0:00:35 > 0:00:38Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
0:00:38 > 0:00:41As the ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal remains in a critical
0:00:41 > 0:00:44condition in hospital, the Home Secretary Amber Rudd
0:00:44 > 0:00:47promises the government will be robust in its repsonse.
0:00:47 > 0:00:51But just what can Britain do if Russian involvement is proved?
0:00:51 > 0:00:54We'll get the thoughts of a former foreign secretary.
0:00:54 > 0:00:57Depending on where you live in the country your life expectancy
0:00:57 > 0:01:00could vary by as much as 20 years, so what can be done
0:01:00 > 0:01:03to fix the problem?
0:01:03 > 0:01:05With the Saudi Crown Prince continuing his
0:01:05 > 0:01:07visit to the UK, we'll look at Labour's claims
0:01:07 > 0:01:10that the government is colluding with the Kingdom over
0:01:10 > 0:01:13alleged war crimes.
0:01:13 > 0:01:15Should wolf-whistling be considered a hate crime?
0:01:15 > 0:01:18We'll speak to the MP who wants to get tough
0:01:18 > 0:01:26on what she calls acts of misogyny.
0:01:26 > 0:01:29All that in the next hour and with us for the whole
0:01:29 > 0:01:32of the programme today is Miatta Fahnbulleh,
0:01:32 > 0:01:37who's Chief Executive of the New Economics Foundation.
0:01:37 > 0:01:41Welcome.Thank you.
0:01:41 > 0:01:44First this morning Labour is promising to get tough
0:01:44 > 0:01:46on employers who don't close their gender pay gap.
0:01:46 > 0:01:49The party says if they get into power all companies with over
0:01:49 > 0:01:52250 employees will face an audit on salaries and if they can't show
0:01:52 > 0:01:56they're taking action to close the gap they may get fined.
0:01:56 > 0:02:02Do you support this?Yes, if you did it in context, there's clearly a
0:02:02 > 0:02:07problem with the gender pay gap. We have seen progress but it's been
0:02:07 > 0:02:13incredibly painfully slow at the current rate, women will not have
0:02:13 > 0:02:18pay parity with men until the 2050s. We need to act and there are a lot
0:02:18 > 0:02:23of conjugated issues underneath it but the minimum we should expect is
0:02:23 > 0:02:28companies should audit this and be transparent about it. There is
0:02:28 > 0:02:33something that Labour have planned that you have an expectation that
0:02:33 > 0:02:38you do not just find out what will pay gap is, but you take action to
0:02:38 > 0:02:41solve it because that is what will change company behaviour.Do you
0:02:41 > 0:02:45think that violence will persuade companies to change their behaviour?
0:02:45 > 0:02:52It depends -- do you think that a fine?We have seen that there is a
0:02:52 > 0:03:01penalty for not acting, that it does shift behaviour but it needs to be
0:03:01 > 0:03:04part of a wider package.You yourself has said its conjugated,
0:03:04 > 0:03:10and police have said -- it is complicated. Companies have said
0:03:10 > 0:03:15that it is a legacy thing, but if you want change quicker, do you
0:03:15 > 0:03:20insist that women are paid more or men are paid less?I would argue for
0:03:20 > 0:03:23women to be paid more. There are lots of issues, part of the problem
0:03:23 > 0:03:28is that we do not see women in top jobs. Getting more equality around
0:03:28 > 0:03:34top executive jobs is something that companies can push in recruitment
0:03:34 > 0:03:36and progression policies. Part of it is we still have the case where
0:03:36 > 0:03:41women are doing the same job as men but not being paid the same amount
0:03:41 > 0:03:45which is illegal.So how is it that people are able to get away with it?
0:03:45 > 0:03:49Because you can always justify it by certain reasons, some of it is
0:03:49 > 0:03:54legacy, some of it is endemic but it's putting a spotlight on the
0:03:54 > 0:03:59issue. And requiring companies to act as part of that. Some of it is
0:03:59 > 0:04:04to do with family friendly policies and the fact that still in our
0:04:04 > 0:04:08workplaces, women who have children are penalised. There are a whole
0:04:08 > 0:04:11package of issues but at the start, you have to recognise there is a
0:04:11 > 0:04:15problem and you have got to be willing to take action. That's what
0:04:15 > 0:04:18these sorts of policies might do.
0:04:18 > 0:04:21Amber Rudd has just updated the Commons on the latest
0:04:21 > 0:04:23in the poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his
0:04:23 > 0:04:24daughter in Salisbury.
0:04:24 > 0:04:29Here's a flavour of what she had to say.
0:04:29 > 0:04:33We are committed to doing all we can to bring the perpetrators to
0:04:33 > 0:04:34justice.
0:04:34 > 0:04:40Whoever they are and wherever they may be. The investigation is moving
0:04:40 > 0:04:44at pace and this government will act without hesitation as the facts
0:04:44 > 0:04:48become clearer. As my right honourable friend the Foreign
0:04:48 > 0:04:54Secretary made clear on Tuesday, we will respond in a robust and
0:04:54 > 0:04:57appropriate manner once we ascertain who was responsible.
0:04:57 > 0:05:00Let's get the latest on this with our Home Affairs
0:05:00 > 0:05:06Correspondent Leila Nathoo, who's in Salisbury.
0:05:06 > 0:05:11We now know that a nerve agent was used. How strong lead is that
0:05:11 > 0:05:17determining where the nerve agent came from and who used it?We are no
0:05:17 > 0:05:22closer to understanding those particular questions, all we know is
0:05:22 > 0:05:29that police have released that it was a nerve agent, not what it was
0:05:29 > 0:05:33specifically. We understand it was a rare kind of nerve agent, the use of
0:05:33 > 0:05:39nerve agents in itself is not common. There is a narrow pool when
0:05:39 > 0:05:45it comes to whether could have come from, the substance. Police do know
0:05:45 > 0:05:48the exact substance that was used in this incident but they do not,
0:05:48 > 0:05:54they're not yet releasing that to us. In the meantime they're trying
0:05:54 > 0:05:59to understand whether it was possibly ingested by surrogate
0:05:59 > 0:06:04script and his daughter Yulia, -- by Sir Guy
0:06:08 > 0:06:14we know that they were having a meal in a pizza restaurant, there is a
0:06:14 > 0:06:17window where they could have been exposed to the substance and police
0:06:17 > 0:06:20are trying to piece together that timeline. How was this substance
0:06:20 > 0:06:29carried into the city centre or the country, and who brought it in.
0:06:29 > 0:06:32country, and who brought it in.The policeman who was first on the scene
0:06:32 > 0:06:35and was also taken ill is now able to talk, tell a state that he is in
0:06:35 > 0:06:42at the moment.His condition is described as serious but stable. He
0:06:42 > 0:06:45is now conscious. We understand he was one of the first people to come
0:06:45 > 0:06:53to the scene. We don't know exactly what sort of contact he had with
0:06:53 > 0:06:56Sergei Skripal and Yulia or this substance but the Home Secretary
0:06:56 > 0:07:00said it was highly unlikely he was exposed to the same substance. He is
0:07:00 > 0:07:04now conscious and talking. We're hoping to hear more about his
0:07:04 > 0:07:09condition later today. We know
0:07:10 > 0:07:12condition later today. We know that Sergei and Yulia's edition is
0:07:12 > 0:07:14described as critical but stable.
0:07:14 > 0:07:16Joining me now is the former foriegn secretary Malcolm
0:07:16 > 0:07:19Rifkind and Bill Browder, who calls himself "Putin's No 1 enemy".
0:07:19 > 0:07:20He tried to expose Putin's corruption.
0:07:20 > 0:07:25His lawyer Sergei Magnitsky was killed in a Russian
0:07:25 > 0:07:28prison by the Kremlin.
