07/12/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

Theresa May has until Sunday to come

up with fresh proposals

on the Irish border,

so says the European Commission,

or she faces the prospect of Brexit

talks being delayed till

the New Year.

But does she have the authority to

knock the necessary heads together?

We'll have the latest.

The Government says

President Trump's decision

to recognise Jerusalem

as the capital of Israel

is "unhelpful" to the peace process

as international condemnation

grows.

The Defence Secretary says British

citizens who join so-called

Islamic State should not be allowed

to return to the UK and says

we should do all we can

to "eliminate that threat".

And in the wake of the sexual

harassment allegations

in Westminster we speak

to the British political journalist

who is among the so-called

'Silence Breakers' who've been named

as Time magazine's

Person of the Year.

All that in the next hour,

and with us for the whole

of the programme today

is Martha Spurrier,

director of the Human Rights

organisation Liberty -

welcome to the show.

The Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson

has said that the crack cocaine of

Islamist terrorism the fault of

repressive ray jeeps not western

foreign policy. His speech at the

Foreign Office this morning comes a

week after Michel Barnier raised

eyebrows by saying that in voting to

leave the EU the UK was refusing to

stand shoulder to shoulder with its

European allies in the fight against

terrorism. Here is Boris Johnson

speaking in the last hour.

Contrary

to some of the Acerions you will

have heard from overseas I can tell

you that every day, British serving

men and women are putting thrives at

risk to roll up terrorist network,

to expose what they are doing, to

thwart them, and to bring them to

justice.

They are doing it not just on the

behalf of the British people but for

everyone.

May they are making good on what the

Prime Minister has called the

unconditional commitment of the

British people, to the security of

our European friends.

That was Boris Johnson, talking

about the threat of terrorism. What

did you think about Michel Barnier's

comments saying that once Britain

decided to leave the EU, they would

no longer be standing shoulder to

shoulder or a risk of no longer

standing shoulder to shoulder with

their partners over security.

I

would be amazed if anyone who voted

to leave the European Union did so

thinking it was a good thing not to

stand shoulder to shoulder in the

fight against terrorism. Think it is

right you can have very strong

alliances with people, whether you

are in a union with them or not.

That is what we should be aiming

for. I think what it does really

underline is it is important to get

this stuff in black-and-white. It is

important to make sure that we can

stand shoulder to shoulder, by

speaking out about the values that

we all hold dear together, and

agreeing together how we are going

to enforce them globally. So that is

things like making sure we can still

share information about criminals so

victims' rights are protected or we

can share data in a way that

protects or privacy right so all of

those things are important.

You see

no difficulty between the two Brexit

Britain still that level of

cooperation with the EU, even if we

don't have oversight if you like or

jurisdiction from something like the

European Court of Justice.

I don't

think there is any difficulty in

principle. I is about our moll

fissions making sure it is enshrined

in UK law.

US President Donald Trump's decision

to recognise Jerusalem

as the capital of Israel and move

the US Embassy there from Tel Aviv

has led to wide-spread condemnation

from US allies around the world.

The announcement fulfils a campaign

promise from the President,

and he said it was "nothing more

or less than a recognition

of reality".

However, the UK Government has said

it does not support the decision.

This is what Foreign Office Minister

Alistair Burt had to say

in the Commons earlier today.

As my right honourable friend,

the Prime Minister, made clear

in her statement yesterday,

we disagree with the US decision

to move its embassy to Jerusalem,

and recognise Jerusalem

as the Israeli capital before

a final status agreement.

We believe it is unhelpful,

in terms of prospects

for peace in the region.

The British Embassy to Israel

is based in Tel Aviv and we have

no plans to move it.

Donald Trump is not crying fire

in a crowded theatre,

he is deliberately setting fire

to the theatre.

Then he has the unbelievable cheek

to claim that he is doing this

to move forward the peace process,

when in reality, he is

setting it back decades.

