29/10/2017 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith, and welcome

to The Sunday Politics,

where we always bring you everything

you need to know to understand

what's going on in politics.

Coming up on today's programme...

The Government says

the international trade minister

Mark Garnier will be investigated

following newspaper allegations

of inappropriate behaviour

towards a female staff member.

We'll have the latest.

The Prime Minister says she can

agree a deal with the EU and plenty

of time for Parliament to vote on it

before we leave in 2018. Well

Parliament play ball? New evidence

cast out on the economic

Later on the Sunday Politics...

cast out on the economic

Around one in ten

British IS fighters in

the Middle East come from Yorkshire.

We asked what should happen to them

if and when they return home.

are lobbying the Home Secretary to

stop the alleged harassment of women

attending abortion clinics.

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today to help make sense

of all the big stories,

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

Steve Richards and Anne McElvoy.

Some breaking news this morning.

The Government has announced

that it will investigate

whether the International Trade

Minister Mark Garnier broke

the Ministerial Code

following allegations

of inappropriate behaviour.

It comes after reports in the Mail

on Sunday which has spoken to one

of Mr Garnier's former employees.

News of the investigation

was announced by the Health

Secretary Jeremy Hunt

on the Andrew Marr show earlier.

The stories, if they are true,

are totally unacceptable

and the Cabinet Office will be

conducting an investigation

as to whether there has been

a breach of the ministerial code

in this particular case.

But as you know the

facts are disputed.

This is something that covers

behaviour by MPs of all parties

and that is why the other thing

that is going to happen

is that today Theresa May

is going to write to John Bercow,

the Speaker of the House of Commons,

to ask for his advice as to how

we change that culture.

That was Jeremy Hunt a little

earlier. I want to turn to the panel

to make sense of this news. This is

the government taking these

allegations quite seriously.

What

has changed in this story is they

used to be a bit of delay while

people work out what they should say

about it, how seriously to take it.

As you see now a senior cabinet

member out there, Jeremy Hunt, with

an instant response. He does have

the worry of whether the facts are

disputed, but what they want to be

seen doing is to do something very

quickly. In the past they would say

it was all part of the rough and

tumble of Westminster.

Mark Garnier

does not deny these stories, which

is that he asked an employee to buy

sex toys, but he said it was just

high jinks and it was taken out of

context. Is this the sort of thing

that a few years ago in a different

environment would be investigated?

Not necessarily quite the frenzy

that it is nowadays. The combination

of social media, all the Sunday

political programmes were ministers

have to go on armed with a response

means that you get these we have to

be seen to be doing something. That

means there is this Cabinet Office

investigation. You pointed out to us

before the programme that he was not

a minister before this happened. It

does not matter whether he says yes,

know I did this or did not,

something has to be seen to be done.

Clearly ministers today are being

armed with that bit of information

and that Theresa May will ask John

Bercow the speaker to look into the

whole culture of Parliament in this

context. That is the response to

this kind of frenzy.

If we do live

in an environment where something

has to be seen to be done, does that

always mean the right thing gets

done?

Absolutely not. We are in

witch hunt territory. All of us work

in the Commons over many years and

anyone would think it was a scene

out of Benny Hill or a carry on

film. Sadly it is not that much fun

and it is rather dull and dreary.

Yes, there are sex pests, yes, there

is sexual harassment, but the idea

this is going on on a huge scale is

nonsense.

Doesn't matter whether it

is a huge scale or not? Or just a

few instances?

Any workplace where

you have the mixing of work and

social so intertwined and you throw

a huge amount of alcohol and late

night and people living away from

home you will have this happen.

That

does not make it OK.

It makes sexual

harassment not OK as it is not

anywhere. This happens to men as

well and if they have an issue into

it there are employment tribunal 's

and they can contact lawyers. I do

not think this should be a matter of

the speaker, it should be someone

completely independent of any party.

People think MPs are employees of

the party or the Commons, they are

not.

Because they are self-employed

to whom do you go if you are a

researcher?

That has to be

clarified. I agree you need a much

clearer line of reporting. It was a

bit like the situation when we came

into the media many years ago, the

Punic wars in my case! You were not

quite sure who to go to. If you work

worried that it might impede your

career, and you had to talk to

people who work next to you, that is

just one example, but in the Commons

people do not know who they should

go to. Where Theresa May might be

making a mistake, it is the same

mistake when it was decided to

investigate through Levinson the

culture of the media which was like

nailing jelly to a wall. Look at the

culture of anybody's job and the

environment they are in and there is

usually a lot wrong with it. When

you try and make it general, they

are not trying to blame individuals,

or it say they need a better line on

reporting of sexual harassment,

which I support, the Commons is a

funny place and it is a rough old

trade and you are never going to

iron out the human foibles of that.

Diane Abbott was talking about this

earlier.

When I first went into Parliament so

many of those men had been to all

boys boarding schools and had really

difficult attitudes towards women.

The world has moved on and

middle-aged women are less likely

than middle-aged men to believe that

young research are irresistibly

attracted to them. We have seen the

issues and we have seen one of our

colleagues been suspended for quite

unacceptable language.

That is a point, Jarrod O'Mara, a

Labour MP who has had the whip

suspended, this goes across all

parties.

The idea that there is a

left or right divide over this is

absurd. This is a cultural issue. In

the media and in a lot of other

institutions if this is going to

develop politically, the frenzy will

carry on for a bit and other names

will come out over the next few

days, not just the two we have

mentioned so far in politics. But it

also raises questions about how

candidates are selected for example.

There has been a huge pressure for

the centre to keep out of things. I

bet from now on there will be much

greater scrutiny of all candidates

and tweets will have to be looked at

and all the rest of it.

Selecting

candidates is interesting. Miriam

Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, says

that during that election they knew

about Jarrod O'Mara and the Lib Dems

knew about it, so it is difficult to

suggest the Labour Party did not as

well.