0:07:28 > 0:07:34Welcome to most of you. -- to both of you. Do you think the response
0:07:34 > 0:07:38from the British government has been correct in terms of time and
0:07:38 > 0:07:42approach?Yes, because you cannot reach conclusions until the basic
0:07:42 > 0:07:46investigation has been completed, until we are certain what the nerve
0:07:46 > 0:07:51agent was and whether it can be traced to a Russian origin.That has
0:07:51 > 0:07:54not stopped politicians on both sides saying that the government's
0:07:54 > 0:07:58response in general in its dealing with Russia has been weak in the
0:07:58 > 0:08:08past, particularly post the Litvinenko assess the nation.I
0:08:08 > 0:08:12think they are always tried to open a dialogue and keep it open, because
0:08:12 > 0:08:19of things like terrorism and policy, if it is established that it was of
0:08:19 > 0:08:24Russian origin and the Kremlin was the explanation, the consequences
0:08:24 > 0:08:28would have to be severe.Would they be cutting off diplomatic ties?You
0:08:28 > 0:08:35have to consider because following the Litvinenko affair, if it was
0:08:35 > 0:08:38established to our satisfaction that Putin was directly or in narrative
0:08:38 > 0:08:43is possible like this, in effect he is -- indirectly responsible for
0:08:43 > 0:08:49this, in effect he is behaving like a rogue state and it is not possible
0:08:49 > 0:08:55to conduct normal government business.What is your knowledge on
0:08:55 > 0:09:01this?I have learned that it is a criminal enterprise, Russia, not a
0:09:01 > 0:09:05country as we know it. Vladimir Putin is one of the richest men in
0:09:05 > 0:09:11the world, he has that money through extortion and craft and theft on his
0:09:11 > 0:09:14country. He keeps the money all over the world. His main objective is to
0:09:14 > 0:09:22stay in power and keep his money safe in the West. In this instance,
0:09:22 > 0:09:26the major theory I have about what would be his motivation for going
0:09:26 > 0:09:36after this man here is not so much Mr Skripal's personal situation, but
0:09:36 > 0:09:39he has a whole range of secret policemen and intelligence officers
0:09:39 > 0:09:43who he has to keep motivated. They are running out of money in Russia
0:09:43 > 0:09:47because of their economy, oil prices are down and they have a situation
0:09:47 > 0:09:51where if they cannot motivate people with money, they have to motivate
0:09:51 > 0:09:56people with fear, and the best fear it a go after one person and his
0:09:56 > 0:10:01family and liquidate them in the worst way possible.Do you think the
0:10:01 > 0:10:04British government should be more robust in this stage before we know
0:10:04 > 0:10:09who is responsible?This is an act of state-sponsored terrorism using
0:10:09 > 0:10:13chemical weapons, we all try to prove this but there is enough
0:10:13 > 0:10:18circumstantial evidence that we should act on it. Have they rounded
0:10:18 > 0:10:22up Russian agents, other Russian agents in the UK to interrogate them
0:10:22 > 0:10:26under terrorism laws?Is that what you would be proposing at this
0:10:26 > 0:10:30stage, Malcolm Rifkind? That pressure should be put on the
0:10:30 > 0:10:33Russian state, or a signal that this is being taken seriously even before
0:10:33 > 0:10:38we know what has happened?We lose none of these options by allowing
0:10:38 > 0:10:42ourselves for the next few days to enable the police and the scientists
0:10:42 > 0:10:48give us the hard information on the source of this attack, the methods
0:10:48 > 0:10:53used and where the evidence might point to a Russian connection.
0:10:53 > 0:10:56Nothing will be unavailable in a few days' time that is available today.
0:10:56 > 0:11:00That's not true when you have a crime, all of the evidence of the
0:11:00 > 0:11:05crime starts to disappear as time goes on. If you act on it
0:11:05 > 0:11:09immediately, it took them four days to take this thing seriously. On the
0:11:09 > 0:11:12first day, no one even knew what was going on.It was slightly less than
0:11:12 > 0:11:18four days, it happened on Sunday.On Monday, there was a fight between
0:11:18 > 0:11:22the Wiltshire Police and the Metropolitan Police, it was only
0:11:22 > 0:11:27last night that this whole thing got serious.May I say, I stand to know
0:11:27 > 0:11:35one with my respect for what he has done, he is a fantastic guy, but I
0:11:35 > 0:11:39have to differ from him in this matter. Any criminal investigation
0:11:39 > 0:11:42however serious, from 9/11 onwards, the Americans didn't within 24 hours
0:11:42 > 0:11:49start taking action and invading Afghanistan. They waited a few days
0:11:49 > 0:11:54until it became abundantly clear of the responsible of the, there is no
0:11:54 > 0:11:58evidence being lost simply because we do not punish Russia today on the
0:11:58 > 0:12:02basis of what we suspect. At this stage we have not got as much hard
0:12:02 > 0:12:06truth is we are likely to have.Do you think the evidence is pointing
0:12:06 > 0:12:10that way, the finger of suspicion is pointing at the Russian State?
0:12:10 > 0:12:15Edward Leigh, the Tory MP, has said it's a brazen act of war and peace
0:12:15 > 0:12:19through strength is the only way we can deal with Russia.These are fine
0:12:19 > 0:12:24words but they don't add up. What seems the most likely explanation,
0:12:24 > 0:12:29here is a former Russian intelligence officer who spied for
0:12:29 > 0:12:32the United Kingdom, living in Britain, he may lose his life as a
0:12:32 > 0:12:38result of this attack. Where else is the responsibility to live? It could
0:12:38 > 0:12:42be Putin, in theory it could be rogue elements in the Russian
0:12:42 > 0:12:45intelligence services operating with the Russian criminal elements in
0:12:45 > 0:12:49London. Putin himself might be behind that but we do not know.
0:12:49 > 0:12:53Hopefully we will note a lot more of this investigation proceeds.But
0:12:53 > 0:12:57will we know a lot more? It will be very difficult to trace exactly
0:12:57 > 0:13:02whether or not Putin was behind it. You don't need 100% evidence. What
0:13:02 > 0:13:08you do need is the phrase we would normally use in our own courts,
0:13:08 > 0:13:12beyond reasonable doubt. If we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
0:13:12 > 0:13:16that Putin either directly or indirectly is responsible, that is
0:13:16 > 0:13:19when the United Kingdom has to contemplate as much punishment as it
0:13:19 > 0:13:24can impose. We're not a superpower, there's limits to what we can
0:13:24 > 0:13:28achieve but I bring up against the bastion, diplomatic relations are
0:13:28 > 0:13:31what you have with countries where you can have a meaningful dialogue.
0:13:31 > 0:13:35If we cannot have that with Russia for the time being, then for the
0:13:35 > 0:13:39time being, we have to seriously consider whether their embassy
0:13:39 > 0:13:44should just be locked up, closed down and they can depart for a
0:13:44 > 0:13:47period of time.People might say, that's not very much.It's a hell of
0:13:47 > 0:13:53a lot.What does could be done in terms of financial sanctions to put
0:13:53 > 0:13:56pressure on the state?We have huge leveraged in this situation because
0:13:56 > 0:14:02all Russians, Russian government officials and connected oligarchs,
0:14:02 > 0:14:06have huge quantities in London. We have laws in place, named after my
0:14:06 > 0:14:12murdered lawyer, in which we can seize those assets. We should seize
0:14:12 > 0:14:15those assets and seizing those assets would have a dramatic effect
0:14:15 > 0:14:21because after Litvinenko, we effectively did nothing, we kicked
0:14:21 > 0:14:26out a few diplomats and we all came together. That is not going to
0:14:26 > 0:14:30prevent them from doing this kind of thing. What will is if their assets
0:14:30 > 0:14:34gets eased.We already have new laws, that if people have a level of
0:14:34 > 0:14:41wealth in this country that they cannot explain having got
0:14:41 > 0:14:44legitimately, we can get their assets.As it happened to anyone?
0:14:44 > 0:14:53The courts are in the process are giving to the first cases.To
0:14:53 > 0:14:59Russian oligarchs?No Russian oligarchs yet.We operate a rule of
0:14:59 > 0:15:03law system, and if there is evidence to justify individuals, whether
0:15:03 > 0:15:08Russian oligarchs or from the Ukraine or other countries who are
0:15:08 > 0:15:12acting illegally or supporting illegal action, what Bill says
0:15:12 > 0:15:19should happen should happen.Have we made it to the -- too comfortable
0:15:19 > 0:15:22for people like that to come to London, I feel it is easy for them
0:15:22 > 0:15:26to come here and educate their children, there is no real pressure.
