learn lessons from this?

Should they do have been anywhere

near this contract given what was

known at the time. I asked Chris

Grayling at the time Lotty confident

about the stability of this company

and he said it was worth prevailing

with. It was a catastrophic error.

We will leave it there. Thank you.

Now, picture the scene: the Leader

of the Free World Donald Trump

was in bed yesterday,

watching one of his favourite TV

programmes, Fox and Friends.

They were covering an NHS rally

that happened in London

over the weekend...

Then Nigel Farage, the well-known

media pundit who's very much

admired by Donald Trump,

pops up to say that the NHS

is under pressure because of

too much immigration.

So far, so predictable,

but guess what happened next?

Donald Trump took

to Twitter of course,

as he often does while lying in bed,

to say:

As you can imagine that caused quite

a stir on this side of the pond...

The Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt

tweeted this in response:

And that sentiment was echoed

across the political spectrum...

The Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn said

Donald Trump was:

And the issue was also

addressed in the House

of Commons yesterday

by the Shadow Health Secretary,

Labour's Jonathan Ashworth.

Let's take a look...

On Saturday, thousands

of us took to the streets

to demand a fully funded,

universal public

National Health Service.

And, by the way, we'll take no

lessons from Donald Trump,

who wants to deny

health care to millions

with a system that checks your purse

before it checks your pulse.

The NHS model isn't broke,

but it does need funding.

If this government won't give it

the funding it needs,

then the next Labour

government will.

And joining me now is

Mike Tanner, a senior fellow

at the Cato Institute,

which is a free-market think tank

based in Washington DC.

Welcome to the programme. As you

heard, hopefully, politicians across

the political spectrum in the UK are

very keen to condemn the American

system and say it's much worse than

the British NHS model, are they

right?

The fact is, the US system

has a great many problems. Although

the US system is hardly the wild

west of free-market systems that I

think that many in the UK believe,

more than half of health care

spending in the United States comes

from the federal government. Most of

the rest of health care spending is

subsidised by the government in some

way. The entire system is radiated

from the top down. So, there's very

little actual free-market

competition in the US system.

Right,

but the Labour Shadow Health

Secretary John Ashworth says that in

America, the basic principle is you

check your purse before they check

your pulse. The Conservative Health

Secretary German Jeremy Hunt says no

one wants to live under a system

where 28 million people have no

cover. -- Health Secretary Jeremy

Hunt. Those are fair points.

Everybody in the United States has

at least emergency care. The poorest

in the United States have government

subsidised health care through our

Medicaid system. There are certainly

problems with some people not being

able to afford health care. That is

simply giving people a piece of

paper that says everyone has health

care and no guaranteed access isn't

a solution. In the UK access to

specialty care is often delayed far

too long. That means that many of

the outcomes are not as good as they

otherwise could be.

Outcomes is one

thing but access is another. In

terms of access, there are many

reports around the world that says

the NHS is the best health care

system, certainly, compared to the

US.

In terms of access, it all

depends on what you mean by access.

Do you have access to specialty care

or initial care? Outcomes is what

health care is about. In terms of

Council survival rates, the UK does

not do nearly as well.

-- cancer

survival rates. Justine Greening,

why are politicians here so

sensitive about criticism about the

NHS?

I think the NHS is something

that we all rely on for our health

care. It is quite an intrinsic part

of what our country is. In a sense,

how we feel about the fact that it

shouldn't matter who you are, you

can have access to health care. You

referred to what I think is the

Commonwealth fund reported that the

OECD commissioned. That said the NHS

also has better health outcomes

overall.

There are other reports

that say our outcomes aren't as good

in terms of delivery on things like

cancer care survival rates.

Absolutely. I don't think anybody is

saying that the NHS is perfect.

That's the debate we are having in

our country at the moment, how can

we catch up on some of the areas

that we need to and make sure that

it can do as well in the 21st

century for our country as its been

able to do in the 20th century.