There is very clear evidence

the Labour Party did know. But we

are in a situation of how perfect

and well-behaved does everyone have

to be? If you look at past American

presidents, JFK and Bill Clinton,

these men were sex pest

extraordinaire, with totally

inappropriate behaviour on a regular

basis. There are things you are not

allowed to say if you are feminists.

Young women are really attracted to

powerful men. I was busted for the

idea that there are young women in

the House of commons who are

throwing themselves at middle-aged,

potbellied, balding, older men. We

need to focus on the right things.

When it is unwanted, harassing,

inappropriate and criminal,

absolutely, you come down like a

tonne of bricks. It is not just

because there are more women in the

Commons, it is because there are

more men married to women like us.

We have to leave it there.

As attention turns in

Westminster to the hundreds

of amendments put down on the EU

Withdrawal Bill, David Davis has

caused a stir this week by saying

it's possible Parliament won't get

a vote on the Brexit deal

until after March 2019 -

when the clock runs out

and we leave the EU.

Let's take a look at how

the controversy played out.

And which point do you envisage

Parliament having a vote?

As soon as possible thereafter.

This Parliament?

As soon as possible

possible thereafter, yeah.

As soon as possible thereafter.

So, the vote in Parliament...

The other thing...

Could be after March 2019?

It could be, yeah, it could be.

The...

It depends when it concludes.

Mr Barnier, remember,

has said he'd like...

Sorry, the vote of our Parliament,

the UK Parliament, could be

after March 2019?

Yes, it could be.

Could be.

The thing to member...

Which would be...

Well, it can't come

before we have the deal.

You said that it is POSSIBLE that

Parliament night not vote

on the deal until AFTER

the end of March 2019.

I'm summarising correctly

what you said...?

Yeah, that's correct.

In the event we don't do

the deal until then, yeah.

Can the Prime Minister please

explain how it's possible

to have a meaningful vote

on something that's

already taken place?

As the honourable gentleman knows,

we're in negotiations

with the European Union, but I am

confident that the timetable under

the Lisbon Treaty does give time

until March 2019

for the negotiations to take place.

But I'm confident, because it is in

the interests of both sides,

it's not just this Parliament that

wants to have a vote on that deal,

but actually there will be

ratification by other parliaments,

that we will be able to achieve that

agreement and that negotiation

in time for this Parliament

to have a vote that we committed to.

We are working to reach

an agreement on the final deal

in good time before we leave

the European Union in March 2019.

Clearly, we cannot say

for certain at this stage

when this will be agreed.

But as Michel Barnier said,

he hopes to get a draft deal

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim is well.

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim as well.

I'm joined now by the former

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary

Benn, who is the chair

of the Commons Brexit Committee,

which David Davis was

giving evidence to.

Good morning.

When you think a

parliamentary vote should take place

in order for it to be meaningful?

It

has to be before we leave the

European Union. Michel Barnier said

at the start of the negotiations

that he wants to wrap them up by

October of next year, so we have

only got 12 months left, the clock

is ticking and there is a huge

amount of ground to cover.

You do

not think there is any point in

having the vote the week before we

leave because you could then not go

and re-negotiate?

That would not be

acceptable. We will not be given a

bit of paper and told to take it or

leave it. But the following day

Steve Baker, also a minister in the

department, told our committee that

the government now accepts that in

order to implement transitional

arrangements that it is seeking, it

will need separate legislation. I

put the question to him if you are

going to need separate legislation

to do that, why don't you have a

separate bill to implement the

withdrawal agreement rather than

seeking to use the powers the

government is proposing to take in

the EU withdrawal bill.

If we stick

to the timing, you have said you do

not think it is possible to

negotiate a trade deal in the next

12 months. You say the only people

who think that is possible British

ministers. If you do not believe we

can get a deal negotiated, how can

we get a vote on it in 12 months'

time?

If things go well, and there

is still a risk of no agreement

which would be disastrous for the

economy and the country, if

things go there will be a deal on

the divorce issues, there will be a

deal on the nature of the

transitional arrangement and the

government is to set out how it

thinks that will work, and then an

agreement between the UK and the 27

member states saying, we will now

negotiate a new trade and market

access arrangement, and new

association agreement between the

two parties, and that will be done

in the transition period. Parliament

will be voting in those

circumstances on a deal which leads

to the door being open.

But we would

be outside the EU at that point, so

how meaningful can vote be where you

take it or leave it if we have

already left the EU? Surely this has

to happen before March 2019 for it

to make a difference?

I do not think

it is possible to negotiate all of

the issues that will need to be

covered in the time available.

Then

it is not possible to have a

meaningful vote on it?

Parliament

will have to have a look at the deal

presented to it. It is likely to be

a mix agreement so the approval

process in the rest of Europe,

unlike the Article 50 agreement,

which will be a majority vote in the

European Parliament and in the

British Parliament, every single

Parliament will have a vote on it,

so it will be a more complex process

anyway, but I do not think that is

the time to get all of that sorted

between now and October next year.

Whether it is before or after we

have left the EU, the government

have said it is a take it or leave

it option and it is the Noel Edmonds

option, deal or no Deal, you say yes

or no to it. You cannot send them

back to re-negotiate.

If it is a separate piece of

legislation, when Parliament has a

chance to shape the nature of that

legislation.

But it can't change

what has been negotiated with the

EU?

Well, you could say to the

government, we're happy with this

but was not happy about that chukka

here's some fresh instructions, go

back in and...

It seems to me what

they want is the maximum access to

the single market for the lowest

possible tariffs, whilst able to

control migration. If they've got to

get the best deal that they can on

that, how on earth is the Labour

Party, saying we want a bit more,

owing to persuade the other 27?

