24/11/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

Theresa May is in Brussels

to talk about security,

and Brexit might just come up -

but while it may be "Black Friday"

at the shops, can the prime minister

expect to get a discount

on our divorce bill from the EU?

A string of former defence chiefs

warn that Britain's armed forces

risk being "hollowed out" -

should the government take

seriously demands for more

spending on the military.

The Conservatives claim they've been

the victim of "fake news"

after reports circulate online

suggesting they don't believe

animals feel pain or emotions.

We'll talk to the MP Zac Goldsmith.

Former Scottish Labour

leader Kezia Dugdale has

survived her first appearance on I'm

a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here -

but she missed out on the title

jungle prime minister and ended up

cleaning the rainforest toilets.

And we'll be joined

by the experimental musician who's

been making waves after his latest

project challenging the backers

of Brexit turned out to be in part

paid for from public funds.

All that in the next hour

and joining me for all of it,

two journalists we picked up

in a special 2-for-1

Black Friday deal -

think of this show as the bargain

basement of polticial

discussion - it's Rafael Behr

and Melanie Phillips.

Welcome to both of you.

And from the premium range.

You are

good value.

One woman who won't have had much

time for Christmas shopping this

morning is prime minister

Theresa May, she's in Brussels

to meet with her fellow EU leaders

where she's warning them to be wary

of "hostile states like Russia".

She's pledged the UK will stay

committed to European

security after Brexit,

and although Brexit isn't

on the official agenda it's

like to have come up at a meeting

with European council

president Donald Tusk.

Mr Tusk has called on the UK to show

more progress on the so-called

"divorce bill" if trade talks

are to begin this year.

Here's the Prime Minister.

The summit here today is about

working with our eastern partners.

But, of course, I will be

having other meetings.

I will be seeing President Tusk

here today, talking

about the positive discussions,

the positive negotiations

we are having, looking

ahead to the future,

it deepens the special

partnership that I want...

Are you putting

a figure on the table?

..That I want with

the European Union.

These negotiations are continuing.

What I'm clear about is that we are

going to step forward together.

This is for both the UK and the EU

to move onto the next stage.

Is now broadly accepted the Prime

Minister will now present a figure,

even if it isn't in pounds, pens,

and viewers, but I financial offer

to Donald Tusk?

Essentially, yes. --

pounds, pennies, and euros. We will

pay something. The decision

ultimately hinges on how much of an

outstanding budget is owed. Even if

they've isn't a figure, somebody

will do the sums and say that it is

roughly 30, 40 billion. Everybody

will want to avoid a headline number

everybody can point at. But it will

be roughly more than the 20 billion

suggested.

How confident are you

that talk of an improved financial

offer, if that is what we are

talking about, will be met with an

agreement to move onto trade talks?

Nobody in the circumstances can be

confident. It is smoke and mirrors.

It's a poker game. We don't know how

it is being played. From what one

reads it would appear that as the

deadline approaches minds are

becoming concentrated. I've always

taken the view that the European

Union has more to lose from a no

deal outcome. That isn't to say

Britain doesn't have a lot to lose,

as well, but in my view the EU will

be in a desperate situation if there

were no deal. I've always thought

that the balance of power was on the

British side, the British

negotiators' side. It hasn't seemed

to me that they are in agreement

with that analysis themselves. What

concerns me is that they may be

playing a strong hand very weakly.

In which case they will lose out.

But one doesn't know. All of this is

fainting in the sense of smoke and

mirrors. I would hope we don't know

what the actual negotiation position

is. Because in this poker game they

have to keep everybody guessing.

It

slightly overstate the value of the

UK Budget contribution to the entire

EU budget position. The UK

Government position is that they

want a deal. The decision has been

made by ministers and the Prime

Minister that they no deal scenario

would be terrible...

But the threat

of walking away, is that not a card

they hold?

It is a card they don't

want to realistically play. All of

this stuff about no deal at bluffing

is now separate. It was clear

already a month ago that as the UK

moved a bit more on the money, and

the closer they would get to a deal.

But it has now found a way of doing

that. And it is a continuation of

the card game analogy, the wild card

is the question of the Irish border.

Which was always one of the top

issues the commission said had to be

resolved before moving onto trade

talks. What's important is that the

UK behind the scenes will be

essentially saying we have more or

less solved citizen rights. We have

more or less decided on the European

Court of Justice...

The Irish border

will be a sticking point.

Exactly.

Why there will be a lot of

conversations about security is they

will say we've done two out of

three, the Irish border is a

complicated issue. Can we just agree

to fudge the whole Irish question a

little bit. But also going to EU

member states saying we know you

want to support the Irish on this

but there isn't a deal that can be

done on this. Can the UK Prime

Minister peel off the other 26

members to say, sorry to Ireland,

you cannot have what you want right

now, we must move on.

Fudging a

political position, who would have

thought it!

We've talked a lot this week about

what was in Phillip Hammond's Budget

speech on Wednesday,

but today we're going to be talking

about something that was rather

conspicuous by its absence -

defence - and that's despite a group

of former Conservative defence

ministers urging him to give more

money to the armed forces.

Annual defence expenditure in the UK

has met the NATO benchmark

of 2%, ever since records began ANI.

