hello, it's wednesday, it's 10 o'clock, i'm victoria derbyshire. it was an attempt to please everyone that seems to be pleasing no—one. theresa may will make the case for her new brexit deal in parliament later today but mps already say it's heading for defeat. i think the sensible thing would be for her to admit defeat and not actually put it to a vote. she is making a statement to parliament this afternoon and she could use that to make it clear because this is going absolutely nowhere. protests by some parents and religious groups who object to school lessons about gay and lesbian relationships continue, but the headteacher at the centre of the row says she refuses

to give up. her local mp says any lessons should be "age appropriate". how cana how can a child to be too young at four or five to know that some groups of people exist, like gay people? i think that is a matter for the school and for the parents to discuss when the parents will be comfortable with their child... but even that sounds absurd. we will speak to the man who wrote the books for the no outsiders programme and we had exclusive access to the lgbt programme and we had exclusive access to the lg bt lessons forced programme and we had exclusive access to the lgbt lessons forced up what do they really teaching them? stay tuned for that exclusive film. why are one in four people in the uk living in poverty? a damning report from a un adviser accuses the government of encouraging a harsh and uncaring culture. we'll be speaking to the author of that report, which the government has described as barely believable.

hello and welcome to the programme. later we will talk to brenda, natalie and rory about living with a visible difference and the impact that comments from strangers can have on somebody living with a birthmark or alopecia, for instance. if you live with a visible difference, get in touch with us today. now for a summary of the news so today. now for a summary of the news so far today. theresa may is to make the case for her new brexit plan in parliament this afternoon, amid signs of growing opposition to her proposals. the prime minister will give a statement on her changes to the withdrawal agreement bill,

including her promise to give mps a vote on holding another referendum. but shadow brexit secretary sir keir starmer said the offer was "too weak". the environment secretary michael gove defended the pm's plan. i think that everybody should take an opportunity to reflect on what the prime minister will say later today and look at the bill. i hope that people will support a negotiated settlement that takes us out of the european union and i also think... and i was reflecting on alternative arrangements earlier, one of the things we can do over the next few days is point out that this government is determined to ensure we put time, money and resources into making sure there are practical approach necessary which mean we may never go into the backstop. it's feared british steel could go into administration today — unless it receives emergency funding from the treasury. high—level talks have been taking place to try to save the business, which employs thousands of people at its scunthorpe plant.

union leaders argue the firm should be nationalised. marks and spencer has reported a 10% fall in profits — the third year in a row it's seen a decline. the retailer has posted a pre—tax profit of £523 million for the year to the end of march. the group said substantial changes across the business had affected this year's performance. a primary school head teacher, who is at the centre of a coordinated protest against her teaching of same—sex relationships says she refuses to "throw in the towel" and give up. sarah hewitt—clarkson has received threatening emails and phone calls. on monday, nearly half of the pupils at anderton park primary school were kept at home by their parents. a united nations backed report says public spending cuts over the last eight years have led to high levels of poverty in many parts of britain. the report comes after philip alston — a un investigator on extreme poverty — toured the uk last november. he warns that unless policies

change, people on low incomes seem destined to lead lives that are "solitary and short". the government says his final report was " ba rely believable". a partial ban on single—use plastics — including straws, drinks stirrers and cotton buds — will come into effect in england next year. the government says urgent action is needed to tackle plastic pollution but environmental groups say the measures, which will come into force in april next year, don't go far enough. some of the world's biggest footwear firms are urging donald trump to end the us trade war with china, warning of a "catastrophic" effect on consumers. in a letter signed by 170 companies, including nike and adidas, they said the president's decision to lift import tariffs to 25% — and so make the shoes more expensive — will disproportionately impact the working class. it's believed some british expats living in france might not get a vote in the european elections, because their ballot papers have arrived late or not at all.

the bbc found some councils sent them using a cheaper postal service called adare, rather than the royal mail. adare said all ballots were posted "in line with the election and council timetables". that's a summary of the main news. back to victoria. who will vote for theresm may's eu withdrawal bill? she described it as a ‘last chance' to deliver brexit in a negotiated way. she knew, as did everyone watching — that the pitch was also her last chance. many of her own mps — some of whom had voted for her withdrawal deal at the third time of asking back in march — said they wldnt vote for the bill. despite promises of a vote on a customs union and a further referendum on the deal, meant to get labour mps especially on side, haven't worked, it seems.