We

certainly don't want the lowest

possible tariffs, we want no tariffs

are taught. My personal view is

that, has made a profound mistake in

deciding that it wants to leave the

customs union. If you want to help

deal with the very serious question

of the border between Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,

the way you do that is to stay in

the customs union and I hope, will

change its mind.

But the Labour

Party is simply saying in the House

of Commons, we want a better deal

than what, has been able to get?

It

depends how the negotiations unfold.

, has ended up on the transitional

arrangements in the place that Keir

Starmer set out on behalf of the

shadow cabinet in August, when he

said, we will need to stay in the

single market and the customs union

for the duration of the transition,

and I think that is the position,

has now reached. It has not been

helped by differences of view within

the Cabinet, and a lot of time has

passed and there's proved time left

and we have not even got on to the

negotiations. -- there's very little

time left.

On phase two, the labour

Party have set out six clear tests,

and two of them are crucial. You say

you want the exact same benefits we

currently have in the customs union

but you also want to be able to

ensure the fair migration to control

immigration, basically, which does

sound a bit like having your cake

and eating it. You say that you will

vote against any deal that doesn't

give you all of that, the exact same

benefits of the single market, and

allowing you to control migration.

But you say no deal would be

catastrophic if so it seems to me

you're unlikely to get the deal that

you could vote for but you don't

want to vote for no deal?

We

absolutely don't want a no deal.

Businesses have sent a letter to the

Prime Minister saying that a

transition is essential because the

possibility of a no deal and no

transitional would be very damaging

for the economy. We fought the

general election on a policy of

seeking to retain the benefits of

the single market and the customs

union. Keir Starmer said on behalf

of the shadow government that as far

as the longer term arrangements are

concerned, that should leave all

options on the table, because it is

the end that you're trying to

achieve and you then find the means

to support it. So we're setting out

very clearly those tests.

If you

were to vote down an agreement

because it did not meet your tests,

and there was time to send, back to

the EU to get a better deal, then

you would have significantly

weakened their negotiating hand

chukka that doesn't help them?

I

don't think, has deployed its

negotiating hand very strongly thus

far. Because we had a general

election which meant that we lost

time that we would have used for

negotiating. We still don't know

what kind of long-term trade and

market access deal, wants. The Prime

Minister says, I don't want a deal

like Canada and I don't want a deal

like the European Economic Area. But

we still don't know what kind of

deal they want. With about 12 months

to go, the other thing, needs to do

is to set out very clearly above all

for the benefit of the other 27

European countries, what kind of

deal it wants. When I travel to

Europe and talk to those involved in

the negotiations, you see other

leaders saying, we don't actually

know what Britain wants. With a year

to go it is about time we made that

clear.

One related question on the

European Union - you spoke in your

famous speech in Syria about the

international brigades in Spain, and

I wonder if your solidarity with

them leads you to think that the UK

Government should be recognising

Catalonia is an independent state?

No, I don't think so. It is a very

difficult and potentially dangerous

situation in Catalonia at the

moment. Direct rule from Madrid is

not a long-term solution. There

needs to be a negotiation, and

elections will give Catalonia the

chance to take that decision, but I

am not clear what the declaration of

independence actually means. Are

they going to be borders, is they're

going to be an army? There will have

to be some agreement. Catalonia has

already had a high degree of

autonomy. It may like some more, and

it seems to me if you look at the

experience here in the United

Kingdom, that is the way to go, not

a constitutional stand-off. And I

really hope nobody is charged with

rebellion, because actually that

would make matters worse.

Now, the Government has this

week reopened the public

consultation on plans for a third

runway at Heathrow.

While ministers are clear

the £18 billion project

is still the preferred option,

new data raises further questions

about the environmental

impact of expansion,

and offers an improved

economic case for a second

runway at Gatwick instead.

So, with opponents on all sides

of the Commons, does the Government

still have the votes to get

the plans off the ground?

Here's Elizabeth Glinka.

The debate over the expansion

of Heathrow has been

going on for decades.

Plans for a third runway

were first introduced

by the Labour government in 2003.

Then, after spending millions

of pounds, finally, in 2015,

the airport commission recommended

that those plans go ahead,

and the government position

appeared to be fixed.

But, of course, since then,

we've had a general election.

The Government have lost

their Commons majority.

And with opposition on both front

benches, the Parliamentary

arithmetic looks a little bit up

in the air.

A lot has changed since the airport

commission produced its report,

and that don't forget

was the bedrock for the Government's

decision, that's why the government

supposedly made the decision

that it made.

But most of the assumptions

made in that report have

been undermined since,

by data on passenger numbers,

on economic benefits, and more

than anything, on pollution.

There's demand from international

carriers to get into Heathrow.

More and more people want to fly.

And after the referendum,

connectivity post-Brexit

is going to be absolutely critical

to the UK economy, so if anything,

I think the case is stronger

for expansion at Heathrow.

A vote on expansion had been due

to take place this summer.

But with Westminster somewhat

distracted, that didn't happen.

Now, fresh data means

the Government has had to reopen

the public consultation.

But it maintains the case

for Heathrow is as strong as ever,

delivering benefits of up

to £74 billion to the wider economy.

And in any case, the Government

says, action must be taken,

as all five of London's airports

will be completely

full by the mid-2030s.

Still, the new research does cast

an alternative expansion at Gatwick

in a more favourable economic light,

while showing Heathrow

is now less likely to meet

its environmental targets.

Campaigners like these in Hounslow

sense the wind is shifting.

We're feeling encouraged,

because we see all kinds

of weaknesses in the argument.

Certainly, quite a few MPs,

I think certainly Labour MPs,

are beginning to think perhaps it's

not such a great idea

to have a third runway.

Their MP is convinced colleagues

can now be persuaded

to see things their way.

The Labour Party quite

rightly set four key tests

for a third runway at Heathrow.

And in my view,

Heathrow is not able...