Well, we are joined

now by Dr Alan Mendoza

from the Henry Jackson Society,

and Martha is still with us.

Welcome to the programme. How does

this recognition, this official

recognition of Jerusalem as the

capital of Israel help the peace

process and a two state solution?

It

is incidental to the peace process,

it has been 25 years old now,

currently there is no peace process

at this moment in time. And what

President Trump has said and stated

it is time to recognise reality.

Jerusalem has been the capital of

Israel since 1948, and he stated it

is not going to pre-judge the final

talks when and if they come. It is

not about division, it is about

recognising reality, they can select

its own capital.

How important in

your mind is the idea of Jerusalem

also has the capital of a future

Palestinian state.

That is highly

likely.

It is not incidental to the

peace process.

It doesn't preclude

it. Why do you think declaring

Jerusalem as a capital precludes it

from being the capital of Palestine.

I don't see they are incompatible.

Do you think it is stating reality

despite the sensitivities?

Absolutely not. I think this is a

recognition of a capital in an

occupied territory, it is contrary

to British foreign... I am delighted

the Prime Minister has condemned the

move. We have already seen that

there is unrest and what this will

lead to is a worsening of the

conflict situation there, people

will be hurt and people's lives will

be lost. It sets back a peace

process we no is fragile and that is

a dangerous move.

When you say it is

occupied Jerusalem you mean east

Jerusalem is occupied or is whole?

East just is recognised as occupied.

But west Jerusalem you are happy

with as the capital?

I don't know

what you can have is a capital in a

territory which is so fraught in

this peace process s it demonstrates

a successful I don't agree that you

can say is for a democratic ally to

name its capital, we can't say we

want our capital to be Paris or

somewhere else in the world.

In your

mind what is the capital of Israel?

The capital of Israel is Tel Aviv.

That is the way it must remain.

It

isn't. It is Jerusalem. The Israelis

have controlled Jerusalem since

1948. The western part. They

extended control to eastern

Jerusalem in 6, for you to suggest

Tel Aviv is not the cap is the

capital of Israel is the same as

Israelis saying Manchester is the

capital of Britain.

How inflammatory

is it of Donald Trump to make what

will be seen as an unnecessary move

to announce they are going to

transfer the embassy from Tel Aviv

to Jerusalem, when it has been

perfectly fine in Tel Aviv, all this

time?

Whendown saw it is

unnecessary, Donald Trump is looking

to spark a process, and move things

on, we have not been able to get

peace talks going.

How will this

help spark the peace process when

Hamas in the Gaza Strip has said

they have already call for a new

intifada.

Hamas is not party to the

talks, it hasn't been part of the

peace process for 25 year, there is

no indication it will be part of the

peace process o peace process going

forward.

This has made it much more

difficult.

I don't think it will. On

the contrary, what he needs to

understand, is that Palestinians

cannot continue to be the blocking

party to this, the Israelis have for

the last 25 years put deal after

deal on the table and the

Palestinians starting with yas is a

Arafat have walked away from the

deals. It is time to say there are

consequences, the world moves on, we

can't be frozen, the paradigm of 94

forever.

I am going to bring in my

colleague diplomatic correspondent

James Landale to talk briefly about

Boris Johnson and what he said,

because you have been listening to

that speech, we talked earlier about

a response to the comments made by

Michel Barnier about whether Britain

would be able to stand shoulder to

shoulder with the EU in the future

on security. Just tell us what he

has been saying.

Well, the Foreign

Secretary, we use a phrase

wide-ranging for speeches, he did

range over a great deal. He did

without mentioned Michelle barn yes

put a push back and say by leaving

the European Union, the UK is in no

way standing, stepping back from the

fight against Islamist terrorism. On

Israel he was interesting in terms

of what you have been discussing in

terms of the US decision to

recognise Jerusalem as the capital.