Was

it right for Jeremy Hunt to respond

to Donald Trump on the NHS?

I think

Donald Trump is a man who routinely

tweets. He is president of the

United States. At the moment. He

will continue to tweets after he

stops being president.

Shouldn't

Jeremy Hunt have risen above it?

I

think it is up to Jeremy Hunt he

wants to respond. I don't think any

of us should be particularly

surprised the Donald Trump continues

to tweet. I have no doubt that ruck

will be able to report in future

programmes on more Donald Trump

tweets -- that the Daily Politics

will be able.

You heard what Mike

Tanner says, there is criticism

about the NHS, the British health

care system. Are you saying that

politically, they cannot take that

sort of criticism or at least feed

it into the debate about how to

improve the NHS?

Donald Trump will

do his tweets. The most important

thing is the debate that we have

here in the United Kingdom about

what kind of NHS we want, how we can

make sure it remains accessible and

free at the point of delivery.

Fundamentally, Howard also adapts to

the fact that people are living

longer, we can treat people for more

things -- how it also adapts. That

costs more money. We need an NHS

that is properly funded and

effective in providing treatment for

people who rely on it. Which is

basically all of us.

Mike, how do US

politicians broadly view the NHS

here?

The NHS is something of a bogeyman

in the United States. We think of

the NHS and equate with rationing

and poor care. Some of which is

driven by horror stories not

particularly true all that often are

exaggerated. But the fact is that

the NHS is a model for how that

simply spending more money will not

yield better outcomes. You have

essentially doubled in the last two

decades the percent of health care

spending of percentage of GDP in the

UK. During the period when you are

raising that, in the last Labour

government, you saw almost no

increases in efficiency or

improvement in outcomes. If not a

case of simply spending more money.

No, but you spend a lot more money

in the US, don't you? As you say, in

terms of access and am some areas of

delivery, it doesn't actually prove

to be a winning health system -- and

in some areas.

Spending more money

is not always the answer. Although I

will say that the US spends more

money largely because our larger GDP

per capita. We're pretty much

exactly where you predict. Health

care economists would say it is a

superior good, as your incomes rise

as a country, you spend more money

on it.

The former Conservative

Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, said the

NHS is the closest thing the English

people have too a religion. Do you

agree?

I don't think we do political

religion, but it is pretty close to

that. I think it is because it is so

fundamental. You can't have a

healthy economy unless you have

healthy people. The debate we are

having right now focuses on three

areas. One, how can the NHS cope

with the fluctuations Michael

Winter?

Does it need to put in more

money? How does it need to cope with

more underlying issues and we can be

treated for longer and for more?

And

how do you tilt it too was focusing

on prevention. As a health care

system, fundamentally it works

efficiently. That is not just in

terms of money but it keeps people

healthier so we don't have so many

people getting unnecessary diseases

and treatment.

You heard from Mike

Tanner that money isn't necessarily

the silver bullet, what about Nigel

Farage saying that the system is

creaking because of high levels of

immigration.

immigration.

The NHS's challenges

are far more fundamental. We have a

growing population in this country,

irrespective of the immigration

pressures. The fact that we are

leaving the EU means that we will

have full control over levels of

immigration coming into our country

in the future. That's a simple

distraction, frankly, from the more

complex challenges that the NHS

faces.

Is he right, has he got a

point?

We have had a lot of

immigration into the UK, but I don't

particularly feel that that is the

key to unlocking how the NHS needs

to reform, going forward. To make

sure that it remains a National

Health Service that all of us can

rely on.

Is for Donald Trump to use

our NHS to beat up the Democrats in

America?

Politically, it's very

helpful but Donald Trump will have a

new tweet, a new tantrum tomorrow.

And go to another issue. It will not

sustain the political debate for

very long. Both the US and UK health

systems could benefit from a healthy

degree of free-market competition

that both are lacking.

Do you agree

with that?

Not really, no. I think

we have a sensible model in the UK.