However in recent years

previously-excluded expenditure,

such as contributions to UN

peacekeeping missions

as well as provisions for war

pensions, have been included

to meet this target

The government has promised

to increase Defence spending,

although the department is already

committed to finding £20 billion

of savings over the next 10 years

as part of an efficiency programme.

The UK has the fifth biggest defence

budget in the world.

With an army totalling

155,474, including Gurkhas

and full-time reservists.

However there are continuing reports

of shortages of manpower

and equipment.

This week HMS Diamond, a Type 45

destroyer costing £1 billion,

had to head back to the UK after it

struggled with its

engine warm water.

That leaves all six Type 45

destroyers in port in the UK,

awaiting refits to rectify problems

with their propulsion systems.

And reports last month suggested

the Royal Marines could be

cut by 1,000 personnel.

The Cabinet Office is currently

conducting a mini-Defence

and Security review looking

at military capabilities

and funding up to 2022,

which will report back next month.

We're joined now by the Conservative

MP and defence select committee

Here is Lord Alan West

talking on the subject.

These commitments demand

hard combat power.

And I fear that our military

is being hollowed out to such an

extent that we are no longer

capable of providing it.

My Lords, few of our

population realise that STSR

2010 cuts our military capability

by a third, by one third,

it is quite extraordinary.

And STSR 2015 has not resolved that.

And the Americans have expressed

growing concern about

this diminishing

military capability.

Well we did ask to speak

to a minister this morning but it

seems none was available,

however I'm pleased to say we're

joined now by the Conservative MP

and defence select committee member

Jonny Mercer, he's in our Plymouth

studio, and by the former Labour

minister and former head of the navy

Alan West.

Welcome. When you set the Armed

Forces are being hollowed out, what

evidence do you have?

Effectively,

certain aspects of training have

been stopped. Spare gear, spare

items, logistic type stuff is not

available. The repair work that

needs to be done on complex

equipment isn't being fully done or

properly done. It's a whole raft of

those measures that have been taken

because, yes, they are saying let's

find £70 billion worth of

efficiency. Since I've been in the

Navy, I joined 52 years ago, we have

been finding efficiencies. Because

governments always say that. There

comes a stage where there -- it

isn't an efficiency thing. Cuts them

happen. And they are very large.

The

Armed Forces have always said they

need more money to mitigate the

expected cuts. I just said it is the

defence Budget in the world, it is

still a big budget with a lot of

money behind it.

It is a big budget.

We are the fifth or six largest

economy in the world, so it makes

sense. We are also a permanent

member of the UN Security Council.

We are there because our military

capability was one of the biggest

powers in the Second World War. The

reason we hold key appointments

within Nato is because the United

States and United Kingdom, up until

recently, ensured really the defence

and security of Europe. We are the

people who really did it. Now they

are saying, why should the UK have

these senior jobs? Because we have

cut our defence capabilities so

much.

What do you want to see in

this defence and Security review

currently being conducted?

I hope it

will show we are in increasingly

unpredictable and dangerous world.

Weren't we always?

I think it is

more so. There was a certain

stability even back during the Cold

War. It's become more unpredictable

and more chaotic. I'm sure it will

show that. And I hope it will say

that we need to apply some real

funding to this, not 2% done with

smoke and mirrors, but by including

things... You cannot kill enemies

with civilian war pensions, I'm

afraid. You need combat power.

Do

you think those efficiency savings

should be scrapped?

I think it's

always right to look for

efficiencies. It's always right look

to see if there is a better way of

doing things. You are right about

the size of the Budget. We've always

had concerns about procurement. We

should look in procurement area. I

think to assume that the way you are

going to be able to pay for

equipment you have ordered is by

efficiencies is a recipe for

disaster.

You brought up the

procurement issue. The MOD has a

poor track record when it comes to

procurement. We talked about the

type 45 destroyer, it cost £1

billion in 2005 to 2007, now the

engine will not work in hot water,

so all six destroyers are in the

port. Is our procurement strategy

just incompetent?

I don't think so.

Things can be improved on there. The

type 45 comedies and billion pounds

each, the programme was £6.2 billion

for what ended up as six ships. --

the type 45, you said was £1 billion

each. It was initially meant to be

12 ships. What we keep doing is make

political decisions which add to

costs. The aircraft carriers were £2

million more expensive because when

the crash came Gordon Brown's

government delayed them by about a

year and a half. But adds cost.

Political decisions have hit

procurement and caused problems.

Were you surprised that there was

not mention of defence in the

Budget?

I wasn't. I've always

thought offence was the poor

relation in terms of government

policy and government priorities. To

me, defence is the single most

important requirement of a

government, to defend the country.

It should be given high priority.

Do

you think we are exposed?

Always.

The challenges are changing all the

time as Lord West says. In recent

years, in recent decades, I think

politicians have come to believe,

which I think is probably true, that

among the public there is no sense

of urgency about defence. And more

than that, a distaste for defence.

Difference doesn't mean defence, it

means killing people. -- defence

doesn't mean. I think the country

has become pacifist. Dangerously so.

It is unwilling to go to war.

Do you

agree?

It's reasonable to not want to go to

war, but where Melanie is right if

there is important historical

context. After the Cold War, it felt

as if there was a peace dividend,

the world was safer and therefore

there was more money available to

divert other things. We've now seen

a situation where there is not much

money available for all sorts of

things. There's a political

challenge to explain to the country

why you would need to spend

resources that might be spent on

health on defence instead. An

additional factor is the point about

Nato which is when you have Donald

Trump as president of the US, he's

not that interested in European

security, he's interested in other

theatres. So it falls to the UK and

France to be basically the military

powers that support Western

democracy, security in Europe.