The Heathrow option is not able

to pass any of those.

So, I see a lot of colleagues

in the Labour Party around

the country beginning

to think twice.

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supportin this anti-Heathrow

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supporting this anti-Heathrow

protest this week, you will see

some familiar faces.

You know my position -

as the constituency MP,

I'm totally opposed.

I think this is another indication

of just the difficulties

the Government have got off

of implementing this policy.

I don't think it's going to happen,

I just don't think

it's going to happen.

So, if some on the Labour

front bench are, shall

we say, not supportive,

what about the other side?

In a free vote, we could have had up

to 60 Conservative MPs

voting against expansion,

that's the number that is normally

used and I think it's right.

In the circumstances where it

requires an active rebellion,

the numbers would be fewer.

I can't tell you what that

number is, but I can tell

you that there are people right

the way through the party,

from the backbenches

to the heart of the government,

who will vote against

Heathrow expansion.

And yet the SNP, whose Commons

votes could prove vital,

are behind the Heathrow plan,

which promises more

connecting flights.

And other supporters are convinced

they have the numbers.

There is a majority of members

of Parliament that support Heathrow

expansion, and when that is put

to the test, whenever that will be,

I think that will be

clearly demonstrated.

Any vote on this issue

won't come until next summer.

For both sides, yet more time

to argue about weather

the plans should take off

or be permanently grounded.

Elizabeth Glinka there.

And I'm joined now by the former

Cabinet minister Theresa Villiers,

who oversaw aviation policy

as a transport minister

under David Cameron.

Thanks for coming in. You have made

your opposition to a third runway at

Heathrow consistently clear. , have

reopened this consultation but it is

still clearly their preferred

option?

It is but what I have always

asked is, why try to build a new

runway at Heathrow when you can

build one at Gatwick in half the

time, for half the cost and with a

tiny fraction of the environment

will cost average is that true,

though? Private finance is already

to go at Heathrow, because that's

where people want to do it and

that's where the private backers

want to put it. It would take much

longer to get the private finance

for Gatwick? Part of that private

finance is passengers of the future,

but also, the costs of the surface

transport needed to expand Heathrow

is phenomenal. I mean, TfL estimates

vary between £10 billion and £15

billion. And there's no suggestion

that those private backers are going

to meet those costs. So, this is a

hugely expensive project as well as

one which will create very

significant damage.

Heathrow is

ultimately where passengers and

airlines want to go to, isn't it?

Every slot is practically full.

Every time a new one comes up, it is

up immediately, it's a very popular

airport. Gatwick is not where they

want to go?

There are many airlines

and passengers who do want to fly

from Gatwick, and all the forecasts

indicate that a new runway there

would be full of planes very

rapidly. But I think the key thing

is that successive elements have

said, technology will deliver a way

to resolve the around noise and air

quality. I don't have any confidence

that science has demonstrated that

technology will deliver those

solutions to these very serious

environmental limbs which have

stopped Heathrow expansion for

decades.

Jim Fitzpatrick in the film

was mentioning that people think

there is a need for even more

collectivity in Britain post-Brexit.

We know that business has been

crying out for more routes, they

really think it hurts business

expansion that we don't get on with

this. More consultation is just

going to lead to more delay, isn't

it?

This is a hugely controversial

decision. There is a reason why

people have been talking about

expanding Heathrow for 50 years and

it is never happened, it's because

it's a bad idea. So, inevitably the

legal processes are very complex.

One of my anxieties about, pursuing

this option is that potentially it

means another lost decade for

airport expansion. Because the

problems with Heathrow expansion are

so serious, I believe that's one of

the reasons why I advocated, anyone

who wants a new runway in the

south-east should be backing Gatwick

is a much more deliverable option.

Let me move on to Brexit. We were

talking with Hilary Benn about a

meaningful vote being given to the

House of Commons chukka how

important do you think that is?

Of

course the Commons will vote on

this. The Commons is going to vote

on this many, many times. We have

also had a hugely important vote not

only in the referendum on the 23rd

of June but also on Article 50.

But

will that vote allow any changes to

it? Hilary Benn seemed to think that

the Commons would be able to shape

the deal with the vote. But actually

is it going to be, saying, take it

or leave it at all what we have

negotiated?

Our Prime Minister

negotiates on our behalf

internationally. It's

well-established precedent that

after an agreement is reached

overseas, then it is considered in

the House of Commons.

What if it was

voted down in the House of Commons?

Well, the legal effect of that would

be that we left the European Union

without any kind of deal, because

the key decision was on the voting

of Article 50 as an irreversible

decision.

Is it irreversible,

though? We understand, may have had

legal advice saying that Yukon

stopped the clock on Article 50.

Would it not be possible if the

Commons voted against to ask the

European Union for a little bit more

time to try and renegotiate?

There

is a debate about the reversibility

of Article 50. But the key point is

that we are all working for a good

deal for the United Kingdom and the

I'm concerned that some of the

amendments to the legislation are

not about the nature of the deal at

the end of the process, they're just

about frustrating the process. I

think that would be wrong. I think

we should respect the result of the

referendum.

Will it be by next

summer, so there is time for

Parliament and for other

parliaments?

I certainly hope that

we get that agreement between the

two sides, and the recent European

summit seemed to indicate a

willingness from the European side

to be constructive. But one point

where I think Hilary Benn has a

point, if we do secure agreement on

a transitional deal, that does

potentially give us more time to

work on the details of a trade

agreement. I hope we get as much as

possible in place before exit day.

But filling out some of that detail

is made easier if we can secure that

two-year transitional deal.

That is interesting because a lot of

Brexiteers what the deal to be done

by the inflammation period, it is

not a time for that.

I fully

recognise we need compromise, I am

keen to work with people across my

party in terms of spectrum of

opinion, and with other parties as

well to ensure we get the best

outcome.