so will the bill come before parliament at all in the first wk ofjune? and how long has theresa may got as prime minister. here's labour's shadow brexit secretary sir keir starmer. this package isjust too weak to get through. i think the prime minister's going to lose and probably lose heavily. i think the sensible thing would be for her to admit defeat and not actually put it to a vote. she is making a statement to parliament this afternoon and she could use that to make it clear because this is going absolutely nowhere. and therefore she should not now put it to a vote. let's speak now to christine jardine — she's an mp for the liberal democrats and wants a second referendum. also, conservative mp and brexit supporter nadine dorries. good morning to both of you. thank you for speaking to us. just to check, nadine dorries, will you vote for this legislation and should it come before the house and a couple of weeks? i can't hear you, but i think you said no. i am quite good

at lip reading, and i think you are saying you will not vote for it, but i will try to get your sound sorted out. in the meantime we will speak to liberal democrat christine jardine. will you vote for this legislation? i can't hear you either! maybe it's me. can anybody hear them on the television? we cannot. christine, we will try to sort your sound out and in the meantime we will bring a film to our audience, inside one of these very controversial lgbt lessons. a primary school head teacher who is at the centre of a coordinated protest against her teaching of same—sex relationships says she refuses to "throw in the towel" and give up. sarah hewitt—clarkson has received threatening emails and phone calls. on monday, nearly half of her children were held back at home from walking through the gates at anderton park primary school. her comments to this programme

follow criticism from her labour mp for birmingham hall green, roger godsiff. the politician says it's too confusing for four—year—olds to be taught about same—sex families. we'll hearfrom him in a moment. meanwhile, this programme has been given exclusive access to a school that's teaching from the books that have provoked so much outrage in birmingham. the no outsiders picture books are designed to teach primary school aged children about diversity. but some parents and members of religious groups object to the lessons about gay and lesbian relationships. using the books is voluntary for schools, but from 2020 children in english primary schools will receive compulsory relationship lessons. the teachers at highgate primary school in sileby in leicester invited us into their classes so we could see for ourselves how the books are used. stop "no outsiders!" i felt that the parents that were protesting didn't actually really fully realise what the school was trying to achieve. shyla, what makes you different?

i've got a different colour of skin. lovely. clearly, parents are up in arms. it did not have any support of the parents. there are lots of different families and lots of different types of set—ups at home, but whatever the case is, that doesn't matter. they can't tell you when and how they should be taught. you have a say in the matter. stop "no outsiders!" earlier this year, primary schools in birmingham were the focus of protesters who objected to a project called "no outsiders". it's a voluntary programme for schools based around a series of books. they aim to teach children as young as four about diversity. for example, about single—parent families, adoption, religion, disability. but some campaigners — many of them muslim — object to young children being taught about same—sex relationships.

because of the protests, five schools in birmingham have now decided to stop teaching the programme — at least temporarily. and we found other head teachers around the country are now reluctant to talk to the media about the no outsiders programme for fear it might provoke protests at their own schools. leicester is one of the most multiethnic cities in the country. around a fifth of the population is muslim. and some of the schools here, and elsewhere in leicestershire, are taking part in the pilot scheme to teach from the no outsiders books. this house is for everyone. we've been invited to film at one of them — highgate primary school in sileby, which is a few miles

outside leicester. head teacher troyjenkinson brought no outsiders to the school and has been helping roll it out across the county. so, no outsiders is a scheme to teach about equality and diversity, and it uses picture books. i love the books, i think they're fabulous. you can't really argue with a picture book, can you? i thought that this was something that was really important for our school and for our children to make sure that they grow up in a society that expects everybody to be treated equally. "this house isn't for people with red hair," said charlene. sianna stodd is teaching her year three class from a book that's part of the no outsiders series. it's about a boy that won't play with children that are different to him. but he soon finds out for himself how it feels to be frozen out because of the way you look.

we're trying to create a generation of well—rounded children, where, actually, we don't see difference as something that's negative, we actually see it as a positive, and it's things that we want to celebrate. shyla, what makes you different? i've got a different colour skin. lovely. great example. some people can speak in different languages. the most controversial element of the no outsider series is the teaching about same—sex relationships. one of the books is called and tango makes three. and in the penguin house, there are penguin families. and tango makes three is a story about two penguins that fell in love in a zoo in central park. they were both male penguins and the keeper noticed that they were trying to copy what the other couples were doing. so they took an egg and gave it

to them so they could bring up their own baby. no? why not? why doesn't that matter? it doesn't matter if they're male or female because if they love each other, they love each other. it's ok to be different. it's good that you're different. if you're gay, you can be gay. no—one tells you who you're supposed to love. what are we going to say to him...? in school i think it's important that we normalise all kinds of different relationships with children. children are going to come across every type of relationship in their lifetime, in society, so it's important that they're aware that different relationships exist. but protesters in birmingham say that no outsider stories like this that teach children about same—sex couples aren't appropriate for younger children. i was quite disappointed, actually, that the protests have been happening because i believe that, actually, the people that have been protesting don't really fully understand the meaning behind all of the books and the fact that actually everybody is equal and everybody should

be treated equally. only a small number of books in the 35—book series feature same—sex or trans characters, but troyjenkinson thinks removing them from the series would be wrong. i don't think you can remove lgbt people from society, so therefore i don't think you should be removing lgbt books from the scheme. some of the muslim protesters have argued that their religious traditions are being ignored by schools teaching from the books. but mrjenkinson disagrees. i think theirfaith is being included, because, actually, there are other books that are in the series that actually relate to faith specifically. as well as same—sex families, the books also look at other family make—ups. so, we're really homing in to the children that, actually, even though there might be lots of different types of families out there that look different or have different set—ups, that we are all still the same and we all still love and care for our families exactly the same.