Ultimately facing Russia. How you

organise that and find that, whether

there is adequate funding is a

different question, but that has

massively change the strategic

catalyst in the last year.

Do you

think it is two disingenuous to

include UN pensions in this?

Yes.

Yes, we never historically did this,

we were at 2.4% before the coalition

came in. Effectively we've gone down

to about 1.9%. In the way that

percentage, what do we require? What

we need? Hopefully distribute will

do it but I'm not holding my breath.

-- hopefully this review will do it.

This is true in every department

budget, you could say we were

talking about health, schools,

everyone can make their case on

their priority and the fiscal

situation is such and the growth

situations are so bad that the

priorities have to be made.

I would

support what Melanie said, they all

say it, Prime Minister after Prime

Minister, defence and other

secretaries, the most important

thing for any government is the

defence of our people and quick as a

flash they don't do it. I know from

three years in government,

governments can afford what they

want is to afford. I think it has

been pusillanimous and putting us on

a path to danger.

Before we let you

go, because we have not been able to

reach Johnny Mercer, with some

technical problems, Michael Fallon,

the former Defence Secretary, said

in the budget debate that he hopes

to speak more freely than the

constraint of government allowed.

You think you will be a useful ally

in the argument you have been

making?

I wouldn't have thought so

up until recently. I think he was

disingenuous about what was being

provided for defence but he suddenly

had the conversion of five or six

days before he went and suddenly

said, we need more money for defence

which is the truth. If he's going to

be saying that, I'm delighted. I

would hesitate to say he is a

hands-on chap, but I hope he will

say the right thing. We do need more

money for defence. If you look in

the Lords, every corner of the

Lords, every corner of the Commons,

they are all saying, there's a real

problem here and the front benches

ignore it or say, it's all fine. And

it can't be if it's that difficult.

The University of Liverpool has seen

the latest campaign to rename

a building because of claims that it

honours a historical figure

connected with the slave trade.

But is this a sensible response

to society's changing

views, or another example

of oversensitivity in our

universities and beyond?

They say history is

written by the victors.

Just as our taste for

fashion and art evolves,

so to do our values,

and in turn, our view

of that history.

William Gladstone, campaigning

liberal and still the only

British Prime Minister to serve four

terms, may not seem the obvious

choice for reappraisal.

But Tinaye Mapako, who's a medical

student in Gladstone's

home city of Liverpool,

is one of a group of undergraduates

who launched a campaign

to remove his name from

the student accommodation block.

I think it was finding out

about his role in the works

for compensating slave owners.

He helped gain some,

the equivalent of some

£4 million in today's money.

I mean, some people will think,

William Gladstone, one

of our greatest prime ministers,

known for being a great reformer,

they will be surprised that

you've singled him out.

I think that's a wonderful

case of what about-ery.

It's really great that people

are talking about other

stuff that Gladstone did,

but that doesn't really

answer the question

that we are offering to people.

We're talking about the issue

of slavery and how we commemorate

people's role in the slave trade.

Liverpool is a city built

on the slave trade.

Penny Lane, made famous

by the Beatles, was in fact

named after James Penny,

a man who owned slave ships.

This campaign by Liverpool students

is one of the growing number

all over the world aimed at removing

the dedications and statues

to those men who profited

from the slave trade.

A movement kick-started in the US.

Earlier this year, New Orleans

removed all Confederate monuments

on the city's parks and streets,

while Yale University announced

it was removing symbols

of Vice President John Calhoun,

a Southerner, and staunch

defender of slavery.

The Rhodes Must Fall movement

started in South Africa

but quickly moved to Oxford,

where students were ultimately

unsuccessful in campaigning

to remove the statue of imperialist

Cecil Rhodes.

But earlier this year,

Bristol's Colston Hall,

a well-known music venue,

became the first significant

institution in the UK to bow

to public pressure and remove

the name of the notable

17th-century philanthropist

and slaver Edward Colston.

It's a trend some

believe is unhelpful.

I don't think it helps

to knock down statues,

or knock down buildings,

because then we're

not going to learn.

What we need to learn

is that there are absolute evils,

including slavery, but also

that they were people of their time.

And Gladstone was not

a bad human being.

For men of his class

and his education, that's simply

what people thought.

And within that, he was a much

better man than many.

But while Liverpool's student union

doesn't take an official view,

it does think that the debate

is one worth having.

And they intend to hold a student

referendum later this term.

I think it's really positive to see

students engaging in a critical

outlook on the environment.

I think the very fact

that people are talking

about it is a really academic way

to investigate our history

and I think it informs the way

we live our lives now.

So the students at Liverpool

are the next generation of leaders,

the idea that they are questioning

things that have gone before them

is a really positive sign.

The University of Liverpool said any

official request for a name change

would have to go through a formal

process, and while the names

and statues that pack the city

reflect a sometimes difficult

history, they also offer

an important reminder of the past.

We're joined by Femi Nylander, an

activist from the Rhodes Must Fall

campaign. You heard it mentioned.

Welcome to the programme. Calling

for statues or names of historical

figures to be removed because you

don't like them and you think they

represent something controversial,

but doing it without contextualising

it, or revising it or putting it at

the time that these people were

alive, is not a form of censorship?