Let me ask you briefly

before you go about the possible

culture of sexual harassment in the

House of commons and Theresa May

will write to the Speaker of the

House of Commons to make sure there

is a better way that people can

report sexual harassment in the

House of commons. Is that necessary?

A better procedure is needed. It is

sad it has taken this controversy to

push this forward. But there is a

problem with MPs who are individual

employers. If you work for an MP and

have a complaint against them,

essentially they are overseeing

their own complaints process. I

think a role for the House of

commons authorities in ensuring that

those complaints are properly dealt

with I think would be very helpful,

so I think the Prime Minister's

letter was a sensible move.

So you

think there is a culture of sexual

harassment in the House of commons?

I have not been subjected to it or

seen evidence of it, but obviously

there is anxiety and allegations

have made their way into the papers

and they should be treated

appropriately and properly

investigated.

Thank you for talking

to us.

Thank you for talking to us.

Next week the Lord Speaker's

committee publishes its final report

into reducing the size

of the House of Lords.

With over 800 members the upper

house is the second largest

legislative chamber in the world

after the National People's

Congress of China.

The report is expected to recommend

that new peerages should be

time-limited to 15 years and that

in the future political peerage

appointments will also be tied

to a party's election performance.

The government has been under

pressure to take action to cut

members of the unelected chamber,

where they are entitled

to claim an attendance

allowance of £300 a day.

And once again these expenses

have been in the news.

The Electoral Reform Society

discovered that 16 peers had claimed

around £400,000 without speaking

in any debates or submitting any

questions for an entire year.

One of the Lords to be

criticised was Digby Jones,

the crossbencher and former trade

minister, he hasn't spoken

in the Lords since April 2016

and has voted only seven times

during 2016 and 2017.

Yet he has claimed around

£15,000 in this period.

When asked what he does

in the House he said,

"I go in and I will invite for lunch

or meet with inward

investors into the country.

I fly the flag for Britain."

Well, we can speak now

to Lord Jones who joins us

from Stratford Upon Avon.

Thank you very much for talking to

us. You provide value for money in

the House of Lords do you think?

Definitely. I am, by the way, very

keen on reform. I want to see that

15 year tide. I would like to see a

time limit, an age limit of 75 or

80. I would like attendants

definitely define so the whole

public understood what people are

paying for and why. The £300, as a

crossbencher I get no support, and

nor do I want any, speech writing,

secretarial assistance, none of

that, and the £300 goes towards

that.

Whilst you are in there

because we will talk about the

reform of the Lords in general, but

in terms of you yourself, you say

you invite people in for lunch, is

it not possible for you to take part

in debates and votes and ask

questions at the same time?

Have you

ever listened to a debate in the

laws? Yes, many times.

Yes, many

times. You have to put your name

down in advance and you have to be

there for the whole debate.

You have

to be around when the vote is called

and you do not know when the book is

called, you have no idea when the

boat is going to be called.

This is

part of being a member of the House

of Lords and what it means. If you

are not prepared to wait or take

part in debates, why do you want to

be a member? It is possible to

resign from the House of Lords.

There are many things members of the

Lords do that does not relate to

parrot fashion following somebody

else, which I refuse to do, about

speaking to an empty chamber, or

indeed hanging on sometimes for

hours to vote. There are many other

things that you do. You quote me as

saying I will entertain at lunchtime

or show people around the House,

everything from schoolchildren to

inward investors. I will meet

ministers about big business issues

or educational issues, and at the

same time I will meet other members

of the Lords to get things moving.

None of that relates to going into

the House and getting on your hind

legs, although I do go in and sit

there and learn and listen to

others, which, if more people would

receive and not transmit, we might

get a better informed society. At

the same time many times I will go

after I have listened and I am

leaving and if I have not heard the

debate, I will not vote.

Voting is

an essential part of being part of a

legislative chamber. This is not

just an executive committee, it is a

legislature, surpassing that law is

essential, is it not?

Do you really

believe that an MP or a member of

the Lords who has not heard a moment

of the debate, who is then listening

to the Bell, walks in and does not

know which lobby, the whips tell

him, they have not heard the debate

and they do not know what they are

voting on and they go and do it?

That is your democracy? Voting seems

to be an essential part of this

chamber, and you have your ideas

about reforming the chamber. It

sounds as though you would reform

yourself out of it. You say people

who are not voting and who are not

taking part in debate should no

longer be members of the House.

I

did not say that. I said we ought to

redefine what attendance means and

then if you do not attend on the new

criteria, you do not have to come

ever again, we will give you your

wish. I agree attendance might mean

unless you speak, you are going.

Fair enough, if that is what is

agreed, yes. Sometimes I would speak

and sometimes I would not. If I did

not, then off I go. Similarly after

15 years, off you go. If you reach

75 or 80, off you go. Why do we have

92 members who are only there

because of daddy.

You are talking

about hereditary peers. You would

like to reduce the House to what

kind of number?

I would get it down

to 400.

You would get rid of half

the peers there at the moment? You

think you are active enough to

remain as one of the 400?

No, I said

that might well include me. Let's

get a set of criteria, let's push it

through, because the laws is losing

respect in the whole of the country

because there are too many and all

these things about what people pay

for. I bet most people think the

money you get is paid. It is not, it

is re-funding for all the things you

have to pay for yourself. But I

understand how respect has been lost

in society. Let's change it now.

Let's get it through and then, yes,

if you do not meet the criteria, you

have got to go and that includes me.

Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking

to us.

Lloyd Jones, thank

you for talking to us.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

we'll be talking to the former

business minister and Conservative

MP Anna Soubry about the Brexit

negotiations and claims of sexual

harassment in Parliament.

Yes, hello.

harassment in Parliament.

Good morning.

harassment in Parliament.

You're watching the Sunday Politics

for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.