He said is on the onus for the US to

go further, they have played this

card, the US now has to make a play

another card on the wider Middle

East peace process, say this is what

the brokerage, the role that the

United States can play there, so

trying to put more pressure back on

the US, and more broadly over the

issue of Brexit, Boris Johnson was

asked about that. What he said there

was he said that any deal had to be

UK-wide. Any offer to the DUP. He

made it very clear that anything had

to ensure that once again, to use

his phrase Britain secured control

over its borders and its money. So

as ever, maintaining pretty hard

position on that.

Thank you very

much. Let's pick up on that. That

Boris Johnson actually says the onus

is back on the United States, what

should be done to bring Mohammad

Abbas and the Palestinians to the

table?

I think the drive is

happening right now, you have seen

for the last few months, a move by

the President Trump and the

administration to bring in the wider

Arab world.

How? What have they done

that will bring Mohammad Abbas to

the table?

He needs to be pressured

by Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states

to say we want a settlement. They

are using the threat of Iran to

bring everything together.

Saudi

Arabia has condemned the move. What

way will it help them get involved

as you say when they have been

united to some extent over the issue

of Iran to pull the Palestinians

into...

This is not an important

point in great scheme.

It is very

important to the Palestinians. It is

critical.

Not the Saudi, what you

will see happen is the continued

moves between the Israelis, the

Saudis for other gulf states,

parties worried about the Iranian

threat. This will be a kink in the

road. It will go back to being that

alliance strategy.

On the basis of

Donald Trump's track record do you

think this was throughout through,

there is a strategy, isn't this

again clumsiness on behalf of the

President where in this case as

Martha indicated it could end up

with violence.

I don't think so, if

you look at what he has been saying

for the last eight months on the

issue of Middle East peace there is

a plan, it has been executed by

going to the gulf, going to Israel,

trying to bring the parties

together. This is the next step.

There will be other steps to follow.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

Yesterday, Stanley Johnson,

father of Boris, was booted out

of the Jungle in I'm a Celebrity.

He said he was looking forward

to checking his emails,

but what did he want to find out?

If England were winning the Ashes.

If his son, Boris,

was still Foreign Secretary.

If Donald Trump had

abandoned Twitter.

Or if he was getting an invite

to the Royal wedding next year.

At the end of the show Martha

will give us the correct answer.

The European Commission has said a

deal on the Irish border will need

to be done by Sunday, in order for

EU and Britain to begin discussing

trade negotiations at the EU summit

next Thursday. So how close are we

to an agreement. Well, let us

look at the developments

look at the developments

Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar

said last night he had

spoken to Theresa May,

who told him she was working to find

a "specific solution" to the Irish

border issue and would come back

to the Irish government

with new text in the coming days.

On the other side -

the DUP are continuing talks

with the government but one source

told the Sun newspaper this morning

that they won't be rushed

into an agreement because "this

is a battle of who blinks first

and we've cut off our eyelids".

In another development,

a group of Tory MPs has written

a letter criticising colleagues

who they say are acting "highly

irresponsibly" by talking up

the prospects of a no deal.

The letter, which was arranged

by Conservative MP Nicky Morgan,

is signed by 19 Tory backbenchers

and says it's "essential" Britain

leaves the EU with a deal.

And Chancellor Philip Hammond said

yesterday Britain should pay

the £50 billion exit bill

with the European Union, even if

Britain doesn't get a trade deal.

That will go down well

with his Eurosceptic colleagues.

overnight

There is lots of talk

about deadlines what I am certain

about is people want something to

happen, they will make it happen, so

we are going to get on with the job

and try and find the right way

forward. I am in no doubt over the

coming days if there was a will to

find agreement that will be found

regardless of what time of day or

night it was.

It could be next

Thursday?

We are all working towards

reaching an agreement at the

European Council next Thursday,

there is different people saying

different things by what we have to

do by when. There is a desire to

reach a resolution and I am sure

people will be flexible.