Talking about contextualising and

something being contentious, this is

not contentious. Slavery is not

contentious, it was a crime against

humanity on a mass scale. And

Gladstone's use are not contentious.

It's not just the fact that he got

his father paid off to the tune of

what is in today's money the

equivalent of 83 million, that is

just his father, but the rest of the

people he got paid off, when he was

53 in the 60s, when he was already

Chancellor, he was defending the

Jefferson Davis and the US civil war

saying they should be able to

succeed. He was a staunch supporter

of slavery and he also helps run the

British Empire but that is a

different thing. When you talk about

these monuments and statues, talking

about Gladstone's role in the slave

trade and Cecil Rhodes's history of

colonialism only started in this

country because of these movements.

Do you agree?

I don't. Gladstone was

not a staunch supporter of slavery

and what you say was true about his

father and the compensation, but he

had a more complicated set of views,

he was anti-slavery, he just

believed in a different way of

approaching it. He wanted the

slaves' conditions to be in fruit

and he wanted compensation for the

slave owners. It's not true to be a

staunch supporter of slavery, to say

he was, the opposite is true. I

think it's troubling, I understand

the strong feelings against slavery,

it was and remains an annihilate

evil, but this approach that says

that we should expunge it from

historical memory is wrong. We heard

how important it was in the context

of Liverpool that this controversy

has produced critical thinking,

students in gauging with the issue.

If the statue was not there, they

would not be in changing.

Isn't it

about learning from history? Anthony

Seldon said, there are absolute

evils and you may think that this

case William Gladstone did represent

in some form an absolute evil, but

without reference to history, how

will people talk about it and learn

about it?

We leave aside the

question whether or not he was a

staunch supporter... We will move

on. In terms of how people will

learn from it, we had to start

teaching history, actually talking

about Britain's role in the slave

trade.

And aren't these people part

of it?

For example, if you take a

statue, if you go across the road,

there's Parliament Square. And you

have eight statue of Churchill, -- a

statue of Churchill and another

founder of apartheid, alongside a

statue of Cecil Rhodes and Mahatma

Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.

Do you

recognise that Churchill was seen as

one of the Great War leaders?

I

recognise that, and he is not seen

as a genocidal man who helped lead

to the death of 4 million people in

van Gaal. And we don't talk about

history.

I'm fascinated about this

and ambivalent, but what is the

statute of limitations of went an

atrocity is just something you can

observe in history, and you can put

up monuments for people who are now

considered atrocious? There was a

statue of Cromwell, he was a

fanatical murderer for some people,

he would not be popular in Ireland,

and if they understood his

behaviour, people in this country,

in modern values. When you look at

what happened in the US with the

taking down of Confederate

monuments, those symbols were

rallying points for a very active

current extremely racist movement.

That's a different thing...

They are

rallying points.

But there are not

Gladstone supporters rallying in

this country.

Britain was key to the

dismantling of Libya, and the slave

trading of black trading is going on

in Libya because of the actions of

Britain. Britain is still a very

colonial force in this world and

starting to deal with the history of

white Britain is the fifth richest

country in the world, why Britain is

causing foreign wars and

aggressions, is part of that,

starting to look at history, look at

people like Churchill.

That's not

quite true.

We don't deal with our

history. We don't talk about

history, Churchill is now the £5

not.

This is an ideological way of

looking at it, the slavery going on

in Libya, the people to blame other

people who are the slave owners in

those countries and those countries.

To blame Britain is perverse. And

you can go to any hero and almost

guaranteed that among their values

and attitudes, especially if they

were a long time ago, will be things

that we find a very, very

discomforting. Churchill undoubtedly

had some extremely dubious from our

point of view now attitudes to a lot

of things.

Churchill said, if there

is a famine, why isn't Ghandi dead

yet?

But you can findings about

Gandhi as well.

Oh, yes, his statue

is next to Churchill.

So would you

care all of these statues down?

No,

I wouldn't.

Why not?

Where would you

draw the line? Melanie's .30 could

find things that are difficult and

uncomfortable, -- Malini's point,

that you could find things that are

difficult...

There is difficult and

accountable, and there is helping to

lead to the death of 4 million

people...

With you see that on the

same line as Hitler, Stalin, Saddam

Hussein?

Yes, people loved the

statue of Saddam Hussein coming down

because he's not a British hero.

I'm

fascinated by this distinction

because something has been erected

in the past because people wanted to

venerate a certain figure, which you

are now connecting to saying, means

ongoing complicity in something

appalling and atrocious that is

going on. I can see in the

Confederate case that is true, but

in the case of Gladstone or

Churchill, I don't see, it's quite a

big leap from people venerating this

person because of something they did

in the past and right now...

People

right now do not deal with history.

Written right now does not teach in

its schools the history of

colonialism. It teaches the history

of slavery in the States but it

rarely teaches about the history of

slavery in the UK. Britain does not

deal with history.

It would taking

the state to -- and would taking the

statutes down the order that?

The

only reason we have had the

conversation in the last few decades

is the Rhodes Must Fall campaign and

the wave of movement in the

universities in the last couple of

years. We have seen a massive

backlash against us.

I think these

debates have been going on

throughout...

I remember them in the

80s.

I said in the past few decades!

Thank you very much for coming in.

Much appreciated.