It is broadly value for money.

Even

though the Tories are the great

champions of free-market?

We

actually passed an NHS bill that

absolutely limited any Secretary of

State's ability to privatise the

NHS. It was a Conservative

government that did that. We have a

good model. It is about how it

adapts and evolves to the challenges

we face today.

Thank you.

Now, Theresa May is expected to use

a speech marking the centenary

of women being given the right

to vote, to warn that public debate

is "coarsening" and that it poses

a "threat to democracy".

The Prime Minister will tell

an audience in Manchester this

afternoon that social media

companies must do more to tackle

online abuse and intimidation.

For more on this let's

go to Elizabeth Glinka

who's on College Green.

It's pretty busy down here, this

morning because of the Hundred years

since women won the right to vote.

You can see behind me lots of our

colleagues chatting behind me. A bit

more glamorising than normally

because of Katie Price, the former

glamour model here today to speak to

MPs about a petition she has raised

with over 200,000 names calling for

abuse online to become a specific

offence in law. Katie, this is a

personal thing for you, isn't it.

For those who don't know, tell me

why you are doing this.

It all

started with my son, Harvey, who has

complex partial disability needs and

the matter racial abuse it gets, he

gets mocked for his disabilities,

people have done videos on him, you

name it. He can't speak to defend

himself, I can. I've had two people

arrested by the police stopped they

took it as far as they could but

could not charge them with anything

because there is absolutely nothing

in place. I thought I needed to do

something about this which is why

I'm here today. It is not just

people with disabilities, it could

be anyone, gay, straight, in the

workplace, teacher, teenager,

anything. Something needs to be done

about it. There is nothing in place

whatsoever. I will fight as much as

I can to online abuse into a

criminal offence.

People are aware

there is a dark side to social

media. And that there is abuse

online. How dark is some of the

stuff that you have had to face as a

family?

If anyone is Skuse I am

freezing. Everyone is allowed

freedom of speech. People know when

you cross the line. Something needs

to be done. I couldn't even say on

here now things that are said about

Harvey. It's absolutely atrocious.

People shouldn't get away with it.

If someone said it live like us now,

you would get in trouble but because

it is online and written down,

people don't seem to take it as

serious when it is.

What about that

argument of free speech? Some people

will say, that stuff is awful, but

we have to allow people to say even

awful things, because that is part

of our democracy.

Absolutely. You

are allowed freedom of speech, of

course you can say things that

people don't agree with. But I can't

say it on here, but there are

certain things that maybe when I

say, why don't you go and die,

things like this, "Why don't you

kill yourself, I don't like the

colour of your skin?" I can't say

that, you are not allowed to say

that. We would have to discover at

which level do you charge people. --

have to discuss.

Abuse online is

widespread and it happens to people

in all walks of life, including in

politics. What impact has it had on

you and your family, on Harvey's

brothers and sisters?

It affects the

kids. I have five children and the

kids are fully aware that they only

pick on Harvey. Why? They know that

he is different. They don't

understand why they don't pick on

them and they pick on Harvey. They

want to see something done just as

much as ours.

You will speak to MPs,

to this committee this afternoon.

What message are you going to be

trying to drive home.

I am counting

on them to put a good case together

and believe in me and take it to the

next step. So that it is a

discussion in government. But I

can't understand, if no one believes

in this, they are morals, no heart,

no soul. I don't see why anyone

would not want to push this. It can

affect anyone, even MPs have been

affected by it.

That is something

that Theresa May, the Prime

Minister, is expected to be speaking

about this afternoon. Katie Price,

thank you very much.

Thank you.

Katie will be giving evidence to

that committee of MPs this

afternoon.

We can turn into ice

cubes now!

LAUGHTER

We are thawing in the studio. Thank

you.

What should Theresa May do about the

sort of cases like Katie Price and

what she has talked about in terms

of trolling online?