Joining me now is the Conservative

MP Vicky Ford who was one of the 19

Tories to sign that letter

to the Prime Minister

Welcome to The Daily Politics. The

letter points to the people talking

up a no-deal scenario. Who are they?

So the Prime Minister has made it

very clear that she wants to deliver

this deep partnership with Europe

and we are offering her our full

support. Others who are saying we

should walk away from the

negotiating table now, you know,

over a year before the deadline for

Brexit, I believe are being

irresponsible because that deep

partnership with the Prime Minister

want is so important for British

businesses. We need to make sure

that we to keep talking.

So you are

talking about your Conservative

colleagues, those sort of people

who, in your mind are putting undue

pressure on Theresa May?

I will not

Names or start new fights.

You are

talking about your Conservative

colleagues?

Trying to put more red

lines on to the Prime Minister at

this stage is, in my view, not a

responsible thing to do. She needs

to decide what the red lines are.

She needs to to decide what the

negotiating areas are. And it is

really important that we do achieve

an amicable outcome, a deep

partnership for the long term for so

many areas of our economy and of our

daily lives.

Are you being

irresponsible? And your colleagues

who signed this letter by putting

pressure on Theresa May to say, you

mustn't walk away under any

circumstances?

No. The Prime

Minister has made it very clear that

she wishes to deliver that deep

partnership thapd is what question

are supporting her to do. The

deadline is at the end of the Brexit

negotiations. It would be very good

if we can move on to the next round

this month. I really hope we do. I

hope we do for the EU citizens here.

It is very comply katd. There are 27

other countries involved and these

negotiations will take time.

Do you

think the EU is behaving unfairly.

They are putting Britain and Ireland

under enormous pressure here when

this could all be solved once the

discussions move on to trade?

I

think it is really complicated

because the EU is obviously not just

one organisation. They are trying to

work with 27 different countries.

Ireland is the country that is most

affected by Brexit. But it is in

Ireland's interest that we do find a

long-term agreement.

What is the is

the solution in your mind on the

Irish border?

I think to solve the

Irish border issue we need some form

of regulatory alignment. You cannot

have goods banned on one side of the

border but not on the other side of

the border and then still have an

open border. So we need need some

form of regulatory co-operation.

That will need to apply to all of

the UK because we cannot then have a

border in the Irish Sea. Keeping the

UK together is really important. I

hope Ireland will say, we are,

keeping the border open, we hear you

on keeping technical solutions to

delivering that. We want to work

with you to make sure we get the

long-term solution. Therefore we can

move on to talk about the long-term

partnership as well.

That is clear.

You think that if you keep the UK in

its entirety in terms of regulation

then a solution can be found but for

people who are on, what you might

call the hard Brexit side of the

party, that means staying in some

sort of regulatory framework of the

EU and we would then be rule takers

- do you accept that?

I think they

may be making arguments on

principal, when in practise, this is

not a real argument. Most of the

issues on agricultural products

which go backwards and forwards

across the border. The UK Government

has made it very clear that we do

not wish to drop the standards, the

animal welfare standards, in

particular, and therefore we don't

intend to undercut the Irish farmers

on the other side of the border. I

think the more we can say we want to

continue to work to deliver the

highest possible regulatory

standards, as Michael Gove himself

has said that he wants to deliver,

then actually this becomes a less

sensitive argument.

Right, how do

you think the DUP is behaving here?

Do you think the DUP tail is wagging

the Government dog?

No. I think it's

absolute vital that we keep the

United Kingdom united. That was the

first promise that the Prime

Minister made outside the steps of

Downing Street was, I want to keep

the union together and it is very

clear if there had been a special

deal for Northern Ireland then there

would have been Something Special

for Scotland. The Scotts agreed to

ask for that immediately. We cannot

have one part of Britain being

sliced off from another part of

Britain. We have to stay together.

Thank you. Joining us for this is

Peter Bone.

Welcome back to The Daily Politics.

You and your colleagues have been

called highly irresponsible by Vicky

Ford and others.