0:15:26 > 0:15:31This isn't just about Russians or Ukrainians, even when I was Foreign
0:15:31 > 0:15:34Secretary in the 1990s, many countries said, you have so many of
0:15:34 > 0:15:37our dissidents living in London, why do you allow this? The reality is
0:15:37 > 0:15:42that if we have people who behave under the law in this country, we do
0:15:42 > 0:15:48not hold their political background against them.If it is shown, that
0:15:48 > 0:15:52Vladimir Putin the Russian state had some involvement in this and is
0:15:52 > 0:15:57prepared to do what has happened, to Mr Skripal and his daughter, does
0:15:57 > 0:16:00that show that he is becoming even bolder, Vladimir Putin, and more
0:16:00 > 0:16:05brazen than in the past?He has been completed brazen. Let's look at
0:16:05 > 0:16:10other things that happened. Date shot down a play -- they shot down
0:16:10 > 0:16:14at plane and 287 innocent people died, they cheated in the political,
0:16:14 > 0:16:21they tried to cheat the US election, Putin has been over the line for a
0:16:21 > 0:16:24long time but we continue in a most subservient way to not do anything
0:16:24 > 0:16:27about it and we have leverage to do something. They do their crimes in
0:16:27 > 0:16:31Russia and Nicky their property in the West. And they care about their
0:16:31 > 0:16:35property.-- they keep their property. Do you think it was a weak
0:16:35 > 0:16:39response, following Litvinenko?I don't. I think all the steps that
0:16:39 > 0:16:45were taken, I know from my own recollection, it led to a deep
0:16:45 > 0:16:50rupture with Russia. I hear what he says, and I wish I could believe
0:16:50 > 0:16:53that simply confiscating a few buildings and a few assets in London
0:16:53 > 0:16:56would all change Russian foreign policy. Ill things to think it will
0:16:56 > 0:17:04do and he may be right, I can't say wrong certainly, but I don't think
0:17:04 > 0:17:11Putin would be creating -- quaking in the Kremlin because he loses a
0:17:11 > 0:17:15few buildings.It won't necessarily change anything.We know he cares
0:17:15 > 0:17:19about money more than human life and we also know in the case of these
0:17:19 > 0:17:26assets sanctions, he cares about it fro profoundly. -- very profoundly.
0:17:26 > 0:17:32The law I got past in Africa, -- in America, he sent his own emissary to
0:17:32 > 0:17:36Trump Tower to get it repealed as his one asked of Donald Trump before
0:17:36 > 0:17:41he was elected. So I would not underestimate the power of going
0:17:41 > 0:17:46after his property. Certainly all beta dramatic tools, cutting off a
0:17:46 > 0:17:48shrug with these diplomatic tools, cutting off relations, they don't
0:17:48 > 0:17:57work. What does work is going after their personal financial interest.
0:17:57 > 0:18:01How scared are you?I live in a state where they have been after me,
0:18:01 > 0:18:05they threatened me with death, kidnapping, arrest and extradition.
0:18:05 > 0:18:10I'm probably the number one target. So not in a very good position
0:18:10 > 0:18:16personally? Malcolm Rifkind, when you say we could lock the door and
0:18:16 > 0:18:20close the embassies, beyond that, what would the robust response look
0:18:20 > 0:18:23like?It could be a combination of what Bill has said, plus the
0:18:23 > 0:18:28diplomatic action and other remedies available. But to let's not kid
0:18:28 > 0:18:36ourselves, a country the size and as powerful as Russia, there is no
0:18:36 > 0:18:39single act or combination of acts that can quite literally force them
0:18:39 > 0:18:42to change their policy. That is not the real world, any more than you
0:18:42 > 0:18:46could do that with the USA or China or other countries of that size and
0:18:46 > 0:18:53power. What we have to do is to be rational. We have Diousse believers
0:18:53 > 0:18:56we have, including the ones Bill mentioned, but at the end of the
0:18:56 > 0:19:03day, if Putin judges that his own priorities still make sense to
0:19:03 > 0:19:07behave in such a disgraceful way, it is bad news for the world as a whole
0:19:07 > 0:19:11but Britain by itself cannot make a fundamental change in Russia. It
0:19:11 > 0:19:14would require a concerted international response, including
0:19:14 > 0:19:17the United States and many other countries all been prepared to act
0:19:17 > 0:19:22jointly.In the meantime, you are in fear of your life?I don't live in
0:19:22 > 0:19:26fear but they are after me, for sure.OK, what would you suggest,
0:19:26 > 0:19:33looking at this from the outside, that is really going to do anything
0:19:33 > 0:19:36to exert pressure on the Russian state?I think we have two establish
0:19:36 > 0:19:39the facts first and if there is a link, the question is would you do.
0:19:39 > 0:19:42I think the room for manoeuvre is quite limited for the UK Government
0:19:42 > 0:19:45acting unilaterally. I think there is something about property because
0:19:45 > 0:19:48actually, Russian money coming into the property market has been
0:19:48 > 0:19:52massively distorting. It won't only benefit us in terms of foreign
0:19:52 > 0:19:56policy but I think it will benefit the property market domestically.
0:19:56 > 0:20:02The big thing is, will it have any impact? I fear it won't because in
0:20:02 > 0:20:05the end, multilateral action, across the EU, ironically, would be the
0:20:05 > 0:20:09only thing to put us in a position where we could bite and the Russian
0:20:09 > 0:20:13government might change its behaviour but I worry Britain acting
0:20:13 > 0:20:16on its own, even if it is a combination, a package of things, in
0:20:16 > 0:20:19the end, would fundamentally change the behaviour of the Russian state.
0:20:19 > 0:20:21Thank you for joining us.
0:20:21 > 0:20:24It seems where you live can have a dramatic influence
0:20:24 > 0:20:25on your life expectancy.
0:20:25 > 0:20:27Latest figures released by the Office of National Statistics
0:20:27 > 0:20:30show the variation across England and Wales can be up to 20 years.
0:20:30 > 0:20:32Denbighshire in Wales has one of the lowest life
0:20:32 > 0:20:33expectancies for men and women.
0:20:33 > 0:20:34expectancies for men and women.
0:20:34 > 0:20:37The ward of Rhyl West has an expectancy of 74.5 half years
0:20:37 > 0:20:43for women and just over 68 for men.
0:20:43 > 0:20:45Bloomfield in Blackpool is the lowest in the country
0:20:45 > 0:20:50at 68.2 years for men.
0:20:50 > 0:20:52Contrast that with the highest figures.
0:20:52 > 0:20:54Men in Knightsbridge and Belgravia in Westminster can expect
0:20:54 > 0:21:00to live to just over 89.
0:21:00 > 0:21:02Women in Dullingham Village in East Cambridgeshire to 97.
0:21:02 > 0:21:05Joining me in the studio is the Labour MP Chris Ruane
0:21:05 > 0:21:08who represents Rhyl West, which has one of the lowest
0:21:08 > 0:21:10life expectancy rates, and from Parliament's central lobby
0:21:10 > 0:21:17is the Conservative MP Vicky Ford.
0:21:17 > 0:21:20Welcome to the programme. What do you make of the disparity between
0:21:20 > 0:21:25the highest and lowest parts of England and Wales in terms of life
0:21:25 > 0:21:29expectancy?Clearly there is an issue and we do need to address that
0:21:29 > 0:21:32difference in life expectancy in different communities but it is
0:21:32 > 0:21:35because of a number of different factors. There's obviously health
0:21:35 > 0:21:41issues which are a number of complex issues which the government is
0:21:41 > 0:21:46already working on. As well as income differentials and the good
0:21:46 > 0:21:51news is that actually, income inequality is much lower now than it
0:21:51 > 0:21:55was under the past Labour government, for example. So the
0:21:55 > 0:22:00health inequality issues, it's about addressing things like childhood
0:22:00 > 0:22:03obesity and diabetes and cancer survival and those are all issues
0:22:03 > 0:22:07the government is taking action on. But it should have taken action by
0:22:07 > 0:22:10now, 20 years is a massive difference between parts of England
0:22:10 > 0:22:13and Wales with the lowest and highest life expectancy rates and it
0:22:13 > 0:22:17is a Conservative government that has been in charge of the things you
0:22:17 > 0:22:25have talked about since 2010.These issues take time to address because
0:22:25 > 0:22:28obviously, what happens at the end of life is affected by what happened
0:22:28 > 0:22:32when one was a child and growing up. As I said, if the -- issues like
0:22:32 > 0:22:35health differentials, tackling smoking and childhood obesity, those
0:22:35 > 0:22:39are all issues which the government has focused on and is delivering
0:22:39 > 0:22:46results on and as I said, the income inequality is a key issue. Why is
0:22:46 > 0:22:48income equality -- income inequality getting better? Because the
0:22:48 > 0:22:51government has managed to help more people back into work, 3 million
0:22:51 > 0:22:58more jobs, 880,000 fewer families without work. We are putting people
0:22:58 > 0:23:01in real jobs with more money in their pockets which helps healthier
0:23:01 > 0:23:07living.Right, welcome to the daily politics, Chris, as we have seen
0:23:07 > 0:23:12from your constituency, which includes the ward of Will West which
0:23:12 > 0:23:15has one of the lowest life expectancy for men and women, why?