The musician Matthew Herbert

is known for ignoring convention -

he's previously recorded the sound

of tanks, crematoriums,

coffin lids and arms fairs for use

in his electronic music,

which as you might have guessed can

be rather political.

His latest project, called

the 'Brexit Big Band',

includes setting Article 50 to music

and is described as a response

to quote "the message from parts

of the Brexit campaign that

as a nation we are

better off alone".

It's been in the news after it

emerged that the project has been

in part funded by the Department

for International Trade,

led by leading Brexit

supporter Liam Fox.

Here's the Brexit

Big Band in action.

After Brexit, we decided to bring

the Daily Mail, which is a

BLEEP

right-wing newspaper in England that

made a referendum about

sovereignty into something

about foreigners.

So, yeah, that's what

we're reading today.

MELLOW JAZZ, WITH RHYTHMIC RIPPING.

I'm happy to say Matthew joins me.

What was your motivation?

Something

about identity. Thinking about a

sense of Britishness after the

Brexit vote. It seemed such a shock

to many of us that work and travel a

lot and Europe, have friends there,

and collaborate, it was such a

shock. For me it was being about

wanting to be part of that

conversation. To talk about the

things we've achieved. And not

wanting to let it go.

So it's a

protest about Brexit?

I think it is

accepted that Remain hast lost. It's

not a continuation of its campaign.

But it is about what kind of Brexit

do we want. It's clear the

government took us into this without

much of a plan. There is room for

other people to come up with other

plans and other visions.

Why do you

think Brexit Woodstock friendships,

travel, and connections that

currently exist in and with Europe?

I was born in 1972. Europe has been

part of my whole life, really. Much

of what has enriched my life has

been working and collaborating with

people from all cultures. I feel

like it's not really clear what the

government is expressing about the

kind of Brexit they want. Is it

European style... Sorry, what kind

of Britain they want after Brexit,

is it European style, or is it

American in the low taxation idea.

Why do you think Brexit threatens

tolerance and creativity?

You only

have to have a look at the spike in

hate crime after the Brexit vote.

Those figures are contested. Is that

the basis for your evidence, that it

will threaten tolerance in the

future?

You only have to look at

some of the language coming out of

the newspapers about how we talk

about foreigners, how we talk about

people of colour, that kind of

thing.

Melanie, part of this music

is ripping up the Daily Mail, are

you offended by that, used to write

for them?

I think it's a rather

perverse and strange thing that a

message of tolerance takes the form

of tearing up the newspapers.

Because that is promoting hatred of

the Daily Mail. I appreciate the

Daily Mail provokes strong opinions.

To tear up newspapers has chilling

connotations for me. Destroying

literature... You know, burning

books, tearing up newspapers. The

deeper thing is, and I do appreciate

that for Remainers it is a sort of

grief, what has happened, but I

think that is a perverse attitude.

There is complete confusion between

the desire of the Brexiteers, of

whom I am very much one, to for

Britain to regain its reputation,

that we cannot be fully sovereign

and self-governing to do that. You

currently have a belief that we are

narrow, bigoted, that we will be

horrible to foreigners, that doesn't

follow...

Is that what you are

saying?

Where is the joy? Where is

the positivity?

About Britain being

a self-governing nation, isn't that

great?

There is nothing joyful about

this Government, nothing joyful

about this process, no reaching

out...

That the Government.

Melanie

speaks on the half of part of the

Brexit vote, when she feels strongly

about. I think a lot of people who

witnessed that campaign saw a very

deliberate, cynical mobilisation of

angry, xenophobic feeling. That was

intrinsic to some of the messages

put out by aspects of the Leave

campaign. But wounded people. -- but

that wounded people. It's quite

reasonable to suggest, firstly it

might not have crossed the finish

line ahead of Remain had it not

echoed some of those sentiments.

Some people who feel aggrieved by it

and sad about it have a passion

about British identity, British

democracy, and British sovereignty.

They just don't think the EU was the

corrosive force.

I don't accept that

it mainly motivated xenophobia.

Going back before you were born,

going back to 1975 when I voted no

to Europe, have always been accused

of xenophobia. Simply because I

didn't think Britain should be in

the EU. It is people like me who

have been the target of hatred on

the basis that we are automatically

accused of bigotry, of xenophobia,

of racial prejudice, of

narrow-mindedness, of intolerance...

It is extraordinary that you

consider yourself to be addicting.

Is ripping up the paper a hostile

act? -- consider yourself a victim.

Especially from somebody who was

supposed to be promoting tolerance.

For me I am interested in sound,

stories, I'm interested in it as

materials. It's not just the Daily

Mail. Wherever we go we ask

countries to provide newspapers who

they feel are pushing towards a more

divided society. We filmed this

concept in Syria, Russia, and China,

where the act has a different

connotation.

Why should you have

funding from the Department of

International trade?

That an

argument about arts subsidy.

According to the bpi, which is where

we got the money from, for every £1

they invest they get £10 back. They

see it as investment. The creative

industry provide a £2 billion worth

of income to this economy.

Would

Liam Fox enjoy going to see this?

The underlying point is he

subsidises the arts, sometimes the

arts will do things and perform

things which make governments

uncomfortable. That the healthy

aspect. I must revisit this idea

that Brexiteers are the victim of

this. This is fascinating. The won.