this story is called blue chameleon. at highgate primary, teaching from no outsiders books starts with the very youngest children in reception class. this, for this age group, they're quite... they are lovely stories. there are no official figures for how many schools use the no outsiders books. the programme's creator says hundreds of schools take part voluntarily. relationship education becomes compulsory though in english primary schools next year. this will include lessons about different kinds of families, including same—sex parents. this has already led to protests at a school in manchester, where no outsiders is not taught. we've got different ethnicities... there's been no vocal opposition to the leicestershire schools teaching no outsiders... troyjenkinson says parents are welcome to come and see what they do if they're concerned. the children like the books,

they start a talking point, they're a discussion point. odd egg, for example, is actually all about different family make—ups and fostering. we have got children in this school that are fostered or adopted, and it's important that actually those children are represented as well. we will talk more about this in a moment. we will bring you some breaking news first to do with british steel and the future of thousands of british steeljobs. i am afraid to say british steel has gone into administration, placed into insolvency, the official term. the government's official receiver will now take control of the company is part of the insolvency process. this puts the future of 5000 british steelworkers at risk. it's to do with the fact that the government in the end did not say yes to emergency

funding, which british steel had requested, tens of millions of pounds in emergency funding. 5000 british steel jobs in pounds in emergency funding. 5000 british steeljobs in this country at risk. 3000 of those at the company plant in scunthorpe and around 800 on teesside. the accountancy firm ey will take on the role of special manager and will attempt to find a buyer for the business. i don't think there are any buyers waiting in the wings, but the news is that british steel has gone into insolvency. we will bring you more reaction to that throughout the programme this morning. to continue our conversation about the lg bt lessons for continue our conversation about the lgbt lessons for primary school age children. i have been speaking to the labour mp for birmingham hall green, roger godsiff, who has criticised the teaching of same relationships at up and attend primary school in his constituency.

it's at the centre of the most confrontational and recent protests. i asked him why he believed it wasn't age appropriate to teach 4 and 5 year olds about lgbt relationships. if you are talking about gender and sexual orientation, one of the characteristics, i think the four and five—year—olds who are seeking to identify their own sexuality, i think to bring in other sexualities at that period in time, to a number of pa rents, at that period in time, to a number of parents, they would say that they think it's too young. why not wait a few years before i! in order to bring those subjects up. what's wrong with parents having an input into that? what is confusing, or not age appropriate, though, about saying, some people have mums and dads, some people have mothers and mothers, and some people have father—son fathers. mothers, and some people have father-son fathers. there is nothing wrong with that. so what is the

issue? the issue is, going back to anderson park school, the parents felt they had not been consulted about the teaching of aspects of the apology act. furthermore, they said, apology act. furthermore, they said, a number of them said that children we re a number of them said that children were coming home with books and such like and using words like, i have possibly another person inside me. they were concerned, and they asked to have meetings with the head teacher. the head teacher, who i have spoken to, and like and respect, but the head teacher would only have one to one meetings with pa rents, only have one to one meetings with parents, and i think she would have been better off having groups of pa rents been better off having groups of parents and explaining what the school policy was. you know it from the parents‘ point of view, some of the parents‘ point of view, some of the parents‘ point of view, it's not just about a lack of consultation. it's because they think that by

talking to four and five—year—olds and possibly a little older in primary school, if you talk about the fact there are mothers and mothers and fathers and fathers, it might encourage their own children to be gay. indoctrinate them. i don't believe that, but may be some pa rents don't believe that, but may be some parents also feel they don't like the apology act... isn't it your duty as a public servant to explain to parents that you can't simply encourage a child to be gay by discussing the fact that there are same—sex couples? discussing the fact that there are same-sex couples? i am more than happy to do it. have you done that? but it is equally... that being gay is not a choice? of course. what do they say? most of them take the view that it's not our choice, but it's an individual choice, and we have no problem with that. most of the pa rents problem with that. most of the parents i problem with that. most of the pa rents i have problem with that. most of the parents i have spoken to take the view that they have no problem at

all about lg bt view that they have no problem at all about lgbt teaching. what they do have concerns about is, first of all, the age appropriateness of it, and secondly, the school has not consulted enough with us about how you actually carry out this teaching. this is what i don't understand, and maybe you can help me and perhaps you have explained this to parents. how can a child to be too young at four or five to know that some groups of people exist, like gay people? how can you be too young? i'm not quite sure what you mean when you say how... you say the pa rents say mean when you say how... you say the parents say it's not age appropriate for kids to know that gay people exist. you are homing in purely and simply on the lgbt aspect of it. we have been into one of the lessons...