I admire Katie

Price, she is quite right to raise

all of these issues. Effectively,

what we are seeing is the internet

revolution continuing to challenge

every single aspect of our lives. In

this case, the real question is, we

have a whole load of things that are

illegal off-line. But we now have an

online world and we need to look at

what does that mean for the online

world.

Should new laws be brought in

to limit what people can say online?

I don't think it's a question of

limiting what people can say, it is

simply about having the same bars of

what is acceptable online as we have

off-line.

How would you enact that?

I am not a lawyer. I would make sure

that we get some lawyers to look at

how you understand how incitement of

hatred and all of those existing

laws we have can work in an online

world. I think that's a process that

we need to go through. What you get

out of that will be that I'm going

to hope some sensible proposals that

tackle the kind of thing that Katie

Price and her family have had to put

up with, which is totally

unacceptable... MPs have a abuse as

well.

We all experience it to some extent,

some more than others. But none of

it is acceptable. If we want a

healthy democracy, it does mean

people being able to put their point

of view, without having to worry

about a torrent of abuse that will

come back at them.

Let's leave it

there.

So, it's 100 years since

the representation of the people act

gave some women over 30 the vote

for the first time.

It also extended the franchise

so most men in the UK could vote.

Suffragettes and the less

militant suffragists

fought their battles across the UK,

but one of the front-lines

was parliament itself.

Here's Ellie Price.

By the time women were granted

the vote in 1918, the women's

suffrage movement had been

going on for more than 50 years.

While, of course, there

were numerous significant moments

within that struggle,

a good number of them happened

right here in Parliament.

So, we're standing here in central

lobby next to the grills.

Now, the grills, 150 years ago,

they weren't here in central

lobby, they were covering windows

in the ladies' gallery.

So, in those days, women couldn't

sit with men in the public gallery,

they were in the ladies' gallery

which was on the other

side of the chamber,

high up above the speaker's chair.

And the grills covered the window,

in order to stop the MPs seeing

the women watching them.

And on the 20th of October

1908, two suffragettes

from the Women's Freedom League,

chained themselves to the grill

as part of a protest.

The Parliamentary authorities rushed

in, couldn't immediately

get them off the grill,

so they took the whole

thing off the window,

frogmarched the suffragettes out,

still attached to the grill,

and sawed them off in

a committee room nearby.

The grills were then put back

in the ladies' gallery

and they stayed there until 1917.

The Parliamentary authorities got

very worried about suffragettes

shackling themselves

to things, didn't they?

That's right.

As a direct result of the grill

incident, parliament then

bought these, the porter's

easy bolt clippers.

And these were then used afterwards

when suffragettes did things

like chained themselves to statues.

And they are still kept

by the principal doorkeeper

for possible use today.

And this became the new

front line, didn't it?

Absolutely.

So, once women were banned

from central lobby, they ended up

here in St Stephen's where they used

to sit and wait for their MPs,

or go to meetings or see proceedings

in the chamber.

And something happened here.

Yeah.

In June, 1909, a suffragette called

Marion Wallace Dunlop

was sitting somewhere

here near the statue of Chatham.

When no-one was looking,

she got out an ink pad

from underneath her cloak

and she stamped

a slogan on the wall.

It was an extract from the Bill

of Rights about the right

to petition the King and an advert

for a suffragette meeting.

The police quickly arrested

her, bundled her out.

She went to prison and then

she went on hunger strike,

the first suffragettes to go

on hunger strike.

Because of this incident right

here in the House of Commons.

So, where have you brought me now?

Well, why don't you open the door

and we'll have a look.

So, we're in the chapel

of St Mary Undercroft

to visit the broom cupboard.

This is a place where

Emily Wilding Davison,

the suffragette, hid overnight

on census night in April 1911.

She crept down here,

the evening before, spent the night

here in the freezing cold and dark

and then was found in the morning by

a cleaner and then they let her go.

Her census form does indeed

record that she was found

hiding in the crypt

of Westminster Hall since Saturday.