0:23:15 > 0:23:20It is funny that the two areas you have highlighted, two seaside towns,
0:23:20 > 0:23:24Rhyl in Wales and Blackpool in England. What we have seen in
0:23:24 > 0:23:29England is because of the benefits cap, the bedroom tax, Universal
0:23:29 > 0:23:32Credit, people as Boris Johnson said, has been socially cleansed
0:23:32 > 0:23:36from the areas they lived in in the cities and many of them have fled to
0:23:36 > 0:23:39coastal towns and you have seen a concentration in specific wards of
0:23:39 > 0:23:45coastal towns which have brought the life expectancy down for those
0:23:45 > 0:23:49towns. If I can just say, you've hit on two or three constituencies here
0:23:49 > 0:23:55but there is a wider picture across the UK. The Parliamentary question
0:23:55 > 0:23:59asked some six weeks ago, the answer was given to me last night and it's
0:23:59 > 0:24:01been placed in the House of Commons library today which is very
0:24:01 > 0:24:04prescient because it is International Women's Day, and the
0:24:04 > 0:24:12figures for England are that 22% of women aged 65 had seen a decline in
0:24:12 > 0:24:19their life expectancy since 2010. Since 1840, life expectancy has got
0:24:19 > 0:24:26up. 2010, it has stopped.That is shocking, isn't it?Life expectancy
0:24:26 > 0:24:30is increasing across the country.We will take the figure Chris has just
0:24:30 > 0:24:36used about winning over 65.Women over 65in 20% of the local
0:24:36 > 0:24:40authority areas in England, have witnessed a decline in life
0:24:40 > 0:24:44expectancy.Since 2010 when the Conservatives came into coalition
0:24:44 > 0:24:48government, the first time there has been a decline like that?As I said,
0:24:48 > 0:24:50one of the key issues we have been focusing on is improving the
0:24:50 > 0:24:57inequalities, narrowing the gap. There's actually been a 33%
0:24:57 > 0:25:02improvement on the ratio of inequalities, income inequalities,
0:25:02 > 0:25:08so that is really important.You keep on talking about income
0:25:08 > 0:25:11inequality, but even if income inequality, as you have stated, has
0:25:11 > 0:25:15been reduced, why are these differences so marked in areas that
0:25:15 > 0:25:19are deprived? It can't be rocket science to work out that funnily
0:25:19 > 0:25:22enough, the low life expectancy rates are at their highest in areas
0:25:22 > 0:25:28that are most deprived across England and Wales.The key thing we
0:25:28 > 0:25:32have been doing, and it takes time to feed through, is help more people
0:25:32 > 0:25:37into jobs, make sure that they keep more of their pay, in order to have
0:25:37 > 0:25:41healthier lifestyles, and back that up with actions on areas like
0:25:41 > 0:25:46diabetes, childhood obesity, smoking, which it life expectancy.
0:25:46 > 0:25:51Those have all been the priorities of the government.Do you agree, is
0:25:51 > 0:25:55income and having a job clearly important in terms of being in work
0:25:55 > 0:26:00and earning money, but what do you take away from these figures on my
0:26:00 > 0:26:03fix patency?The figures are staggering, the fact they are going
0:26:03 > 0:26:08backwards I think using readily worrying.In certain areas.Yes but
0:26:08 > 0:26:12it's indicative of a bigger problem which is that for many people, the
0:26:12 > 0:26:16economy is not working, we've had a decade of wage stagnation and more
0:26:16 > 0:26:19to come. Many people have seen squeezing their living standards. We
0:26:19 > 0:26:23are seeing huge inequality across the country where a lot of the
0:26:23 > 0:26:29recovery we have seen since the financial crisis has been in London
0:26:29 > 0:26:32and the south-east and other parts of the country have not benefited.
0:26:32 > 0:26:34There are deep structural problems. The figures you are seeing on my fix
0:26:34 > 0:26:37pectin Zig, health and life expectancy, are indicative of the
0:26:37 > 0:26:40fact that for big chunks of the population, they are just struggling
0:26:40 > 0:26:44to get on and struggling to feed their kids and it is filtering
0:26:44 > 0:26:50through into the figures.Chris, what about the lifestyle choices?
0:26:50 > 0:26:56Smoking, drinking, diet, all of these are also indicators, clearly,
0:26:56 > 0:27:00of a shortening life.Absolutely but why is it happening in certain
0:27:00 > 0:27:05nations and regions in the UK and not in others? Look at the
0:27:05 > 0:27:10statistics. In Wales and Northern Ireland, only 18% of local
0:27:10 > 0:27:14authorities witnessed... In Scotland, it is 6%. In the
0:27:14 > 0:27:19north-east, 27%. These are huge disparities and I think evolution is
0:27:19 > 0:27:22working. Where control is nearer the people, you are seeing better
0:27:22 > 0:27:24outcomes and when you have kinder governments, not right-wing, nasty
0:27:24 > 0:27:30governments who have promised another ten years austerity having
0:27:30 > 0:27:33given us eight years at it and now the chickens are coming home to
0:27:33 > 0:27:36roost and we have seen in the statistics that people are dying
0:27:36 > 0:27:39early, mainly women, on International Women's Day, it is
0:27:39 > 0:27:43mainly women dying early because of Conservative policies.Is austerity
0:27:43 > 0:27:49to blame?No, it is absolutely about looking at the issues that affect
0:27:49 > 0:27:54health and life expectancy and it is International Women's Day and that
0:27:54 > 0:27:57is why one of the things we are championing is a number of actions
0:27:57 > 0:28:02to help women's health, things like actions on cervical cancer, breast
0:28:02 > 0:28:06cancer, the announcement a few days ago about surgical mesh and other
0:28:06 > 0:28:10issues that have affected women and this as well as access to mental
0:28:10 > 0:28:15health, all of which are priorities of this government, led from the
0:28:15 > 0:28:18very top by our Conservative woman Prime Minister, who is focusing on
0:28:18 > 0:28:23these issues that affect women's lives.What impact do you think
0:28:23 > 0:28:27austerity has had, then, on poorer parts of the communities across
0:28:27 > 0:28:32England and Wales? There has been, as you know, years of a squeeze,
0:28:32 > 0:28:35rightly or wrongly, on health and social security budget. Do you
0:28:35 > 0:28:39accept that must have had an impact on those communities where there are
0:28:39 > 0:28:44more people on benefits than other parts?Actually, the health budget
0:28:44 > 0:28:48in England have continued to rise, continually, and more money is going
0:28:48 > 0:28:53to those that need it. That is why the government has focused on making
0:28:53 > 0:28:57sure that people, especially on low incomes, have got more money in
0:28:57 > 0:29:03their pockets, with 3 million people taken out of tax altogether, the
0:29:03 > 0:29:09national minimum wage, 3 million more jobs and as I said, 880,000
0:29:09 > 0:29:14fewer families without work. That is children better off because their
0:29:14 > 0:29:19families are working.I think the difficulty is, you can reel off the
0:29:19 > 0:29:22statistics but that is not what people are feeling. People are
0:29:22 > 0:29:27struggling, they are feeling worse off, up and down the country. I
0:29:27 > 0:29:32think the question about devolution is interesting because the capacity
0:29:32 > 0:29:35of our local government, our community groups, to actually try to
0:29:35 > 0:29:38solve some of these problems, I think is massively constrained and
0:29:38 > 0:29:42that is one of the areas where actually, we can take action to give
0:29:42 > 0:29:46them the power and resources to try to act now. But the truth is, people
0:29:46 > 0:29:49are struggling and they are not feeling the benefits you are talking
0:29:49 > 0:29:53about in the headline statistics. That is not their expense.What
0:29:53 > 0:30:00would you do? Would increased wages make a big difference?Increased
0:30:00 > 0:30:03wages is a big important part of that but you have to think about how
0:30:03 > 0:30:07we boost wages, in low-wage, low skilled parts of the economy.That's
0:30:07 > 0:30:09about a proper, active industrial strategy but also about the power
0:30:09 > 0:30:12balance in the labour market, so making sure workers have more power
0:30:12 > 0:30:16so they can have more secure jobs but they can actually argue that
0:30:16 > 0:30:19more for the benefits of the work that they do go to them in wages
0:30:19 > 0:30:23rather than shareholders.I'm sorry we have to end it there. Thank you
0:30:23 > 0:30:24for joining us.