there are nine protected characteristics. but i am asking specifically about that characteristic. as far as that specific characteristic is concerned, i think it's a matter for the school and for the parents to discuss, when the parents will be co mforta ble discuss, when the parents will be comfortable with their child... even that sounds absurd. parents will be co mforta ble that sounds absurd. parents will be comfortable when their child is old enough to know that gay people exist? there are many international treaties that make it perfectly plain that the prime responsibility for bringing up children rests with pa rents. for bringing up children rests with parents. that's understood. i'm asking if you think it's bizarre that parents might think that. that's all. i don't comment on what other parents think will stop i personally don't have a problem, but what i do say, as i said before, i have a three—year—old grandson, and if he was hit with nine characteristics being put in front of him,i characteristics being put in front of him, i think he would probably

wonder what was going on. when you say hit with the nine characteristics. welcome placed in front of him. that's not really what happens. there is a book about two male penguins in a zoo, and the keeper realises that these two male penguins love each other, so they try to emulate other couples. so he gives them an egg for them. that's not hitting a reception age child with nine characteristics. there is another book... deal with that one. when you're grandson gets to reception, he will not feel hit by that, will he? he probably wouldn't, but he would almost certainly query, if he had a book put in front of him thatis if he had a book put in front of him that is called why is gotcha gay. what's that book about, i don't know that one. i don't know, i have only

seen that one. i don't know, i have only seen it put in front of me. it was an issue with a number of parents at the school. it was given to me by one of the protesters. as an example of one of the books. it's a shame you didn't read the book because it might be really age appropriate and convincing. you seem to be, if you don't mind me saying, only fixated on one single issue. and this is an issue that's a much wider one, about the teaching of the nine characteristics of the equality act. the head teacher at the primary school in your constituency has been getting death threats. i assume you would condemn that. very much so, i condemn that. more to the point, when i was with a meeting with her, i saw one of the letters that came m, i saw one of the letters that came in, and it was a letterfrom somebody associated with the far

right. i don't know the other death threats she has been getting, from whom orfrom threats she has been getting, from whom or from what sections of the community. i do know that a number of the protesters have also had postings and suchlike which are pretty vile, and i condemn all of that. because this issue ought to be resolved amicably, and indeed a mediator has now been appointed by the city council. at the same time as condemning the death threats, whoever has received them, you have also said to us, head teachers don't need to teach all of these characteristics to four and five—year—olds, as though the head teacher at anderton park primary has some responsibility for the protests at her school gates. other primary schools in the area have not had the same problems that have occurred at anderton park. is it the head teacher's fault? it was her choice

as to how to teach the equality act. other head teachers... it sounds like you are saying it's her fault. i'm not saying anything to you that i have not said to her. it does imply that you have said she is responsible for the protests at her gates. i have not said she is responsible for the protests. i said privately when i met her. it was a privately when i met her. it was a private conversation, but what i said was, you should look again at the age appropriate teaching of the nine characteristics of the equality act. and she has my full support in teaching the act, but i think she would be better if she reconsidered the phasing of the teaching of those aspects. thank you for speaking to us aspects. thank you for speaking to us this morning, roger godsiff, labourmpfor birmingham us this morning, roger godsiff, labour mp for birmingham hall green. we will speak to the man who wrote the no outsiders books in a moment

or two. we can bring you a bit more on british steel, it has been announced in the last half an hour that it will go into insolvency putting 5000 british jobs directly at risk. we will speak to our business correspondence shortly. let's speak now to dr kathryn ringwald — an expert on the steel industry. what's your reaction? it's extremely sad news for people involved in the plant and for the supply chain workers in the steel industry. but it's not entirely a surprise given the difficult position they found themselves in and the government's decision to call a halt... explain some of the reasons why you think this has happened. british steel was asking the government for emergency money, tens of millions of pounds that was not forthcoming from the treasury. there were two reasons british steel was in trouble at this

time. the first was they had to pay an emissions fee every year for the pollution that is created by the industry. this is usually offset by eu carbon credits which are given to those companies involved. this year, because we were expecting to be leaving the eu, british steel did not receive those credits, and they had a bill to pay that they found difficult to meet at this time. the second reason, because of the brexit situation and issues surrounding that, british steel have found a lot of their customers are getting nervous about making long—term commitments when they don't at the moment understand what the trading terms will be post brexit. we will bring in our business correspondence now. why will the government not to give them the money they needed? they probably thought it was

throwing good money after bad. they have already lent british steel £100 million from those carbon credit funds that they did not get from the eu. this has not been enough to save the company. it was asking for 75 million as a bridging loan, then 30 million, now it is basically saying it has gone bust. it has called in the receivers, probably meaning a bank or perhaps the government, which is owed a lot of money by the government, is —— owed a lot of money by the company, is seeking to get that money back stop what if the uk had already left the eu, would this have happened? it might have made it easier for them because they would have known what tariffs they would have known what tariffs they would have known what tariffs they would have paid on steel they export to the eu and other places but it would not have removed the problem is totally. there is a lot of spare steel washing around the world because places like china are producing it at extremely low prices. brexit has not made it any