And, of course, she

died for her cause.

Yes, she became

a suffragette martyr.

She was killed following action

at the Epsom derby in 1913.

This is the last spot on our tour.

St Stephen's entrance.

100 years ago, this used to be

the main entrance into Parliament.

A century on, there's an artwork

commemorating the work

of the women's suffrage movement

and it's called New Dawn.

The discs that depict the scrolls

of the Acts of Parliament written

in its place light up slowly,

depending on the tide

of the Thames outside.

And like the decades-long

campaign they celebrate,

nothing changes quickly.

But the lights never go out.

We're joined now by the feminist

writer, Julie Bindel.

Justine, you worthy qualities

minister, first openly gay woman in

the cabinet, how far has Britain

come in the last 100 years in terms

of gender equality?

I think we have

come a long way. It is fantastic to

see more women than ever before in

Parliament. But there is a long way

to go, we are no way close to having

a 50-50 parliament that would

broadly represent the gender split

in our country. Parliament has to be

more diverse when you look at the

numbers of BME parliamentarians,

people from disabilities, it is not

just about gender, Parliament needs

to be a place that really does

represent everyone in our country

and I think

we have got a long way to go on

that. Having said that, this is a

brilliant time to celebrate how far

we have come and we should be proud

of that. But there is one thing you

can man from the suffragettes'

campaign is that it took decades so

this has to be stuck up for the

long-term.

Why has progress been so

slow?

It is easy to see why the

suffragettes are revered now, but

they were hated and treated like

some at the time. Particularly

today, those more radical feminists,

they are called Nazis, because

invading Poland is the same as

wanting the same qualities as men!

We have had where women have been

fighting, there has never not been a

women's liberation movement. We have

to look at the backlash and what men

have to lose if we do free ourselves

from the shackles of our oppression.

It is not a quality it is about

overcoming the oppression in

society.

One thing that has divided

society to some extent is the

driving force for changing the

gender recognition act. Why do you

think it has caused division?

It is

massively sensitive and I think it

is important we look at how the

gender recognition act has already

been in operation for ten years. We

simply say, can we improve how it

works? Probably under 400 people a

year who get a gender recognition

certificate. It is important to keep

this in context as well. But what

struck me as we began the debate as

to what is the right way to review

this, is the very different views

from women's groups but also in the

transgender community.

You wanted a

change in the law to make it easier?

We wanted to review the gender

recognition act, it came in 2004 and

see other ways it could be improved

for the transgender community but do

it in a way that genuinely brought

everyone with it on an issue that is

hugely sensitive to lots of

different people.

You are sensitive

about this issue and it has divided

feminists on both sides of this

argument, why?

Because women are a

protected sex class and that

protection will go. Girls and women,

those that are used as female, we

have oppression to overcome, we grow

up as girls and we suffer sexual

violence, out of proportion to the

violence men suffer, and that the

perpetrators are men. If we lose

that sex class, it is meaningless.

There is no such thing being born as

agenda, we are born with a set of

expectations imposed on us that

massively disadvantaged girls and

privilege boys. You cannot just

decide to have gender recognition

surgery because you cannot take a

knife to a social construct that is

imposed on us. Women will lose our

rights, it is not about the rights

of transgender people not having

rights, it is half of the

population.

Do you accept that when

you are calling for a consultation

on the reform of the act to make it

more streamlined and the medical

lives, which is what is worrying

people like Chouly?

We were saying

it was time, after having ten years

of the gender recognition act as to

how it was working, respond to some

of the concerns from the transgender

community as to how we can improve

it. There is a recognition we needed

to deal with it sensitively with a

measured approach. The work, I am

sure that is continuing government

was hopefully aimed at that and try

to steer our way to something that

is complicated and sensitive but do

it sensitively let's

it sensitively let's look at #METTO

campaign and Germaine Greer said she

criticises the campaign and it is

tantamount to consent.