1 p 7 days to go.

Another day nearer coming out of

this dreadful European Union super

state, so that is good news. Vicky

can write letters if she wants.

Are

you being highly responsible?

I am

100% behind the Prime Minister. I

understand the Prime Minister is

thinking about taking me to Brussels

to sort the problem out.

You are

putting more red lines in her way,

making it harder to move on to the

next phase?

You may say that but I

don't recognise that. Yesterday the

Prime Minister agreed that we would

end free movement when we came out

of the EU. We would stop sending

billions to the European Union. We

will make our own laws in our own

country, judged by British judges.

If she can deliver that, everyone

will be happy.

If there is not

progress and Britain does not move

on to the next phase, should Theresa

May walk away?

That is the correct

question, because if progress cannot

be made, the responsible situation

is to say, right, we obviously can't

do a deal. We have to give our

industry enough time to prepare.

What is the answer?

Yes. Walk away.

Tell the industry we will come out

on 29th March, 2019 on WTO rules and

therefore you can prepare for that.

And we won't, by the way, pay

billions of pounds to the European

Union. So within a few days I think

the European Union would rush back

to talk to us.

Soham Hammond is

wrong to say we -- so Phillip

Hammond is wrong to say that?

I

think he got slapped down by the

Prime Minister on that. It is not

Government policy.

In terms of the

no deal, do you have a deadline next

week if there is no movement, should

the Prime Minister walk away then?

The question of a deadline is

interesting. I understand if

European Union is saying within the

next 48 hours if this point is not

decided, maybe it will be decided

and we'll not have to worry about

that. The crunch time is spring next

year when we have to agree to the

principals of the free trade deal.

If we get to that stage and have not

made progress that is the point you

must give industry a year to

prepare. We cannot, as Vicky said

wait until 29th March, 2019, and

find it all chances. Cha -- all

collapses. It is a decision to be

made at a particular time. The

latest time you can make that

decision is the spring time of next

year.

Vicky Ford said it will be a

disaster. Threatening a no deal is a

disaster. Is she wrong?

Yes, she is

wrong on that. Clearly, the Prime

Minister has said a no deal is a

possibility. Is it better to do a

deal, a free trade deal? Of course.

If we weren't talking about Northern

Ireland now, but we were talking

about the free trade agreement, if

we had a free trade agreement the

border with Northern Ireland would

disappear.

Was it irresponsible of

the Government not to have briefed

the DUP with the wording of the

draft document to prevent them from

walking away?

I don't think that is

what happened. I think there was a

draft document provided by, drawn up

by the EU which was leaked. I think

in the Irish media. I don't think at

any time had the Prime Minister

agreed to that. At any time had

there been any discussions on the

text. So...

Should there have been?

If the Prime Minister wasn't going

to agree to it in the first place,

why discuss it?

In terms of the

words regulatory and alignment, what

do you think the solution is to the

Northern Ireland and Irish border?

A

free trade area. If we have a free

trade area, the problem disappears.

What about the Irish Government who

want to ensure they e they are going

to have the same customs and

regulations that exist now.

If you

talk about a no deal situation, what

would happen in Northern Ireland, we

could decide. We don't have to put

any duty on Gods -- on goods coming

over from the Irish border. I don't

think it is their position.

You

would be happy to see a hard border?

I think I said the opposite. The

only people who seem to talk about a

hard bored ser the European Union.

Ireland said they don't want to see

anything that could look like any

checks being made. They want to keep

it, the only way to do that is to

have the same customs and

regulations.

It is right you can

have a frictionless border. If we

are not imposing any duties or

tariffs there's no need to check

anything. It is a lot of argument

about nothing. There'll not be a

hard border in Northern Ireland,

whichever way you go, whether there

is agreement or there isn't. Whilst

the European Union are making this a

big issue I don't think in reality

it is.

What about the Brexit impact

assessment? Are you disappointed

David Davis has not provided those?