easier. it had to find money for the carbon emissions and now there is a threat that if you place an order for steel in this country, nobody really knows what will happen with tariffs. 3000 british steel workers at scunthorpe, 800 on teesside. what happens to those jobs? those people have made sacrifices on wages and pensions but the prospects are not good. this is a company that has struggled to make steel profitably, it has been taken over bya profitably, it has been taken over by a private finance company which has put money into it and it is still not making a profit. its future looks very doubtful and that means theirjobs will go. is the government going to come and allot a political and economic pressure to nationalise this country? it will come under a lot of pressure to try and help it, but it was already under that pressure and it didn't provide that money to stop going into receivership today. so we

expect they will have to bite the bullet and say they will do the best for the region, but they will not bail out a loss maker. labour have called on them to nationalise these companies and save jobs, but long—term prospects of steel makers in this country are not very good and the government is reluctant intellectually and politically to ta ke intellectually and politically to take over loss— making intellectually and politically to take over loss—making firms. intellectually and politically to take over loss-making firms. thank you very much for the moment, more reaction on this story to come. let's go back to our conversation about the no outsiders books being taught in some primary schools across the country. from next year, it will be compulsory to have relationship lessons in primary schools in lessons. andrew moffat is author of the no outsiders books. and assistant head teacher at parkfield community school in birmingham, which has faced some of the protests. simon kidwell, head teacher at hartford manor primary school and nursery in cheshire, who teaches from the books. and amir ahmed, a stop ‘no outsiders‘ campaigner.

he says his son's primary school, in birmingham, pulled out of the no outsiders scheme because of opposition from him and others. andrew moffat. you didn't want to do an interview for a while because of the controversy of the protest, why do you want to speak now?|j controversy of the protest, why do you want to speak now? i am respecting the process happening in my school now. so that process is going on, i agreed not to do media and talk about my school in the protests. the reason i am talking now, well, it is gay pride this weekend. it is a time for birmingham to be proud of a —— our diversity and put birmingham back on the map is an area of super diversity to be proud of. that is what no outsiders is all about. are you encouraging children to be gay? no, no. i am encouraging children to be themselves and proud of who they are, whether that is about having different skin, different religion,

disability, autism, or have different families. i want children to be confident as they grow up into global citizens so they can live and work alongside anyone and live and work alongside anyone and live and work anywhere. amir, does that sound wrong to you? i think andrew is quite honestly disingenuous. he has focused on the lgbt content, if you read his book no outsiders in schools, he has clearly focused on the lgbt schools, he has clearly focused on the lg bt parts schools, he has clearly focused on the lgbt parts of the equality act. and he, it is not about teaching equality. if you are discriminating against one characteristic and teaching another, that is not equality. sorry, what are you saying, who is being discriminated against? he is discriminating against? he is discriminating

against the children'sbelief, as far as theirfamily against the children'sbelief, as far as their family background is concerned, regarding homosexuality and he doesn't even consider that. so discriminating is run effectively? i will keep religion out of it. you brought religion into it so out of it. you brought religion into itsoiam out of it. you brought religion into it so i am checking which religion —— discriminating against islam. that is skewing the argument, you could have no religion and believe it is not acceptable. let andrew respond to that. i want all children to know that they belong, there is a safeguarding issue and i want all children to know they belong in britain and in school. we are different and isn't that fantastic? and i would like to ask amir, how many books in the 35 talk about lgbt characters? i would like to ask in that. i am characters? i would like to ask in that. lam not characters? i would like to ask in that. i am not an educational aspect. how many? we have is to

teach it to look into that and there are about nine we have been told, that focus on lgbt. shelley charlesworth, a former bbc journalist, i believe, has said there are about nine of the books.|j would like amir to name those nine because i have written a resource and four focused on lgbt. because i have written a resource and fourfocused on lgbt. there is one in reception and yearfour. king and king. tango makes three. and my princess boy. four out of 35 is not an over on lgbt. amir, how old is your son? an over on lgbt. amir, how old is yourson?11. if an over on lgbt. amir, how old is your son? 11. if he an over on lgbt. amir, how old is yourson?11. if he is an over on lgbt. amir, how old is your son? 11. if he is gay, these lessons would help him. victoria, at the age of 11 when they haven't even

reached puberty, they don't know what their sexuality is. posing the sort of questions detracts from the issue parents have. you might be 93v- issue parents have. you might be gay. as might any other child in his class. if he is gay, he should be treated with love and affection and guided in life. i am wondering if these lessons might help a child who is gay. it is not going to help if you create a conflict between the family and the children. and quite honestly, joanne, of the bbc, right at the beginning of these protests at the beginning of these protests at parkfield, she interviewed me and isaid then, at parkfield, she interviewed me and i said then, andrew has not separated behaviour from belief. in the way he has treated the equality act. what you mean by behaviour? the equality act is about discrimination, it is how you treat