The ultimate policy is the

overarching drive of what Government

is doing. -- they have won. The idea

of being pro-European is oppressing

the Brexit spirit, that's so

interesting...

I said in the past

that is how we were perceived and

treated.

There is no sense of

triumph...

Remainers are the most

pessimistic people I've ever seen.

Brexiteers are the joyful ones.

You

are bitter and miserable about it

all the time.

How wonderful it is to

be democratic. I said that is how we

were treated. I also said how

wonderful it is Britain is becoming

a democratic nation. You say that is

joyless, but that is your view of

what happened.

Don't talk over each

other because we will end this

debate. Thank you very much for

coming in.

Thank you.

The Conservatives came

in for criticism this

week following reports,

widely shared by campaigners

and celebrities online,

that Tory MPs had voted to reject

the idea that animals can feel pain.

The party says it's been a victim

of "fake news", and the reports -

some of which have since been

corrected - didn't reflect reality.

Here's Emma Vardy to explain.

Have MPs decided that animals

don't have feelings?

Some people think they have.

And it's down to a vote that

happened in Parliament recently.

Since then, a lot of

people have been getting

really angry about this.

These papers have been making out

that MPs don't care about animals.

And millions of people have been

reading and sharing stuff

like this on social media.

Celebrities have been

tweeting about it.

And hundreds of thousands of people

have signed petitions.

That's not the full story.

MPs didn't vote to say that animals

don't have feelings.

They're calling this fake news.

And the Minister Michael Gove says

the reporting was wrong.

The Independent newspaper's

changed its story, and some

of the tweets have been taken down.

So how did all this come about?

We need to go back a bit

to understand what's

actually happened here.

The idea that animals are capable

of feeling pain and suffering

is called animal sentience,

and has been a really big

thing for campaigners

in the animal rights movement.

Back in the '80s and '90s,

campaigners decided the rules

on animal welfare weren't

up to scratch.

Like the way live animals

are transported, or the way

they're slaughtered.

Or how battery farmed hens are kept.

So they fought a long battle to get

the European Union to recognise

animals as sentient beings,

and even celebrities got involved.

Campaigners started a petition that

got 1 million signatures.

Which wasn't easy back then

before the Internet.

And the EU did take notice.

The rule on animal sentience

was finally written into an EU

treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, in 2009.

It was a big win for animal welfare,

a real victory for campaigners.

But now, because we're leaving

the EU, the UK won't be bound

by these rules any more.

So campaigners wanted to transfer

the rules on animal sentience

from the EU treaty into UK law,

so it would still be

there after Brexit.

The Green Party MP Caroline Lucas

tried to persuade everyone

that this was a good idea.

But Conservative MPs voted

against it and it was turned down.

And that's where the row started.

But most MPs believe,

even without the EU treaty,

animal protection won't be affected

because they say animal sentience

is already covered in UK law

in the Animal Welfare Act, so it's

just not true to say that MPs voted

that animals don't have feelings.

But campaigners aren't convinced.

And they still believe an important

principle is being lost.

Michael Gove, the minister

in charge of farming,

has said he will strengthen animal

welfare rules and that there

won't be a gap in our laws

after we leave the EU.

And joining me now is

the Green Party's Home Affairs

Spokesperson Shahrar Ali

and the Conservative

MP Zac Goldsmith.

Welcome. The Government says the

amendment put down by Caroline Lucas

was faulty, it wasn't good enough,

and they will bring forward any

legislation to make the UK a world

leader on animal welfare. What's

wrong with that?

It's a good job we

put that amendment. If you were

really worried about the detail of

the amendment and thought it was

worth doing you would amend it. This

is a vital, important piece of

legislation. There is a difference

between acknowledging animals can

feel pain and that they are 70 and

creatures. That goes far further

than their capacity to suffer. --

sentient creatures. The animal

welfare act of 2006 does not

subscribe to this. It mentions

sentience in the preamble, but it

does not mention it specifically.

Do

you think there was inaccurate

reporting of this amendment which

implied the Government doesn't

accept animals feel pain?

I accept

there has been misreporting. But you

must look at what is being reported.

Was that misreported?

You must make

a distinction between where people

are voting against -- were people

voting against sentience, or were

they voting against the act which

protects it, which had sentience at

its core. The reason it has become

controversial is because sentience

is an established proof about

animals. It would be a good

candidate for what is currently

being described as fake news that

MPs voted against the idea of animal

sentience.

Is it important that

animal sentience is recognised in

law?

Yes. There isn't a single MP in

any party in any corner of this

country that doesn't believe animals

are sentient. If you look at the

transcript of the debate we are

talking about, that was acknowledged

by every person who contributed on

this issue to that debate. There was

no debate about sentience. The

Government's problem was the wording

of the amendment. It's not just

raising animal welfare standards,

which we are doing, there is a

complicit in a clear statement we've

had from Michael Gove that we will

find the best route to make sure

sentience is incorporated into UK

law. There's a disagreement whether

Richard B in the withdrawal bill, in

a forthcoming animal welfare Bill,

whether we should be amending

previous bills, or whether there

should be an environment bill. --

whether it is the withdrawal bill.

This story is fake news because

nothing has changed. It doesn't

matter how we do that, as long as we

do it and we will do it.

You do

accept that the 2006 animal welfare

act does not go far enough? It

doesn't cover all animals, for

example, laboratory animals, or wild

animals. And it puts the onus on

owners of animals, but not on the

Government, do you accept that is an

inadequate law?