There aren't any. It would be absurd

to think the Government was doing

Brexit impact assessments across the

country on how many types of Brexit

could you get? The basic thing is

the Government knows what it wants

to do, it wants a free trade deal

with the European Union. If you call

them red lines, the Prime Minister

answered my question to yesterday.

They were called red lines.

They

were called pink, actually.

We can

argue about the colour. Do you think

the deadline will be met and there

will be movement on phase two?

I

don't think have a crystal ball.

What is vital in this is we make

sure that high standards are

enshrined. That rights for ordinary

people and their families are

enshrined.

How?

There is legislation

going through Parliament at the

moment, which is about bringing the

EU withdrawal bill. What is critical

in that bill is that things that

people and communities here enjoy

now because of their membership of

the EU, whether they wanted to leave

or remain, that those protections

are enshrined in law.

The Government

said they will be.

We will see what

happens next week on that. At the

moment we don't have agreement that

the charter of rights will be

enshrined in our statute. Leave the

UK or remain in it - that is by the

by. We need high standards and right

protections here. We can do that. It

has to be in black and white so it

can be...

Should the charter be

there in black and white?

Hours of

lawyers argue about this. On one

hand they said it has to be in the

bill... I agree we must have the

highest of standards. When we are an

independent nation we can strengthen

and increase those standards.

What

guarantees will be given. They say

sovereignty should have been given

to them as parliamentarians to see

which laws will be included and

which aren't.

What we are saying is

all the laws, all the EU laws are

going to be become effectively

British laws on the day we come out

so, there'll be no no, the day

before and day after we will have

the same standards.

There is one

exception, in this great copy and

paste job done, one thing has been

carved out, that is the European

charter of human rights. At the

moment there is an argument about

why that one piece of law has not

been included. Whether it is about

privacy, about having access to fair

insurance premiums or access to a

pension rights if you are a gay

couple - all these things derived

from European rights they should be

brought home. At the moment the

Government has not committed to

putting those rights in this bill.

I

have heard eminent lawyers tell us

this is what this bill does and the

Parliament should discuss this. At

the moment I am, the Government has

persuaded me they are right. If I am

persuaded the other way I will vote

for any amendment. I think that the

Government, I think all of

Parliament is agreed, we want to

bring in the same standards of

protection that we have now

afterwards. It is just the mechanism

for doing it.

The Conservative-led Government

introduced a requirement back

in 2010 for schools to use phonics

to teach children to read.

Children learn individual

sounds and then blend

those sounds together.

Yesterday, at Prime Minister's

Questions, Theresa May hailed

the reform as the driver

for dramatically increased reading

standards in England.

Let's have a listen.

Yesterday we learned

how the UK's revolution

in phonics has dramatically

improved school standards.

And I would like to pay particular

tribute to my right honourable

friend, the Minister

for Schools Standards who has worked

tirelessly to this end,

through his time here in this House,

but also pay tribute

to the hard work of teachers up

and down the country.

We have - and just for the figures,

in 2012, 58% of six-year-olds

passed reading checks.

This year that has risen to 81%.

We are indeed building

a Britain fit for the future.

I'm joined now by Mark Lehain,

a former head teacher and now

director of Parents and Teachers

for Excellence and Sandra McNally

from the LSE's Centre

for Economic Performance.

Welcome to both of you. So let us

talk about phonics. There were

147,000 more fluent reading

six-year-olds than in 2011, is that

something to celebrate?

Absolutely.

Mine it is great to see progress in

the polls reflecting improve.s in

standards. There is still some way

to go, and there is a lot of

children you leave school without

being at the expected standard. In

adult population, a very serious

issue with literacy.

Do you accept

that is down to phonics?

I would

they the Government reforms

introduced in 2006 actually did have

something to contribute to the

improvement we are seeing, our

research showed that it had, phone

nicks introduced in schools. Which

found an immediate impact at age

fivement it reduced at seven. By 11

people had caught up. So people do

learn to read eventually so we

shouldn't get too excited that

everything is down to phonics.