other people and how you behave towards them and he has not separated between that and belief so he has not even considered people's reality. this is a faith —based can —— community and he has ignored the belief structure and permitted a programme and this is why parents are up in arms. let me ask you, simon, i will come back to andrew moffat in a moment, as a head teacher, does the anti—discrimination message trump belief in your view? i think they sit side by side and the materials are very age—appropriate. i was disappointed with roger's and set that they were not, he has never seen that they were not, he has never seena that they were not, he has never seen a lesson for four—year—olds, and our school was videoed with the children being taught about the book and it is very age—appropriate and it talks about a child with two mothers doing activities that other children do. unfortunately, that would go against amir‘s beliefs as a

parent. we do have children in our school who have two mothers in reception and children with two dads in reception and it is important those children don't feel different and they don't feel their children are wrong and they accept that straightaway. do you accept that? we don't believe that belief should trump discrimination, they can sit side by side. andrew says this in his book. can ijust focus your back on the example that mr kidwell has given us, there are kids in his reception class with two mothers and two dads. talking openly about that and it being fine. i am addressing that, victoria. those kids are human beings, those parents are human beings. when you are talking about lesbian and gay, there is a sexuality involved, but children don't understand that, but they do understand good human behaviour and how to love each other. and who keeps going on about it being about

love, but the issue for parents is that love is pervasive and throughout society with your neighbours and your friends and your family and your parents and your siblings. but this is an issue about morality. do you accept it is about morality? i think it is an issue about tolerance and this is what the books do, they teach is to be tolerant and we say tolerance is accepting people who are different in our school. it is also accepting people like yourself you have different views and that is what the scheme does, it teaches about families of different shapes in an age—appropriate way, and it also teaches us about families who have different religious views and people with traditional religious views, which is really important. andrew says there is a focus on homophobia in his book no outsiders and you have already achieved a position where there is respect and tolerance and if there wasn't respect and tolerance, and who has been an openly gay teacher at parkfield for

many years, he has been treated with the same respect by parentsjust like any other teacher and that is very clear. the fact he is gay is an issue of morality? yes, but that doesn't make them homophobic. you see it as a moral? if you don't believe in islam, that doesn't make you islamophobic. i amjust asking, do you believe it is immoral to be 93v? do you believe it is immoral to be gay? we do not approve of it and it is morally not acceptable, yes. how do you respond to that, andrew moffat? when we started no outsiders four years ago, we had 11 consultation meetings, everybody was invited and we discussed that with pa rents invited and we discussed that with parents and that is why i wrote no outsiders. sorry to interrupt, can you respond to amir ahmed, who believes the fact you are gay is immoral. my belief is there are different people in the uk, i don't wa nt different people in the uk, i don't want anyone to be bullied because of

their defence, so i am not getting into this question about morality. —— their differences. there are different people living in birmingham and no one should be left outside, no one should be an outsider and no one should ever be bullied for who they are. let me read messages from our audiences this morning. schools should not give up on the no outsiders programme, this text says, the protests claim it is against their religion but they need to understand they live in an inclusive society and if they want others to respect their religion and belief, they and their religion and belief, they and their children should reflect —— respect others. and tango makes three is a lovely book. david says he doesn't believe children in early primary school need to be talked about same relationships any more than they need to be taught about heterosexual relationships, this topic should be dealt with as and when questions arise, let little kids be kids. michael said, i am disgusted by the absolute fear in people that somehow a book would turn their children gay. i suffered

bullying all through school for being gay and had there been more information and education about different people and relationships, i feel i would not have been bullied. ryan says, children —— teachers do a fantasticjob, parent should remove their children if they wish them not to learn about the world we live in. jeff says, these are all men, i do have responses from women, he says, four is too young to discuss lgbt issues, let them at least have some sort of childhood innocence before advising of sexual orientation, four is just too young. andrew moffat is gay, had you respond that childhood innocence point? i would love show you the book, i have got it here. all it does, it has pictures of two mothers going to the park and having some juice and having a snack and tugging their child in bed at night. that is it. in terms of childhood innocence, we talk about, does your mum do that, who is in yourfamily, who is

in this family, let's draw our families? that is quite innocent really, i am just talking about there being different families and it is really important that every child knows that their family is welcome in school. i was listening to your reporter early on with the mp and! to your reporter early on with the mp and i have friends in his constituency, two mothers with a daughter in a school and should we tell that daughter he was in reception, should we say, don't mention yourfamily? reception, should we say, don't mention your family? don't mention your two months? should we say that? or should we be celebrating all the families? that is what this is about, not really about lgbt lessons forfour and about, not really about lgbt lessons for four and five—year—olds, it is about different families and all families been welcome in school. thank you, all of you, i appreciate your time. andrew moffat, the author of the no outsiders andrew moffat, amir ahmed,

of the no outsiders andrew moffat, amirahmed, a of the no outsiders andrew moffat, amir ahmed, a stop no outsiders campaigner, his child pulled out a parkfield because of the no outsiders. and simon parkfield, head teacher. enjoy the henty —— the half term when it comes. let's go back to talk about brexit now — and we had serious sound issues at the beginning of the programme! and who will vote for theresa may's eu withdrawal bill? nadeem, are you going to vote for the legislation if it comes before parliament? no, iam not. hurray, i can hear you! christine jardin, will you vote for this legislation if it comes before parliament? no, it is too little, too late. nadine dorries, are the chances of brexit sleeping away increasing if you don't vote for this? no, i voted for the second deal and, frankly, if all