Not only do I access it but Michael

Gove access it as well, his

statement makes that clear. -- we

both accept this. I just want to

make the thing, symbolically,

sentience needs to be recognised but

let's not pretend this is a high

benchmark that emanates from the

European Union. Under the protection

of that law, we have bull-fighting,

and veal farming, beyond cruel,

factory farming conditions, we have

donkey torture, fur farming, one of

the worst things imaginable are

permitted under this principle. Our

standards have always been high and

we have had seen fireworks as they

of activity in the last four months,

putting animal welfare at the heart

of the environment. We have been

raising sentencing to people who are

cruel to animals, I could go on for

20 minutes.

You have gone on for

quite a long time. Passionate though

you are. Do you accept that, it's

the case that you just don't trust

the Conservative government, which

you may not to back their words with

action with any new legislation

which has put forward, or really

have just misjudged this row?

I

accept that Zac Goldsmith and

Michael Gove as well do come across

and probably do personally have a

great commitment to animal welfare

and animal rights. The problem is,

what people are incredulous about is

on the one hand trying to claim that

we believe that animals have

sentience, on the other hand, not

committing to this amendment which

would have us commit to ensuring

that that was in any future policy

on this matter. So I don't I accept

that this is not real news, that

people are incredulous and emotional

and upset and angry that we are not

prepared to say on EU legislation

which was originally spearheaded by

the UK, that of course, we will be

committing to this today.

Why not?

If you, and he made a very personal

offence there of the UK Government

in terms of its standards, if you

all government is so committed to

welfare, why doesn't the government

put its money where its mouth is

through the EU withdrawal bill, why

isn't that an adequate instrument to

put in place the things that you

have talked about, bring over the EU

law, that the point of the bill.

I

have been an MP for nearly seven

years and I've never been a defender

of the government's record on

environment or welfare. The last

four months have been different.

Answer the question, why not use the

EU withdrawal bill?

There was no

argued about the sentiment in the

amendment, the principles were

accented by the MPs that spoke and

the government.

But they did not

vote, to be accurate, you are right

in saying that nobody voted that

animals are not sentience because

that wasn't up for a vote that they

did not vote that they were so you

can see how the impression came from

a story that actually the government

and its MPs did not support this

idea that animals are sentience, why

not use the EU withdraw Bill is the

better to deal with it now?

We we

are committed to legislate for

animal sentience, that is for the

government to do, we have been told

in a written statement that there

will be no gaps between us leaving

the EU and this. We are not having

to be dragged to do this, the

commitment is there. I don't member

a single piece...

Hang on, it's

quite got to stop you in your flow.

This really does not wash. The

public, animal welfare campaigners,

sick and tired of politicians not

putting their money where their

mouth is. This was a golden

opportunity for us to demonstrate

our commitment, not just in words

but indeed, to say that this part of

the legislation which the UK

spearheaded, and obligate the

government, not just owners and

keepers of animals, obligated the

government and puts the urgency upon

them, and the default on them, to

actually commit to this, that would

be a commitment, this was not a

commitment.

But that's the thing.

The commitment is there. I don't

know what more is being asked of

Michael Gove.

The vote.

In a

ministerial statement, I don't

remember a single piece of

legislation where an opposition

amendment has been tabled, in the

last seven years, whether sentiment

is accepted but the government has

not chosen to come back with its own

version. That is what happened. This

is not unusual, you know this as a

presenter of a political programme,

this is bog-standard stuff.

My views

are not important.

That's how

legislation is improved, that's the

whole point.

We are in different

water to the EU withdrawal bill and

Brexit. Social media, Michael Gove

said this media that social media

corrupts and distort reporting and

decision making. He obviously feels

this on this issue, has he got a

point?

He has a certain point to the

extent that one of the fascinating

things about this is that normally

government, the mode of government

is to respond to pressure from media

if they open the newspapers, they

see the front page of the Daily

Mail, particularly for the

Conservatives, maybe the Guardian if

it's Labour, they see the front

pages after the budget and it's bad

news, they're being attacked, they

think, we have to respond. This was

not noticed by any of that. This is

only about 24 or 48 hours later that

he started to see through Facebook

this outflow of anger and that

turned into e-mails arriving in MP

's inboxes. The fact is, all kinds

of journalists and media outlets

have distorted and Mr pedantic and

applied partisan agendas, true on

print and in Facebook two -- they

have distorted and put their own

bias on it. But Facebook amplifies

this so massively, that something

like this can suddenly hit

Parliament like tidal wave. That is

much more adjusting than this

question. This is a non-argument. --

this is much more interesting than

this question.

The government has

responded, they were busy taken back

by the wealth of comment on social

media.

There was a very bad headline

in the Independent which was

basically a lie, so let's not...

They did rewrite it.

But it was

because of Facebook.

I find this

whole row of taxing. This --

perplexing. This business sentience,

why is it so important? On the one

hand, everybody agrees that animals

feel pain and distress. And every

piece of government legislation

since time in Memorial, to promote

animal welfare, implicitly

understand that animals feel pain.

Do you have do incorporate all

animals?