Coming up today: Around one in ten

British IS fighters in

the Middle East come from Yorkshire.

We ask what should happen to them

if and when they return home.

Should the Jared O'Mara controversy

act as a warning to others?

Why experts say our so-called

digital tattoo could

come back to haunt us.

We used to call it a digital

fingerprint and it turns

to digital footprint.

And the terminology now is changing

more towards digital tattoo.

Discussing those subjects and more

are our guests yesterday,

Barry Sheerman, Labour MP

for Huddersfield, and Stuart Andrew,

Conservative MP for Pudsey.

What should happen to British-born

fighters who join the so-called

Islamic State terror group?

The Government estimates

850 people from Britain

travel to Iraq and Syria.

Of those, 250 have been identified

and 22 of those are known

to be from Yorkshire,

although it's likely that a much

higher number have travelled

from this region and could return.

As their caliphate continues

to collapse, one government minister

suggested that IS fighters

should be killed.

Another expert on conflict

in the Middle East from Bradford

claims that would be a mistake.

I'm afraid we have to be serious

about the fact these people

are a serious danger to us.

Unfortunately, the only way

of dealing with them will be,

in almost every case,

to kill them.

I think comments like that

are extremely unhelpful

and extremely polarising.

Because, Isis is not

the cause of the problem,

it's the symptom of the problem.

We have to remember the fact that he

was the former governor of Iraq.

At least part of the reason

that the so-called Islamic State

came about initially in Iraq

and then later on in Syria

was because of the British

and American-led invasion

of the country in 2003.

Isis are responsible for some

unbelievably barbaric acts,

like beheading people,

torturing people, enslaving men

and women in Iraq and Syria,

destroying cultural heritage sites.

There are so many other

crimes that we can go

on and on and on talking about.

Obviously, listing the crimes

and listing the barbaric acts

and behaviour is not really

going to help us to find

a meaningful solution.

A lot of these people

who are coming back to Yorkshire,

they pose a different

level of threat.

A lot of people, particularly a lot

of children, a lot of teenagers,

who join an organisation

like the so-called Islamic State

or Al-Qaeda, probably have been

brainwashed and indoctrinated.

They maybe have been suffering

from some kind of mental illness.

This is exactly why I'm talking

about a more comprehensive approach.

And then come up with kind

of effective policies which can

pave the way to a kind

of more sustainable peace.

Is it really possible Isis fighters

could come back and live a normal

life in places like Huddersfield?

I think they could in

certain circumstances.

I would want everyone who has

been there to be tagged,

to be known about, to be watched

very carefully indeed.

We can't stop them coming back.

That's apparent.

I'm sure Rory Stewart,

when he was talking about shooting

anyone while they were still

in Syria, but the fact of the matter

is we deserve the highest level

of protection for our constituents.

We say we can't stop them.

You take passports off them.

Why should they be British citizens

after fighting for our enemies?

I'm sorry but the answers we've had

in the House of Commons

from ministers is that these people

will be coming back.

If they're coming back,

what I'm very keen on is our

intelligence services,

our police, our security operation

knows where they are all the time.

The Government doesn't seem

to have a clear plan here, does it?

I think it does, in fairness.

Let's be frank about it.

There's been an awful lot

of legislation going through,

trying to deal with the whole

security issue.

It's the number one job of any

government, whichever

political party is in power -

that is defending and

keeping our country safe.

This is a very difficult

and complex area.

We have to make sure we have

all the systems in place.

You're right.

If people come back having been out

there, fighting against our country,

then we do have the right to take

those passports off them and,

in those circumstances,

if it's proven they've been fighting

against British forces,

then I think we should.

The independent reviewer

of terrorism legislation said

they should be reintegrated

into British society.

I suspect many of the people

you represent, Barry Sheerman,

would agree with Rory Stewart

they should be killed.

Maybe so.

I think most of the people would say

that people that come back,

we would make sure we know

where they are.

We would try to reintegrate

them into society.

The two of us were very close

to a terrorist incident,

right below my office.

My staff saw it.

All of it.

I was so close,

I could almost touch it.

We all know about terrorism.

We've got to defend our

country from terrorism.

We've got to be realistic.

We know we can't stop

these people coming back.

When they come back, we must take

all the proper procedures.

Some of it might be education.

They may have seen the error

of their ways and we can

make them good citizens.

If they're not, we want to check

where they are all the time.

Can they really be

deradicalised, effectively?

Actually we need to go right

to the beginning as well.

We've got a lot of work to do

to stop people being radicalised

in the first place.

It's not just government that does

this or the security forces.

Big internet companies

have a role to play in this,

helping us identify those

who are vulnerable and in danger

of being radicalised.

Also making it very clear

that these people are not

going to some paradise.

This is a horrible war zone where

terrible atrocities are happening.

We've got to stop the glamorisation

of it - that is appealing to some

people who feel supposedly

disenfranchised from this country.

Yeah.

Many people will point

to the origins of the problem.

It perhaps can date back to British

foreign policy decisions.

You voted in favour

of the Iraq War back in 2003.

Do you not feel a sense

of responsibility for what is

happening in the Middle East?

Of course I do.

I think we all take responsibility

for a much longer period

of imperialism across the world.

That is a fact.

We have been a major world power,

involved in the Middle East

consistently over a long

period of time.

Yes, of course.

If I were going to go back

and look at the Iraq vote,

I would change my mind.

It is very easy...

Had we not gone to war in Iraq

in 2003, do you think Islamic State

would ever have happened?

Let's take you back in history.

Go to the Twin Towers.

Yes?

The thing that shook the foundation

of every Western democracy

when all those people,

many British people amongst them,

an act of terrorism never known

in the world before.

Many of us reacted against that.

Let's get our history right.

The first dramatic blow

was from these ghastly people

who killed so many innocent people

in the name of their religion.