members of parliament had, we would have left on march the 29th. the problem with this deal as it has now become a vehicle for a second referendum and for entry into, remaining in the customs union, that would happen at committee stage after second reading. and i am afraid ijust after second reading. and i am afraid i just simply can't vote for that. i had to think very carefully about voting for the withdrawal agreement on second presentation and only did so because i was assured because of various legal issues. and remember, if this deal passes, when it comes before parliament, it becomes an international treaty and thatis becomes an international treaty and that is a different ball game. so i am afraid! that is a different ball game. so i am afraid i won't vote for it, no. and i think there are three scenarios that will take place today or over the next couple of weeks. one is the prime minister will pull the deal because she knows she doesn't have the support and she will resign, the second one is that

she puts the deal before parliament and it crashes and burns and she resigns. the third is she puts it to parliament and hopes on a wing and a prayer that with a payroll vote and with a few mps, it will get over the line. having spoken to my colleagues this morning, that will not happen. i think we might be reaching the end game finery for the prime minister. people have said that about the prime minister before, you heard nadine dorries a conservative say this is a vehicle to a second referendum. you as a liberal democrat, that is what you have been fighting forfour democrat, that is what you have been fighting for four months, if not yea rs, fighting for four months, if not years, why are you not going to vote for it? i mean, i have to absolutely disagree with nadine dorries unless. if it was, yes, i would vote for it. but it is not because we don't have a guarantee on this, it is not on the face of the bill. you would get to vote and you would have the chance to persuade parliament to vote for it. if! could

chance to persuade parliament to vote for it. if i could just finish, she has not accepted the amendment which would make it a confirmatory referendum. this is a cynical ploy by the prime minister who has seen how badly the conservatives will do in the polls in the european election. people are voting liberal democrat to stop this brexit madness and this is a cynical ploy which, frankly, has failed. as you can hear from listening to nadine dorries, it has ostracised a lot of people in the conservative party as well. the prime minister, this is not going to get through parliament. it does not talk about the confirmatory final vote on the deal that ourselves and other parties have talked about. if she had we might support it. but it is still a bad deal, it is still not best for the country. what is best for the country is what the liberal democrats have been saying for a few years, which is to remain. nadine dorries, you would like to meet the eu with a deal so it is managed and it is orderly and organised. —— to

leave the eu. but i guess you are prepared to go for a no—deal exit with the economic pain that that could involve for some of your constituents and people across the country? well, first, just let me go back to the previous point that has just been made. it is a fact that neither labour nor the liberal democrats are ever going to vote for this whatever goes in it because as was explained to me this morning, theirjob is to ensure that the conservative government does not remain in government and does not deliver brexit, and the second point is that we have a new european parliament about to be elected with a very different make—up. very different cosmetic outlook of mps. you just don't have our country and the brexit party, you have italy and you have hungry, so you will have a very different place. so a future leader of the conservative party will have to go forward and say to the european union, this is the deal, take out the backstop and we

will get this deal passed. the backstop is the main issue. and the british government is never going to keep a border and now the is the irish covenant, it is a complete myth. it is sticking point that doesn't to be there —— the irish government. because we have a new make—up of the european parliament, it may be the european parliament says, ok, no deal. some might say you are in fantasyland because the eu had made it clear time after time that this is the deal and they will not renegotiate anything. final last word, what you think is going to happen? your goal of remaining and a second recommending is also sleeping away? -- a second referendum. no, if you look at the opinion polls and what happened in the english local elections, people are... what is the legislative process to get what you want? there are two things we could

do. we could give people a confirmatory referendum which is what we have said and which is not on the face of this bill and not included in this bill. we would have to vote for it and hope there was a referendum. 0r to vote for it and hope there was a referendum. orwe simply to vote for it and hope there was a referendum. or we simply revoke article 50. we can do that. the supreme court has ruled the uk government can unilaterally revoke article 50. now, it is absolutely clear from the opinion polls and from everything is happening, from the petition to revoke article 50 and1 the petition to revoke article 50 and 1 million people marching in the street and the growing support and fantastic results we had in the local election that people are moving towards remain and threatening them with no—deal and this project fear of the conservative party is nonsense. there is not a majority in parliament for revoking it, as you know. no, but you asked about the legislative processes. that is the answer. i am gratefulfor your patience, thank you for putting up with our technical problems, thank you. christine jardine of the liberal democrats and nadine dorries

of the conservative party. why are families going hungry here in the uk, with one in five people living in poverty, when we are the world's fifth largest economy? that's the question that philip alston — the un special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights — asks in a report published today. he says austerity is continuing, despite the social consequences, growing numbers of food banks, more people homeless or sleeping rough, and 40% of kids predicted to be living in poverty by 2021. he accuses the government of removing much of the glue that holds the uk together, and replacing it with a harsh, uncaring ethos. the government says his report paints a completely inaccurate picture of their approach to poverty, and points to the £95 billion spent annually on working—age benefits. mr alston came to the uk on a two—week visit in november, and one of the places he went to was jaywick, in essex — once a thriving seaside resort, but now a struggling town.