So is

it really this great sort of

revolutionary technique in teaching

children to read?

There is a number

of things I would say. First the big

change in 2010 because they made the

move from 2006 on wards, it would be

10 was Nick Gibbon put a rocket

booster on the approach to phonics.

Which seems to be by far and away

the best approach to teaching

children and I have four daughters

of my own, my oldest daughter was in

the first cohort, so we is been able

to see the impact on our own family

overnight-time.

Is that the

evidence? How do you now it is down

to phonics, if standard have

improved generally and teaching has

improved in many school, isn't that

more important than the system of

teaching people phonics because

everyone has learned to read in the

past.

I don't think any is saying it

is the focus on phonics itself but

it has encouraged more teachers to

put an emphasis on those things when

they get kids in the early years.

Although most children catch up by

11, I know children may turn up they

have missed out on being fluent

readers because they were late to

get there. When you think of the

books they could have been reading

they have missed out on and their

knowledge base and comprehension

generally

Have you got evidence to

show that phonics has made a

positive impact on children's

reading?

I mean there is different

types of phonics and lots, there is

some good evidence to suggest it has

an impact on reading and on later

outcomes. What isn't clear is what

kind of phonics is better than

other, I know there is lots of

debate in education research on

this, it is not as clear-cut and you

wouldn't want to be prioritising

phonics at the expense of lots of

other things.

Are you going for this

pure approach? The school that I

have been involved in, there was an

issue about spelling. The fact that

phonics made it difficult for some

children later on to be able to

spell correctly because they learned

it only by sound.

That is where

schools that have adopted systems

have improved. I think the real

exciting thing that has come out

this week in the data about upon

things is that the gains we have

seen is because boys have seen their

reading ability gone up by a lot,

but also lower attaining children,

that didn't do so well the past are

doing better, so more vulnerable

children are doing better and the

knock on impact is going to be

massive.

Do we teach children to

read too early? Are we pushing

children to read at a stage when

they are not ready and phonics is a

way doffing it more quickie.

Other

countries vary in when they lead

people into formal education, if you

look at some of the Scandinavian

countries they don't do formal

schooling until later. It is not

clear it has to be done at the

particular age, that we do it here,

but I, I don't have a strong view

about that really.

Mark, the former

Children's Laureate has criticised

for teaching children to read

allowed successfully but not with

enjoyment.

I think he is wrong. Mark

Rosen has that this view for years,

him and some left-wing activist said

it is going to push things back. It

isn't, but I know myself as a

teacher who has been on a journey in

terms of understanding what works

wand who done. It can take a long

time for people to change view, I

hope people will hopefully see the

light. He has done amazing thing,

fundamentally this is a success

story, an example of a series of

Governments having the nerve to push

through changes and of the teaching

profession, working really hard to

implement it effectively.

Thank you

both.

Thank you both.

The Electoral Commission has

announced this morning

that it is launching

an investigation in to Momentum -

the group set up to support

Jeremy Corbyn's leadership

of the Labour Party.

The Commission is looking

into whether Momentum broke

election spending rules

in the General Election.

Let's get the latest

from Ellie Price who joins me now.

What have they done?

This is about

basically whether momentum have done

their accounting properly. To use a

technical jargon they are registered

non-party campaigner, but they took

part in a lot of the campaigning in

the recent general election, now

their accounts show that they spent

£38,000 across all four parts of the

United Kingdom and Northern Ireland,

the spending limit on such groups

like Momentum is 39,000. So they

came in short of that. The

electorate commission say because

they are so high profile any

question of their compliance could

risk causing harm to voters'

confidence. They say they want to

look, whether they have done their

accounting properly and whether they

put in things like receipts for

things that are more than £200.

With me now is Aaron Bastani,

founder of Novara Media

and a Momentum supporter.