Some would say we are winning

the battle against terror abroad

but perhaps losing it at home

when you consider the

events of this year.

This is another reason I find it

quite difficult to say that people

who have been out there fighting

against our country should

just walk back in here.

I just don't think that's possible.

Thinking about those people,

as Barry said, we witnessed

what happened in London.

I have a good friend of mine -

his mother was killed in Manchester

in that terrorist attack.

I must think about them.

They are the ones

we must stand up for.

These are British people

we need to make sure

we are protecting and keeping safe.

Can I also say that

I have a substantial

number of Muslims living

in my constituency...

They hate this terrorism.

Absolutely.

They really do hate it.

They get painted

into being supporters.

They are not supporters.

An interesting debate

as always, this one.

Now when the history books reflect

on the political career

of the Sheffield Hallam MP,

Jared O'Mara, they are likely

to point to a cautionary tale.

Why weren't the necessary checks

and balances made on his previous

views and why wasn't he even

interviewed by the Labour Party?

Digital experts say it is a trap

many younger people could fall

into when they leave their reckless

days behind and try to forge

a respectable career.

As James Vincent reports.

He is one of our youngest MPs

and he's been all over the papers.

Jared O'Mara started the week

as Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam.

He ends it as an Independent.

After the headlines accusing him

of alleged misogynistic

and homophobic remarks made online

15 years ago, he apologised

and resigned from the

Equalities Committee.

When more recent allegations

of similar behaviour emerged,

Labour took the decision

to investigate, then suspend him

pending the outcome of that enquiry.

As time goes on, we will have

different MPs, younger MPs who have

lived their entire lives online.

The problem is, something that

you post when you're

younger doesn't go away.

It's the sort of thing that

Cath Knibbs sees more and more of.

She's a psychotherapist

specialising in abuse online.

We used to call it a digital

fingerprint, then it changed

to digital footprint.

The terminology now is changing more

towards digital tattoo

because once it's ingrained,

it's ingrained and you're

looking at a long time

to actually remove it,

if at all, ever, being

able to remove it.

Are you getting more

and more people coming

to you with these sorts of problems?

They're not problems that older

people in politics will understand

because social media

and the internet was not

around then, was it?

Employers do do background checks.

We have a platform now that allows

people to do it much more quickly.

Quite often if social

media profiles are open,

it allows people to find out

much more information.

It is something I have seen used

by the army, the medical community,

solicitors, lawyers.

But apparently not Labour.

This year's snap election was such

a rush and such a surprise that

Labour's emergency selection

process kicked in.

Send your CV in, choose a seat

to fancy, and the Exec Committee

or the regional party

picked who stood.

Labour has admitted that

Jared O'Mara was not interviewed

before he became their candidate.

This week Momentum, the grassroots

Labour group met in Sheffield,

some of them unhappy with the way

the party picks its candidates.

That just goes to show just how poor

the selection process is and how

undemocratic the selection

process is, really.

This is why we need

mandatory reselection.

There's clearly a problem

with the selection process.

He wouldn't have been my candidate.

No.

But, then again, what I learnt

as someone who campaigns for Labour,

or any political party really,

if you're trying to change people's

opinions and vote a certain way,

you're not going to judge them based

on what their previous beliefs were.

So, I would not judge

Jared O'Mara based on what he

said 15 years earlier.

This is a story about selection

but, more importantly,

about what standards of behaviour

we expect from our MPs -

even before they become MPs.

The latest allegations

about Jared O'Mara come

from earlier this year.

He categorically denies them.

They are the allegations that

are being investigated by Labour.

Jared O'Mara was the big

surprise of this election,

almost like Labour wasn't

expecting him to win.

James Vincent reporting there.

Barry Sheerman, do you believe Jared

O'Mara has a future as a Labour MP?

I think we should be very careful

before we rush to judgment.

I have only met this young

man a couple of times.

I can understand that

when he was selected I think

people would have looked

that he was on the

disability spectrum.

There is no doubt.

I chair the Autism Commission,

so I deal with a lot

of people on the autism...

I'm not saying Jared

is on the autism but he has,

clearly, on the disability spectrum.

When he was chosen,

I think people would say,

here's a young person

who has a disability.

Wouldn't it be a rather good thing

if we extended candidates

to someone like that?

I think for the very best reason.

I don't know...

Do you accept now that's a mistake?

No, I don't say that's a mistake.

I would like to have a professional

evaluation of what this young

man's background is,

what the nature of his disability

is, before we all rush to judgment.

So, I'm the sort person who says,

let's have a measured look at this.

I think the views expressed

on social media years ago

were absolutely abhorrent.

Absolutely.

It's very easy to rush

to judgment and say,

"Hang him," and all that sort

of dreadful stuff.

I want a careful evaluation.

If these are genuinely his

views and not affected

by his disability at all,

yes, he should not be

a Labour candidate at

a Parliamentary election.

But let's carefully look.

We chose a person on the disability

spectrum, and I think we should...

Based on what you've

heard about him so far,

would you be happy continuing to sit

next to him on the Labour benches?

If we have an evaluation

of his disability and then

I understand from where he is coming

and why he said this,

I want the full explanation

before I rush to judgment.

OK, Stuart Andrew.

We live in a world now where many

people have a digital past.

Is it acceptable to believe that

young people going into politics

are going to have these

squeaky-clean digital tattoo,

as we heard it called

there in James' film?

There will be people with skeletons

in their digital closet.

I don't quite understand how

a disability has anything to do

with expressing certain

views like that.

You don't understand autism then.

Well, no.

What I'm trying to say here is,

those views were, obviously,

as Barry said, were abhorrent.

Having been on the receiving

end of abuse like that,

I do find it particularly hard,

I have to say.

I think we do have an obligation,

as MPs, to be careful

about the language that we use

and have used in the past.