0:30:31 > 0:30:36To conserve
0:30:36 > 0:30:38The Conservatives and Labour now have clear differences
0:30:38 > 0:30:41in their policies on how we should trade after Brexit,
0:30:41 > 0:30:44with Jeremy Corbyn saying we should have a customs union with the EU,
0:30:44 > 0:30:46compared to Theresa May who says we shouldn't.
0:30:46 > 0:30:48But what does all this mean for consumers?
0:30:48 > 0:30:50Emma Vardy's been looking at how Brexit could affect
0:30:50 > 0:30:51our shopping bills.
0:30:51 > 0:30:54The way we change our relationship with the EU in the future
0:30:54 > 0:30:56could affect us all here on High Street.
0:30:56 > 0:30:58The Conservatives and Labour have two distinct visions of the type
0:30:58 > 0:30:59of Brexit they want.
0:30:59 > 0:31:02And prices could go up and down depending on the type
0:31:02 > 0:31:03of Brexit that we get.
0:31:03 > 0:31:05Both Conservatives and Labour want to have free trade
0:31:05 > 0:31:07with the EU after Brexit.
0:31:07 > 0:31:08But Conservatives want to leave the customs union
0:31:08 > 0:31:10and the single market.
0:31:10 > 0:31:18Think of the EU's single market and customs union like a great big
0:31:18 > 0:31:20high street where we can buy and sell stuff from EU
0:31:20 > 0:31:21countries at no extra cost.
0:31:21 > 0:31:24At the moment, goods are traded between EU countries free of charge.
0:31:24 > 0:31:27Jeremy Corbyn says we should stay in a customs union with the EU
0:31:27 > 0:31:30with the aim of keeping prices on our shopping
0:31:30 > 0:31:33pretty much the same.
0:31:33 > 0:31:37But at the moment, if we want goods imported from outside the EU,
0:31:37 > 0:31:40then they are charged and we have to pay extra tariffs.
0:31:40 > 0:31:43Theresa May says we're going to leave the European single
0:31:43 > 0:31:45market and customs union so that we're less constrained
0:31:45 > 0:31:48by EU trade rules.
0:31:48 > 0:31:51And so that we'll be free to strike our own trade deals
0:31:51 > 0:31:54with other countries.
0:31:54 > 0:31:57The economists who are enthusiastic about Brexit think that we can make
0:31:57 > 0:32:02big savings by cutting tariffs on goods that currently we have high
0:32:02 > 0:32:07tariff levels, like textiles and clothing, for example.
0:32:07 > 0:32:13Most economists point to the fact that there aren't actually all that
0:32:13 > 0:32:17many goods where there are high tariffs on imports from the rest
0:32:17 > 0:32:20of the world, and most economists think that having a bit more
0:32:20 > 0:32:24friction on half of our trade, which comes from the EU,
0:32:24 > 0:32:28is going to be much more costly than the benefits that we get
0:32:28 > 0:32:32from cutting tariffs on the rest of the world.
0:32:32 > 0:32:35There is no perfect way of forecasting what will happen
0:32:35 > 0:32:38in any Brexit scenario.
0:32:38 > 0:32:39Take dairy, for example.
0:32:39 > 0:32:42Around a quarter of all our dairy products are imported from the EU.
0:32:42 > 0:32:45If we leave the customs union, the price could go up.
0:32:45 > 0:32:48But imports from the rest of the world, like butter from
0:32:48 > 0:32:52New Zealand, could become cheaper.
0:32:52 > 0:32:55Likewise, our meat from the EU could become a bit more expensive.
0:32:55 > 0:33:00But we could benefit from cheap imports from the rest of the world.
0:33:00 > 0:33:02But experts don't always agree when it comes to how
0:33:02 > 0:33:04much prices may change.
0:33:04 > 0:33:08You may well hear some politicians say completely the opposite from one
0:33:08 > 0:33:12another when it comes to how us consumers may be affected.
0:33:12 > 0:33:14And that's because prices could change by a greater or lesser
0:33:14 > 0:33:17degree depending on how the logistical challenges
0:33:17 > 0:33:20of leaving the EU play out.
0:33:20 > 0:33:23Some of the effects of leaving the customs union are fairly easy
0:33:23 > 0:33:24and direct to predict.
0:33:24 > 0:33:29If we cut tariffs on textiles and clothing, then we can work out
0:33:29 > 0:33:32how much textiles and clothing we buy from the rest of the world
0:33:32 > 0:33:34what the price reduction will be.
0:33:34 > 0:33:36On other aspects, it's harder to make estimates.
0:33:36 > 0:33:40We know that there will be increased friction on trade with the EU
0:33:40 > 0:33:44but it's harder to predict a definite number on how big
0:33:44 > 0:33:46these frictions will be.
0:33:46 > 0:33:48With clothing, a lot of it is imported from non-EU
0:33:48 > 0:33:50countries where tariffs are high.
0:33:50 > 0:33:54So it could become cheaper after Brexit.
0:33:54 > 0:33:57But contrast that with things like cosmetics and soaps.
0:33:57 > 0:34:00We buy a lot of this from the EU and it's heavily regulated
0:34:00 > 0:34:03so leaving the customs union could mean cosmetics
0:34:03 > 0:34:06get more expensive.
0:34:06 > 0:34:09But don't forget, shopping for goods is only one part
0:34:09 > 0:34:11of what we spent our money on.
0:34:11 > 0:34:14Leaving the customs union and single market could also affect things
0:34:14 > 0:34:19like package holidays, airfares and services like banking.
0:34:19 > 0:34:22But predicting that is much harder until we know what sort
0:34:22 > 0:34:27of Brexit we end up with.
0:34:27 > 0:34:29Watching that is Warwick Lightfoot from the Policy Exchange think tank,
0:34:29 > 0:34:32who served as a special advisor to a number of
0:34:32 > 0:34:37Conservative Chancellors.
0:34:37 > 0:34:41everyone is interested in the price of things, and you could say that
0:34:41 > 0:34:45since we had that referendum, before we have even left the EU, things
0:34:45 > 0:34:48have got more extensive.Yes, because the exchange rate went down.
0:34:48 > 0:34:53What is interesting about that is of course we have got a period where
0:34:53 > 0:34:56international commodity prices have been very weak, down a third
0:34:56 > 0:34:59compared to five years ago, have not gone up very much in 18 months,
0:34:59 > 0:35:03because we have got much more intense competition in the retail
0:35:03 > 0:35:07sector, the pass-through from the lower exchange rate into higher
0:35:07 > 0:35:11prices has been weaker than one might have expected. If you think
0:35:11 > 0:35:16back to 2010, 11, when commodity prices went up, the exchange rate
0:35:16 > 0:35:23was down, there was quite a strong pass-through into shopping baskets.
0:35:23 > 0:35:26It has been more muted this time. Can you understand why consumers
0:35:26 > 0:35:30might be thinking, yikes, inflation is going up, imports is more
0:35:30 > 0:35:35expensive and so is my shopping? Actually not. I am old enough to
0:35:35 > 0:35:42seem inflation in the 1970s and 80s. What I am impressed by the public
0:35:42 > 0:35:46and the press and the clinical community have two steady motivation
0:35:46 > 0:35:53of 2%, and how sticky prices -- steady low inflation of 2%, and how
0:35:53 > 0:35:57sticky prices have been. If you get a world where you are confident
0:35:57 > 0:36:00there is not kind to be a sharp take-off with inflation, that is a
0:36:00 > 0:36:06good thing. That has nothing to do with the EU and the single market.