Hume need perhaps to widen

your groups of animals. Basically if

the government accepts that

sentience is there anyway, why is it

so determined to prevent this

legislation? On the contrary, where

the greens are so determined to put

sentience in, and what you said,

that is the evidence, you said, the

evidence is that sentience goes

further than feeling pain. Sentience

is not just feeling pain and

distress, which we all agreed must

not happen to animals, sentience

gets us into this metaphysical area

of, our animals as conscious as we

are? Do they feel...

Have you taking

it too far?

That takes us into the

area of equating animals and humans.

There is a debate worth having about

what level of respect and value we

accord to our fellow animals.

Nonhuman animals. And part of the

reason my sentience is so critical,

because there have been established

scientific and psychological studies

which demonstrate that pain, the

lowest level of psychological

response, is an insufficient way of

describing the inner life of animals

in terms of emotions, the capacity

to suffer. The very fact that

Melanie is questioning how to define

sentience demonstrates that we

should have that as a threshold.

This fills me with concern because

the inner life of animals takes us

straight into the analogy between

animals and humans which devalues

humans.

I think you can say that is

a red herring.

What is your take on

this final point?

It a nice academic

debate, the reality is that there is

no gap to wear Michael Gove is and

where the Green party spokesman is,

we are putting sentience into UK's

law, Michael Gove's payment could

not be more clear. I will take one

more point. I have only got a black

screen so I don't know who the

previous commentator was, this

avalanche of social media, it has

taken us by surprise, no doubt. On

one level it's infuriating, because

it is on the back of fake news put

out by the intended which has been

corrected, but on another level,

it's a wonderful refection of

Britain. That this issue of animal

welfare matters so much to similar

millions of people which is a good

thing. Even if the context is fake

news, it's a good thing, it makes me

half happy.

At least you have left

are happy to tribute. That recruit

you have left us a happy

contributor.

Former Scottish Labour

leader Kezia Dugdale has

defended her decision to appear

on the TV Show I'm A Celebrity

Get Me Out of Here, saying

it is "an amazing opportunity

to talk to young people who watch

this programme about politics and,

in particular, Labour values".

Well, the jury's still out

on whether that's going to plan

following her first appearance

in the jungle last night.

KLAXON BLARES.

Come on!

Go on, guys!

Into Sickola Sturgeon,

the first box.

Go on, Kez!

Oh, both of them, though.

Fish guts in there, they're looking

for that first red star.

Come on, Kez!

Oh, it's freezing!

This is rank!

Where the hell is it?

Come on, Kez.

Come on, girl.

What have they got in those boxes?

Raw meat and fish guts.

A red star, you say?

Red star.

Definitely red?

Definitely red.

Red star at night,

celebrity's delight.

Ian has his and it's in his bag,

he's into Margaret Scratcher.

Margaret Scratcher!

Oh, she can't find it!

That was Kezia Dugdale,

and to discuss how she did we're

joined from Glasgow by the arts

and film critic and devoted I'm

a Celebrity fan Siobhan Synnott.

That has put me off my lunch! Are

you a devoted fan of I'm A

Celebrity? Hat so how did she do?

I'm a big fan of her, but I'm only

slightly worried that if Kezia takes

off, we will see Alex Salmond on

Love Island. She has guts, that was

not a pleasant task. But she took on

the job of leader of the Scottish

Labour Party when nobody wanted it

and a tarantula would be tasty in

comparison.

So why would you put

yourself through this, having been

to the travails of Labour leader in

Scotland?

I think this is puzzling

everybody. I don't think Kezia

Dugdale is steely strategist, I

think this is an impulsive move. It

may do her no harm. There's been

talk about whether this is a

humiliation but I think it depends

very much on how you rise to the

occasion. She's been a good sport,

she went through the ten Downing

creep humiliations well, she emerged

with character when he was voted

into looking after the cleaning

duties, as she said, rather meekly,

she has gone from prospective Prime

Minister to domestic Danny duties

and she did it with a smile. She may

come out of it well. The key to

getting through these reality shows

if you are politician is not to be

pompous, not to be self enchanted,

and not to take yourself too

seriously.

On that advice, do you

think, I love this idea that she

might be able to promote socialist

Labour values by being on this

programme, do you think that will

work? Sorry, I will, given a second!

I doubt very much that there will be

much theoretical discussion of the

Marxist models...

It depends how

they spit up their duties!

The

reality is, Kezia Dugdale worked

very hard, gave some of the best

years of her still young life to the

terrible, painful grind of leading

the Scottish Labour Party at a

difficult time and she's clearly see

this opportunity, thinks it might be

a bit of fun, change public

perceptions of her, she has probably

got the memory of Ed Balls changing

his perception, she didn't promote

neoclassical growth theory by doing

the salsa.

May be he would have won

if he had done that! Do you think

she will last?

I think she has a new

career beckoning.

In what?

Unspeakable acts!

Can she win?

She

is 40 to one against, and 4-1 out

first, Amir Khan was a rank outsider

until he completed one of the tasks

and impress the audience and now she

hears one of the favourites, so come

on, Kezia, a few more fish guts and

you could be onto a winner. What

will happen next for Kezia is the

interesting thing. At the moment she

wants to come back and immediately

start voting again in Holyrood at

the end of her stint in the jungle,

but three weeks is a long time. She

may find that she's been offered

some appetising prospect. I'm

reminded of the World War I song,

how do you keep them down on the

farm if they have seen the Harvard?

I think you have enjoyed this far

too much! Thank you to all of my

guests.

I will go back on Monday, goodbye.