In terms of the digital

history, you are right.

A lot of young people today put

all sorts on Facebook and Twitter.

It is therefore a very long time.

I am not really bothered about,

I suppose, people's behaviour.

Everyone has been young once

and perhaps been a bit foolish.

But what I am worried

about is whether people have views

against people who are gay,

against women, that

really are not suitable

for somebody in public life.

That does bother me.

Many on the Momentum wing

of the Labour Party,

and we heard it there,

would like to see

mandatory reselection.

What's your view on that?

We should have proper selection

and reselection in our party.

We are a democratic party

but that should be balanced

in terms of how we do it,

who is considered eligible to vote.

We have good rules in

the Labour Party historically.

I think they should be observed.

You have to remember that,

at this present moment,

quite a large number of moderate

Labour Members of Parliament

are being threatened

by Momentum for no reason,

not that they're not good MPs

but because a large number of people

have joined the Labour Party

in recent months to get rid

of a particular candidate.

We know the Sheffield Hallam

constituency Labour Party

met on Friday night.

If you were them, would you perhaps

be looking potentially for another

Labour candidate in case this comes

to a by-election?

I don't know.

I really don't know.

My early answer is, I will not rush

to judgment until I know more

about this young man.

Everyone deserves to be...

To have a proper evaluation

of what is alleged to have been said

and the reaseons he said it.

I have only met him twice.

He's clearly on the

disability spectrum.

I don't know the nature

of that disability.

Some disabilities, certainly

on the autism spectrum,

lead you to use language

in a very careless way.

Now, I am sorry, that is the truth

and I want to know the facts

of the matter before we decide.

Briefly, Stuart Andrew,

do you think there will be

a by-election in Sheffield Hallam?

I think it will be increasingly

difficult, certainly if the recent

accounts come out to be accurate

and if there is more.

I think it will be very difficult.

I think you're right -

this shows how important it is that

political parties actually do make

sure that people they are putting up

for selection in constituencies have

been properly checked.

It was one of the things

we had to do in a rush.

I remember being in our head office

are seeing a gang of people

going through hundreds

of applications, but it

was necessary to do it.

Probably sadly it was an example

of where it went wrong.

There's no perfect system, is there?

No, there isn't.

Especially with the rush election.

You've got to get candidates

in the seats in a hurry.

And so there will be some quite

unexpected people pitching up

in the House of Commons that didn't

expect to be there

in the first place.

Let us be seriously independent.

Let's be kind to people.

We shall see what happens with that.

Let's get some more of the week's

political news now.

Alistair Gill has our

round-up in 60 seconds.

The Vice Chancellor

of the University of York says

he is deeply concerned by a request

which went to universities

across the country from leading

Brexiteer Chris Heaton-Harris.

He had requested information

regarding what universities

are teaching about Brexit.

York's Vice Chancellor Professor

Koen Lambert says he will not

provide the information

but will write back and explain

the importance of academic autonomy.

Policing anti-fracking protests

at the site in Kirby Misperton have

cost the North Yorkshire force

£180,000 so far.

Police and Crime Commissioner Julia

Mulligan says this is likely

to have an impact on policing

across the county.

The sort of normal policing teams

are not as they would normally be

because the resources have had

to be moved.

And a Yorkshire MP can claim

she owns Parliament's top dog.

Rocky the Labrador belongs to Batley

and Spen MP Tracy Brabin and Rocky

has been crowned Westminster Dog

of the Tear by the Dogs

Trust and Kennel Club.

Well done to Tracy and Rocky.

Stuart Andrew, are our universities

a hotbed of anti-Brexit propaganda?

Do you know, I have spoken

to Chris about this letter

and he was genuinely trying to find

out what is being discussed

in our universities.

You know, I don't know

whether he now regrets

having said that letter.

My view is...

My view is, one of the things

that is great about our

universities is that freedom

for academic independence.

That is important.

It would be interesting to know

what is being discussed

in the whole era of Brexit,

it would be interesting to know

what topics are being

talked about in those

university lecture seminars.

It's a lot of information to get.

Was it the best thing to do?

Probably not.

It is interesting.

There was a YouGov poll which said

90% of academics believe that Brexit

would have a negative impact.

You might not be surprised

by the result but there is clearly

an anti-Brexit feeling

on campus, isn't there?

The truth is, when you look

at who voted to remain,

most of them were the better

educated people in our country.

What?

That is controversial.

Absolutely.

It is absolutely true -

you could see the pattern.

All the university

towns voted to remain.

You stand by that?

You're seriously saying that better

educated people voted for remain

and thick people voted to leave?

Absolutely they did.

I didn't use the other expression.

You used that.

That's the connotation.

Am I allowed to answer?

You asked me a question and I'm

trying to answer you.

The fact of the matter is,

we know that what we call the barmy

army from the Brexit camp run

the Conservative Party now.

They really are the lunatic fringe

who have taken over his party.

I watch them and I see them.

It is amazing that this character,

who I have never heard speak

in the House of Commons,

doing a McCarthyite sort of tactic

of trying to frighten campuses,

frightening university students.

That's not what he's doing at all.

This man went to

Wolverhampton Polytechnic.

Who does he think he is -

trying to frighten my University

of Huddersfield because they have

high-class intellectuals

teaching kids?

Most people with a good

education know that Brexit

will damage the lives...

We don't have time to go

into the whole Brexit debate

but I'll let you respond.

I'm astounded by this snobbery.

First of all, anyone

who voted Brexit is...

Intellectual snobbery.

Yeah.

And the fact that Chris went to some

polytechnic is some problem.

I didn't go to university.

Is that an issue?

That I didn't go to university?

I have never heard such

snobbery in all my life.

In terms of people who have taken

over political parties,

Barry, my goodness me,

with the Momentum issue you have

got, that is a dangerous view.

Barmy Army.