0:36:06 > 0:36:11We have some very interesting things to talk about about the customs
0:36:11 > 0:36:15union, farm prices and Texas are two separate.Who is right in terms of
0:36:15 > 0:36:21whether we should be a customs union or not?I don't know who is right,
0:36:21 > 0:36:25but for me, you have got to go back to why many people voted to leave
0:36:25 > 0:36:27the European Union which was essentially because they were
0:36:27 > 0:36:30frustrated with the state of the economy, fed up with their living
0:36:30 > 0:36:33standards being squeezed. Things like the housing crisis, worried
0:36:33 > 0:36:37about the prospects for their children. When you come to these
0:36:37 > 0:36:45very complex issues, like the customs union, your test has to be
0:36:45 > 0:36:51will it make it easier or harder to test these issues, create jobs and
0:36:51 > 0:36:54deal with living standards? If it doesn't, then why would you do it?
0:36:54 > 0:36:59If you take something like the customs union for me, the idea that
0:36:59 > 0:37:05we should be part of a customs union with our biggest trading block feels
0:37:05 > 0:37:09like a no-brainer, if your test is, jobs, living standards and making
0:37:09 > 0:37:13life better for people.Would it bring food prices down, for example,
0:37:13 > 0:37:21in the way that some conservatives say, a ball of mozzarella could cost
0:37:21 > 0:37:31£1 50 now and it could cost 91 p, is it worth it for that?I think there
0:37:31 > 0:37:37was a lot of issues that people voted on, through immigration to big
0:37:37 > 0:37:42sovereignty issues like control. The political class dressed up the
0:37:42 > 0:37:48argument around a con version of economics. Coming down to who -- a
0:37:48 > 0:37:53cod version of economics. Coming down to who would benefit, come with
0:37:53 > 0:37:58me back to 1971 when Ted Heath took us in. In his white paper he spelt
0:37:58 > 0:38:06out the fact that food prices would rise by 2.5% for five years. That is
0:38:06 > 0:38:11one pledge she kept, and the reason was that the EU had high tariffs on
0:38:11 > 0:38:14food to protect the common agricultural policy. This is the
0:38:14 > 0:38:18tariff schedule of the EU lodged with the World Trade Organisation.
0:38:18 > 0:38:28Its 12,400 tariffs. Frozen orange juice, 24.4%.That is the tariff?
0:38:28 > 0:38:35Yes. Prepared macro, 23.3%.But how much cheaper will it be if we were
0:38:35 > 0:38:41out of the customs union?Probably if we were to go to world trade
0:38:41 > 0:38:44prices, which is what we had in 1973, you could reduce food prices
0:38:44 > 0:38:50by between six and 20%.Would that be worth it and would it be
0:38:50 > 0:38:57guaranteed?It's not guaranteed, it's a bit of speculation and hope.
0:38:57 > 0:39:01In the end it's about the trade off. You might or you might not get
0:39:01 > 0:39:04marginally lower food prices, but you will still have a negative
0:39:04 > 0:39:08knock-on effect on other parts of the economy and if you go back to
0:39:08 > 0:39:13the point, you made the point that people voted for a range of reasons.
0:39:13 > 0:39:16That's absolutely right but there were a chunk of people who voted for
0:39:16 > 0:39:21the reason that I talked about and no one voted to be worse off.
0:39:21 > 0:39:25Irrespective or what their motivation was. When you look at the
0:39:25 > 0:39:28trade-offs against things like the impact on business and jobs, you
0:39:28 > 0:39:32have to ask yourself whether it is worth it.On the trade-off, how
0:39:32 > 0:39:35would you argue it the opposite way? Are you actually saying that we
0:39:35 > 0:39:39could be guaranteed lower food prices, never prices on clothing,
0:39:39 > 0:39:43and we can get things quite cheaply at certain times at the moment, will
0:39:43 > 0:39:47that be a big enough benefit to leaving the customs union and
0:39:47 > 0:39:53perhaps having to have trade more expensive but the EU?The future but
0:39:53 > 0:39:59macro with the EU? The future welfare of the UK economy will turn
0:39:59 > 0:40:03on the policies we have. It will be public stoning, taxation, monetary
0:40:03 > 0:40:12policy and labour market modulation. -- public spending. In terms of the
0:40:12 > 0:40:16prices, if you reduce tariffs, you can move to a one-off situation,
0:40:16 > 0:40:20whatever the world pervading food prices will be, you will have lower
0:40:20 > 0:40:25prices. It's worth emphasising, trade is about exposing your own
0:40:25 > 0:40:27domestic competition to greater competition and helping the
0:40:27 > 0:40:32consumer. You hear from the lobbies, you hear from the big businesses who
0:40:32 > 0:40:36enjoy a protected food industry, protected farming and you transfer
0:40:36 > 0:40:47money into the hands of shareholders and people who have got land worth
0:40:47 > 0:40:51thousands and huge intelligence tax on that. The shopper on the
0:40:51 > 0:40:54supermarket on Saturday pays 20% more for this stuff than they need
0:40:54 > 0:40:59to. Textiles and cars, it goes all the way through.We have to leave it
0:40:59 > 0:41:00there.
0:41:00 > 0:41:02And for more reporting and analysis of Brexit,
0:41:02 > 0:41:05check out the BBC News website.
0:41:05 > 0:41:09You can continue your conversation and other time!
0:41:09 > 0:41:11The Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is continuing his visit
0:41:11 > 0:41:15to the UK and will have a private dinner with Theresa May
0:41:15 > 0:41:15at Chequers this evening.
0:41:15 > 0:41:18The government has been keen to stress it has made trade deals
0:41:18 > 0:41:20potentially worth billions of pounds, but the visit
0:41:20 > 0:41:24is not without criticism.
0:41:24 > 0:41:28Yesterday at PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn attacked the government for aiding
0:41:28 > 0:41:30the Saudis' military intervention in Yemen.
0:41:30 > 0:41:33Germany has suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia but British arms
0:41:33 > 0:41:36sales have sharply increased and British military advisers
0:41:36 > 0:41:39are directing the war.
0:41:39 > 0:41:43It cannot be right that her government...
0:41:43 > 0:41:46Mr Speaker, it cannot be right that her government is colluding
0:41:46 > 0:41:53in what the United Nations says is evidence of war crimes.
0:41:53 > 0:41:56Joining me from Derby is the Labour MP Chris Williamson.
0:41:56 > 0:41:58We were hoping to speak to Charlotte Leslie,
0:41:58 > 0:42:01Director of the Conservative Middle East Council, but she has been
0:42:01 > 0:42:02delayed in a meeting.
0:42:02 > 0:42:05We hope to speak to her on the programme again
0:42:05 > 0:42:09in the near future.
0:42:09 > 0:42:17Chris Williamson is here. How is it fair for Jeremy Corbyn to say that
0:42:17 > 0:42:22Britain or British military advisers are actually directing war in Yemen?
0:42:22 > 0:42:28We know that the military advisers are operating in Saudi controlled
0:42:28 > 0:42:33areas, that's has been widely reported. I think it's therefore a
0:42:33 > 0:42:36reasonable point to make that clearly Britain is implicated in
0:42:36 > 0:42:41this war in Yemen.The government says its....They are up to their
0:42:41 > 0:42:45elbows in Yemeni blood.The government says it is categorically
0:42:45 > 0:42:51untrue. British military advisers are not directing war in Yemen and
0:42:51 > 0:42:54if that is the case, isn't it responsible to say the opposite in
0:42:54 > 0:42:58the House of Commons?What are they doing there? -- isn't it
0:42:58 > 0:43:02irresponsible to say that? This country is selling billions of
0:43:02 > 0:43:07pounds of weapons to Saudi to do this war in Yemen. There has been a
0:43:07 > 0:43:10UN report which states that the Saudi forces have been deliberately
0:43:10 > 0:43:17targeting civilians populations there. And causing a humanitarian
0:43:17 > 0:43:21catastrophe. It seems to be that the government is actually in breach of
0:43:21 > 0:43:26the arms trade treaty it signed up to 2014 with great fanfare about how
0:43:26 > 0:43:32it was going to protect human rights and create transparency in relation
0:43:32 > 0:43:35to arms sales.You are saying that British military advisers are
0:43:35 > 0:43:42conducting operations against Yemen and they are involved in Saudi
0:43:42 > 0:43:47decision-making in terms of the war in Yemen?It's been widely reported
0:43:47 > 0:43:50that there are British monetary advisers assisting the Saudi forces
0:43:50 > 0:43:56in the war in Yemen. I think the BBC has even reported upon that. One
0:43:56 > 0:43:59wonders what they're doing, if they're not doing that, what are
0:43:59 > 0:44:06they there for?It's important to... You have evidence that they are
0:44:06 > 0:44:10doing military decisions? What do you think they're doing there?I'm
0:44:10 > 0:44:15not making the accusations, what is the evidence of their making
0:44:15 > 0:44:18military decisions? You must have it because you have made the
0:44:18 > 0:44:22allegations.We know that there are British military advisers operating
0:44:22 > 0:44:29in Saudi controlled areas helping them to identify targets. We know
0:44:29 > 0:44:32from UN reports that many civilians have been targeted by the missile
0:44:32 > 0:44:39air strikes. And clearly, it seems to be there is a correlation between
0:44:39 > 0:44:43those two things. It's naive in the extreme it seems to me to suggest
0:44:43 > 0:44:48that the military advisers are not engaged in assisting the Saudis in
0:44:48 > 0:44:51these military operations. That's what they're therefore, ridiculous
0:44:51 > 0:44:56to suggest that they're not helping to put this war.I'm asking for the
0:44:56 > 0:45:01evidence you have apart from reading reports by the BBC and others. In
0:45:01 > 0:45:05terms of the relationship that Britain has with Saudi Arabia, do
0:45:05 > 0:45:10you think that that religion ship should be, should end, and stop?