we met some of the people living there. i was going to pay you a clip but time is short, so let's go straight to philip alston. thank you very much the talking to us. your 21 page report paints a bleak picture of the uk. can you briefly sum up for our audience what you say you found about poverty in britain? well, i should say first of all that i spent a couple of weeks in the uk's places speaking with people around the country. 11 days. yes, that is right. but the report draws very heavily on a large number of reports that have been reduced —— produced by highly reputable think tanks, research institutes and civil society groups over the last year or more. so it is notjust the impressions that i have picked up, but rather the scientific evidence asi but rather the scientific evidence as i see it. i think the evidence is

that the policies that are being pursued which rely almost entirely on trying to promote employment opportunities have been very successful in terms of creating jobs, but have also allowed very significant poverty to persist. hunger, homelessness, a range of other challenges, which are simply not being addressed by current government policies. you assert that the government, since 2010, has made cuts not because of economic motivation, but because it stems from their ideology. where is your evidence for that? well, i think the statement first of all made by the chancellor george osborne in 2010 we re chancellor george osborne in 2010 were pretty straight forward and i think what we have seen at every step of the way since that time is a

further trimming of the different parts of the welfare state. even when significant resources have become available to the treasury. so there has never been a point at which the government has looked to backtrack on any of the austerity measures. instead, they are full stea m measures. instead, they are full steam ahead ever since. and i think the explanation for that is clearly the explanation for that is clearly the government's preoccupation with work, not benefits. with individual responsibility, not state assistance. i mean, sorry to interrupt, the conservatives would argue inheriting £160 billion overdraft when they took over in 2010 was the economic motivation for making the cuts that they did. generations, they argued, for years to come would be paying the interest on that debt should should there be another financial crash if they

didn't tackle that deficit. the government says a report is effectively a work of fiction and the dwp say it is a barely believable documentation of britain and it refers to the £95 billion a year spent on welfare and maintaining a state pension system that supports people into retirement. do you accept that? no. asi retirement. do you accept that? no. as i said first of all, i think the government was indeed faced with a large deficit in 2010, but so are governments in the united states, australia and various other places. what they chose to do was to stimulate the economy, rather than put the burden very significantly on the poorest in society, and i think the poorest in society, and i think the results have spoken for themselves. when the government says that my analysis is barely believable, i think they are saying that all of the information by the rowntree foundation, by the resolution foundation, the institute

for fiscal studies, the national audit association and innumerable others are wrong. and i don't think thatis others are wrong. and i don't think that is the case. we don't have any detailed response from the dwp or the government, wejust detailed response from the dwp or the government, we just haven't engaged with the very detailed statistical and other analyses in a very different direction. are you running when you accuse the department for work and pensions of creating effectively the modern version of the 19th century warehouses —— are you wrong. made infamous by charles dickens. do you stand by that? workhouses were famous for trying to make the receipt of any sort of benefits as unpleasant as possible, for using very severe sanctions and for ensuring that the levels of assistance that were provided in the

workhouses were so grim that people would not at all want to stay there. that is fine, if you can get out and you can work, you shouldn't be in a work else. but if you have a disability, if you have a family situation, if you have an illness, if you have a skill that is no longer wanted, you should be able to get benefits that are decent and to live on. thank you so much for joining us, philip alston. thank you. the latest news and british steel on bbc newsroom live next, thanks for your company, back tomorrow at ten o'clock. good morning. we have pretty spectacular clouds out there, lots of high—level cirrus cloud giving pretty good views. but we have cumulus cloud in the sky in east sussex at the moment. it is thicker

across north wales and northern england. a few showers here which clear away during the afternoon. the greatest weather is across scotland and with that, heavy showers across the north and east in particular where it will feel chilly this afternoon, temperatures 11—12dc. elsewhere, warm sunny spells and highs of 21 or 22 degrees. tonight, this continues across the north east of scotland, a brisk north—westerly wind here. elsewhere, some clear spells, overnight temperatures down to six to 10 degrees. on thursday, more warm and sunny to six to 10 degrees. on thursday, more warm and sunny spells for most of us across the uk and temperatures up of us across the uk and temperatures up to 23 degrees in the south east of england. a little bit cooler further north and even here, temperatures about the mid—to—high teens. goodbye for now.

you're watching bbc newsroom live — it's 11am and these are the main stories this morning: british steel is to enter insolvency — putting 5,000 jobs at risk — following a breakdown in rescue talks with the government. it is the heart of the tone and ft heart stops beating services and and everything else around it will be affected massively. it is the news no one here wanted, workers have told us they are devastated. i am live on the scunthorpe with the very latest. theresa may will make the case for her amended brexit plan in parliament — as opposition to her proposals hardens.