Jermaine Gray

has done some wonderful things for

the movement but this is not one of

them. People get together to talk

about how they are a victim of

domestic violence, yes I have been

raped. It didn't start in Hollywood

or from the top-down, it started

from the bottom up.

Do you support

the campaign that been running?

Absolutely, there has never not been

a #METOO campaign. Women are a

social class that experience these

things because of our oppression,

not because we are victims or

enjoyed being victims and not

because boys are born bad. It is

nothing natural about this, it is to

do with power.

But is the debate

vilifying all men saying men are bad

and women are good?

I don't think

so, it is saying there is a long way

to go on gender equality. There is

still an issue in terms of violence

against women. The only point I

would make, some of the most

powerful advocates for women have

been the men I have met. I would

love to see more male MPs in

Parliament coming forward and

standing up against things like the

president and say, if I had been

there, I would have walked out. It

is hugely powerful for the other

half of the British public, in other

words, blokes to say, we want this

to change. Overwhelmingly, I think

they do. If you are a man watching

this and this is how you feel, say

it. You will get a huge amount of

support from lots of people.

Thank

you for coming in.

Now hunger strikes were of course

a prominent feature

of the Suffragette's struggle.

Today, MPs and political activists

are using the anniversary

to highlight another cause -

proportional representation.

They say they are going

on hunger strike to demand

"votes that matter".

Amongst them is the Labour

MP, Stephen Kinnock,

who is on College Green.

Is this really a proportionate

response when we have just been

talking about votes for women, 100

years celebrating the fact some

women got the vote, you are going on

hunger strike over proportional

representation?

We are striking a

small blow for the calls we believe

in, we want to draw more attention

to this important issue. It is a

cross-party campaign which is

drawing on the fact that in the 2017

election, 68% of the votes cast

didn't count for anything. We are in

an absurd situation where we have a

disproportionate system that leads

to poor outcomes. Only around about

106, the so-called swing seat is

what makes the difference in

elections and that skews the whole

way our political system works. We

have seen the unedifying spectacle

of the infighting in the Cabinet

that our political system is broken.

We need more transparency and we

need a system where every vote

counts, otherwise we are going to be

getting more and more into the

unbalanced and skewed economic

outcomes for people and that is what

is toxic.

I thought this was about

proportional representation, but

which style of proportional

representation will end your hunger

strike?

Proportional representation

is it what delivers the that support

for our country. It is not just for

anoraks and the discussion about a

particular system, it is

fundamentally you get the economy

you deserve through the voting

system. What we need to do is have

all the parties that are committed

to proportional representation

having this in their manifesto. If

we secure a parliamentary majority,

we should implement a constitutional

convention and deliver a new system

of reform. There is no need for a

referendum, it is something that

should be delivered through

manifesto commitments.

Damian Green

has said this hunger strike is just

a diet, what do you say?

I am not

claiming we are making the

sacrifices women made 100 years ago,

but the fact is, if we weren't doing

it, I wouldn't be on the TV talking

to you. We are looking to draw

attention to this important issue,

it is a cross-party initiative about

striking a blow for democracy. We

are taking our inspiration from what

the suffragettes did. They made

profound and radical change for

democracy and it is a work in

process, the system is broken and

needs to be fixed.

Justine Greening,

are you going to join this hunger

strike or diet, or 24 hour fast with

Stephen Kinnock?

No, the way to make

our system fair is get on with the

boundary view which is going to Mimi

had broadly the same amount of

voters in each constituency. Some

MPs have voted in with 40,000 votes

electorate. Others have up to

100,000. The Labour Party should

support that. I happen to think the

local link between an MP and their

local community is one of the best

bits of our politics and I think you

undermine that at your peril.

Quickly, when will you be breaking

the fast?

I will be having dinner

with friends at 8pm this evening. I

am looking forward to that very

much.

You will be starving by then.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now.

Andrew will be here for live

coverage of Prime Minister's

Questions tomorrow at

11:30am, do join him then.

Bye bye.