0:45:10 > 0:45:14Despite the fact the Prime Minister said our security relationship is
0:45:14 > 0:45:20important and has saved lives?
0:45:20 > 0:45:23The involvement with the south-east is subverting British democracy,
0:45:23 > 0:45:29frankly.We know British MPs have received fairly large payments from
0:45:29 > 0:45:33Saudi entities and we also know that it is a forceful huge
0:45:33 > 0:45:40destabilisation in the region and the exportation of the extremist
0:45:40 > 0:45:45ideology is putting British citizens at risk, let alone the humanitarian
0:45:45 > 0:45:49catastrophe in Yemen, let alone the human rights abuses in Saudi itself,
0:45:49 > 0:45:56where people are being executed publicly. We seem to have lost the
0:45:56 > 0:46:02signal.No, I can still hear you loud and clear and our viewers can
0:46:02 > 0:46:07as well so keep going.We seem to have lost the signal.I'm sorry, we
0:46:07 > 0:46:10seem to have lost the Labour MP Chris Williamson and we will have to
0:46:10 > 0:46:14try to resume that on another day. Chris Williamson talking about Saudi
0:46:14 > 0:46:20Arabia and Britain's Croatian ship with the country. -- and Britain's
0:46:20 > 0:46:20relationship.
0:46:20 > 0:46:23Should wolf whistling and catcalling be classed as a hate crime?
0:46:23 > 0:46:26Labour MP Melanie Onn used a Westminster Hall debate to argue
0:46:26 > 0:46:29sexist abuse would be taken more seriously if it was.
0:46:29 > 0:46:33We can speak to Melanie in a moment but first take a look at an extract
0:46:33 > 0:46:35from a film called 10 Hours Of Walking In New York City
0:46:35 > 0:46:38As A Woman, which shows the unwanted attention women can receive.
0:47:32 > 0:47:35Melanie is with me now and I'm also joined by the author
0:47:35 > 0:47:37Dr Joanna Williams, who's the education editor
0:47:37 > 0:47:42at Spiked online.
0:47:42 > 0:47:47Welcome to both of you. Joanna, watching that video briefly there
0:47:47 > 0:47:50and seeing what some women go through every day, particularly the
0:47:50 > 0:47:54more menacing moments as we saw just at the end, is that misogynist
0:47:54 > 0:48:02behaviour in your opinion?No, I think that video did the rounds on
0:48:02 > 0:48:07YouTube and went viral on social media last year but it has been very
0:48:07 > 0:48:11thoroughly debunked by a number of people who suggest that, well,
0:48:11 > 0:48:17questioned the areas of New York, why were those areas targeted? If
0:48:17 > 0:48:23you walk around with a camera, making eye contact with people,
0:48:23 > 0:48:26looking for a particular response, then you are likely to find it. I
0:48:26 > 0:48:31think the problem is nowadays, we throw around statistics like 85% of
0:48:31 > 0:48:35women have experienced sexual harassment, but when sexual
0:48:35 > 0:48:39harassment is defined so broadly as to include winking and whistling,
0:48:39 > 0:48:43the real surprise is why so few women have experienced sexual
0:48:43 > 0:48:47harassment, if winking and whistling our sexual harassment, my surprise
0:48:47 > 0:48:52is that it's not 100% of women but I don't think winking and whistling
0:48:52 > 0:48:55our sexual harassment and I don't think this is something that really
0:48:55 > 0:49:00needs police time and attention spent on it.Melody, what do you say
0:49:00 > 0:49:03first two Joanna articulating beside it is too broad a spectrum to
0:49:03 > 0:49:09include some of the things she has said like winking.Well, I tried to
0:49:09 > 0:49:13not trivialise this as just being a winking or wolf whistling issue and
0:49:13 > 0:49:18actually, it is much broader and it is about the continuous backdrop of
0:49:18 > 0:49:22harassment that women experience every single day and it is, you
0:49:22 > 0:49:25know, going from very young girls, in their school uniforms, right
0:49:25 > 0:49:33through the spectrum to adult women and receiving unwanted attention
0:49:33 > 0:49:37that is intimidating, that is off-putting, and that puts us
0:49:37 > 0:49:45socially at a disadvantage. We are targeted because of our sex. That is
0:49:45 > 0:49:48when, and we have seen some success around the country, Nottinghamshire
0:49:48 > 0:49:51Police divine misogyny as a hate crime and it has encourage more
0:49:51 > 0:49:56women to come forward -- define misogyny. It has led to convictions
0:49:56 > 0:50:01of people who have been identified through the process to have gone on
0:50:01 > 0:50:06to commit more serious crimes against women.The thing is, isn't
0:50:06 > 0:50:10this now in 2018 an opportunity to set the reset button, to get the law
0:50:10 > 0:50:15to keep up with what we now deem acceptable standards of behaviour by
0:50:15 > 0:50:19men towards women.I think we are pressing the reset button but to me,
0:50:19 > 0:50:23we are pressing it in a way which is entirely detrimental to women
0:50:23 > 0:50:27because to me, this proposal is incredibly insulting to women. It
0:50:27 > 0:50:30suggests women are so fragile and vulnerable that they can't cope with
0:50:30 > 0:50:34walking down the street.Why should they have to put up with endless
0:50:34 > 0:50:39wolf whistling and catcalling or people shouting at you in the
0:50:39 > 0:50:43street, men saying, "Hello, darling".A lot of this is about
0:50:43 > 0:50:46human interaction and women can cope with interactions are women, bizarre
0:50:46 > 0:50:50though it may seem to people sitting here, some women don't find it
0:50:50 > 0:50:54wanted. Some women do actually enjoyed engaging with people and
0:50:54 > 0:51:02have no problem with it
0:51:02 > 0:51:04have no problem with it whatsoever. The danger is when we start talking
0:51:04 > 0:51:06about people, children in school uniform, girls in school uniform, we
0:51:06 > 0:51:08reduce all adult women to that status. I don't want the police
0:51:08 > 0:51:11protecting me on the street from wolf whistles and catcalls. I am
0:51:11 > 0:51:14more than capable of being able to protect myself. This is incredibly
0:51:14 > 0:51:18illiberal.In that sense, do we really need legislation to deal with
0:51:18 > 0:51:22this? There are laws already in place, we have a hate crime laws and
0:51:22 > 0:51:26laws against harassment. We are talking about what one might
0:51:26 > 0:51:31describe, and Joanna has said, as the more trivial end of what is
0:51:31 > 0:51:35harassment.I completely understand the side of the argument Joanna is
0:51:35 > 0:51:40putting across, however, it is something that happens on such a
0:51:40 > 0:51:45ritualistic, regular basis and when it comes to the other hate crimes
0:51:45 > 0:51:53that we already have, very often, these can be like sexual issues, so
0:51:53 > 0:51:56people could be targeted because they are a Muslim woman, or because
0:51:56 > 0:52:02they are a black woman. To enforce it and make sure it is properly
0:52:02 > 0:52:05dealt with, the police have said they don't object to it, it does not
0:52:05 > 0:52:09take up any additional resources from elsewhere, that they are very
0:52:09 > 0:52:14happy to incorporate it into the work they are already doing to
0:52:14 > 0:52:18better protect women.I think you have had to have led a very
0:52:18 > 0:52:21privileged life to think that is the best use of police time. You've
0:52:21 > 0:52:27clearly never been mugged or burgled...That's very... I'm not
0:52:27 > 0:52:32assuming that. This is the problem, I suppose, with the line of the
0:52:32 > 0:52:37debate that has largely been taken out of context. This is about
0:52:37 > 0:52:43fostering a real change in our culture and there's... The chair of
0:52:43 > 0:52:49the sex determination review that I undertook said that the laws set our
0:52:49 > 0:52:55cultural norms and behaviours.Isn't that the point?Exactly, that is the
0:52:55 > 0:53:00point and it is an incredibly illiberal change which is about
0:53:00 > 0:53:02policing personal behaviour, monitoring interactions between
0:53:02 > 0:53:08people.I really don't understand why men think that is acceptable.I
0:53:08 > 0:53:11don't think it is just meant, I think lots of women would object to
0:53:11 > 0:53:16this law as well.Would you object to a law like this?It is clearly
0:53:16 > 0:53:19bad behaviour and I disagree in so far as it is sexist and it should
0:53:19 > 0:53:23not be tolerated. There is a spectrum and I think you have to be
0:53:23 > 0:53:29proportionate and you know, some of the things
0:53:31 > 0:53:33the things that we see, men taking pictures of women up their skirts
0:53:33 > 0:53:35and things absolutely should be banned. Catcalling and wolf
0:53:35 > 0:53:37whistling, I think we do need, within the bounds of the existing
0:53:37 > 0:53:40law, actually, to treat them firmly and more strongly than we are at the
0:53:40 > 0:53:43moment but I think there is a cultural norm. If you say it is OK,
0:53:43 > 0:53:47people continue doing it but if more people say it is absolutely
0:53:47 > 0:53:50disgraceful, it is unacceptable and you can't behave in that way, that
0:53:50 > 0:53:55in itself starts to shift the cultural norm.But what does it say,
0:53:55 > 0:53:58as Joanna said earlier, that actually you are going to in some
0:53:58 > 0:54:04way change interaction between men and women, that that is how
0:54:04 > 0:54:06relationships, not with wolf whistling and catcalling but if you
0:54:06 > 0:54:10interfere at a sort of legal level to that extent, it will make it
0:54:10 > 0:54:14difficult for Newman who -- normal human relations to continue?It
0:54:14 > 0:54:17really doesn't, though, does it come to treat someone with dignity and
0:54:17 > 0:54:24respect in a way, -- in the way a man would treat another man, to be
0:54:24 > 0:54:27that a woman, I don't think it redefines the relationships at all.
0:54:27 > 0:54:31The idea that men are completely unable to cope with doing it at that
0:54:31 > 0:54:36level is insulting to them.The problem is, everybody has a
0:54:36 > 0:54:39different idea of what dignity and respect means. I mean, I speak to
0:54:39 > 0:54:42women who will say to me in private, I wouldn't want this to be known
0:54:42 > 0:54:45publicly but if somebody wolf whistled at me, it puts a spring in
0:54:45 > 0:54:50my step and a smile on my face.But should that be the reason and the
0:54:50 > 0:54:53bases for not changing the law where more women may feel intimidated by
0:54:53 > 0:54:58it? Carriage Mackreth but how do we know more women feel intimidated by
0:54:58 > 0:55:01it? These are very subjective things and why should we be so illiberal
0:55:01 > 0:55:04that we are going to outlaw all kinds of human fractions. I will
0:55:04 > 0:55:06leave it there. Thank you for joining us.
0:55:06 > 0:55:09You'd think the former Ukip leader Henry Bolton would want a bit
0:55:09 > 0:55:11of a rest after being dropped as party leader,
0:55:11 > 0:55:13but not a bit of it.
0:55:13 > 0:55:16He's just announced he's set up a new political
0:55:16 > 0:55:17party called One Nation.
0:55:17 > 0:55:21Writing on the party's website, Mr Bolton states that there
0:55:21 > 0:55:23is an urgent need for a party "dedicated to the full
0:55:23 > 0:55:25independence of the UK in all areas of law,
0:55:25 > 0:55:27government and public administration.
0:55:27 > 0:55:31Ukip had been seen, until the EU referendum,
0:55:31 > 0:55:34been seen as just such a party" - that repetition is the website's
0:55:34 > 0:55:38mistake - but the former Ukip leader says "it has lost much
0:55:38 > 0:55:42of its influence and ability to shape national events."
0:55:42 > 0:55:49He goes on to claim One Nation is "a party that considers the best
0:55:49 > 0:55:52solution must be applied, no matter whether that solution
0:55:52 > 0:55:53might be traditionally considered as a socialist,
0:55:53 > 0:55:54liberal or conservative solution.
0:55:54 > 0:55:56The best solution is the best solution."
0:55:56 > 0:56:00Henry Bolton joins us now.
0:56:00 > 0:56:05What does that mean?It means whatever the problem is, you define
0:56:05 > 0:56:08it well and you define or develop the best solution.Is that the best
0:56:08 > 0:56:12you could come up with for your new party?But is there anyone out there
0:56:12 > 0:56:16who would not like the best solution? Do we apply political
0:56:16 > 0:56:22doctrine or dogma to the problem? I think times are moving on and the
0:56:22 > 0:56:27old Victorian approach to the left, right, centre of politics, based on
0:56:27 > 0:56:32the class system is probably not appropriate any longer.Are you a
0:56:32 > 0:56:36glutton for punishment?Probably! People would say you are mad, you've
0:56:36 > 0:56:39just been ousted as the leader of one party and here you are, trying
0:56:39 > 0:56:43to start another.I was trying to professionalise Ukip and take it to
0:56:43 > 0:56:47a position where it would be able to move through Brexit and beyond and
0:56:47 > 0:56:52shape the trajectory of the UK.And you failed.I did, absolutely. I'd
0:56:52 > 0:56:55take that on the chin, the party didn't want to reform in that way
0:56:55 > 0:56:59and they rejected the draft changes to the Constitution. I think the
0:56:59 > 0:57:03party is not in a very good place at the moment.But he wrote in your
0:57:03 > 0:57:06statement that I just read out that Ukip had once been seen as the party
0:57:06 > 0:57:12that would give that change and a proper Brexit, you are the leaders
0:57:12 > 0:57:15and you are the one responsible for it not happening.I was trying to
0:57:15 > 0:57:18reform it so it could be constructive again. If we beat back
0:57:18 > 0:57:22the referendum, the campaign was highly effective and Ukip was
0:57:22 > 0:57:25fundamental in that.You were not the leader then.I wasn't but after
0:57:25 > 0:57:30the referendum, I think the party dropped the ball and allowed
0:57:30 > 0:57:34factions to involve within the party -- factions to evolve. Its finances
0:57:34 > 0:57:37were undermined by what I would call mismanagement or a lack of
0:57:37 > 0:57:41management. They are in a bad place now. Whether they can influence
0:57:41 > 0:57:45national events now, I would question that.Although you were not
0:57:45 > 0:57:48leader with these things happen so surely you have something to blame?
0:57:48 > 0:57:51Not when these things happen, the party has been losing members for a
0:57:51 > 0:57:57very long time before I became leader and I was trying to reform
0:57:57 > 0:58:00and change things.How many members have you got in the new party?At
0:58:00 > 0:58:02the moment, we're not taking members, I was making a statement
0:58:02 > 0:58:06the party was going to be formed although it is not yet registered
0:58:06 > 0:58:10with the Electoral Commission.When you going to do that?It is
0:58:10 > 0:58:14happening at the moment so it will take another few weeks.At the
0:58:14 > 0:58:17moment, it's just you?I have a team to put in place infrastructure
0:58:17 > 0:58:21beforehand, there's no point going out there with a party that has no
0:58:21 > 0:58:26structure or constitution.How would you define success?First of all,
0:58:26 > 0:58:29full independence from the European Union, all areas of the law,
0:58:29 > 0:58:34government.For the party I meant. No, that would be a success and
0:58:34 > 0:58:39also, a change to British politics, the way we do politics, to bring the
0:58:39 > 0:58:41laws back to the people and connect with government.Thank you for
0:58:41 > 0:58:42joining us.
0:58:42 > 0:58:44Thanks to our guests.
0:58:44 > 0:58:48Especially to you for being the guest of the day.
0:58:48 > 0:58:51And I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big
0:58:51 > 0:58:52political stories of the day.
0:58:52 > 0:58:54Bye bye.