Your group has admitted errors?

What

group? Momentum?

Sorry momentum.

That is probably likely. In terms of

how large the operation is, there

will be small administrative error,

my personal experience of momentum,

I wasn't relaying money to anybody

in the election, was they took

probity and the whole regulatory

framework round the lobbying act

seriously. But

But they said they

have committed error, so they

haven't kept the standards that are

necessary.

I hope that is treated

appropriately, I hope there is an

adequate response and it is not done

in future. The lobbying act which

was only past in 2014, I personally

think isn't really fit for purpose.

Why?

It is meant to basically

constrain spending by any

organisation in a 12 month period

prior to an election, when you have

a snaplike sthaun goes out of the

window.

You would say that because

Momentum has been caught making

error, do you think is important to

have rules on spending

Fiscal

probity is key to democracy.

You

have no problem with the Electoral

Commission.

No, it is an inherently

central crucial part.

Owen Jones who

is also a member of Momentum said

the electorate commission who let

the for es are off hook because they

can't believe Momentum did so well

on a show string budget. That sounds

like sour grapes to me.

What I would

say is that the reception of it in

some quarters will be political.

There is an instinctive shock,

think, for many people, even on the

left as well about just how much

Momentum did with so few resources.

You are sayingst same thing.

I

haven't seen the case.

You have just

said yourself that people can't

believe that people did so well. Are

you saying the Electoral Commission

as a result of that is pickingup on

add my opinion strative errors.

I

think it is plausible. They wouldn't

be doing their job if they didn't.

It is a shock they kid so much with

so little. Little. That was powered

by people not vested interests and

my personal view is the Electoral

Commission will find nothing. ? Do

you any it is part of an establish.

That can't believe how well they di?

It is more complex. I would like to

see the gagging act that has been

called completely changed under a

Labour Government.

It is a central part of the function

of democracy, I think the political

representative ception is more

important than anything the

Electoral Commission is doing.

You

accept it causes harm to voter

coughed?

Most won't know about it or

care less about it. That might be a

good or bad thing. We know in

matters surrounding spending the

public doesn't seem to take

particular interest, which is a bad

thing if you look at what happened

between the Ukip and Tories. Imseems

striking that the Tories bought

three by-elections.

You have your

attention on that?

I have seen the

specifics of that case. It seems

striking. I was surprised harsher

action wasn't taken

I was surprised harsher

action wasn't taken

The new Defence Secretary,

Gavin Williamson, has said that

British nationals who join so-called

Islamic State should not be

allowed to return to the UK

and that we should do all we can

to "eliminate" the threat they pose.

Despite that some jihadis have

returned to the UK and the issue

of how we treat them is the subject

of fierce debate.

The Labour MP John Woodcock has

suggested that the amount of time

allowed for pre-charge detention be

extended for those who've fought

abroad to allow security services

to build a case against them.

The first terror lawses were

introduced between 1974, and 1989.

Aimed attacking Northern Irish

related terrorism. Individuals could

be arrest without a warrant on

reasonable suspicion they were

involved in act of terrorism with an

initial period of 48-hours extended

to five day, that legislation was

updated in 2000. Among other

measures police were given the power

to detain people arrested for

terrorism offences, for seven days

without charge. Then, in the wake of

the 9/11 attack, the anti-terrorism

Crime and Security Act of 2001 was

introduced. It was seen as way of

internationalising the war on

terror. And allow inner the Home

Secretary to indefinitely detain

without charge or trial foreign

nationals who were suspected of

terrorism, though that was later

ruled unlawfulful

On the seventh July 2005, for

suicide bombers attacked Central

London. Killing 52 people and

injuring hundreds more. It was the

worst single tourist axxxx terrorist

atrocity on British soil. The

Government proposed plans for 90

days detention without charge of

terror suspects.

It was Tony Blair's first commons

defeat. Instead, the detention time

was limiteded to 28 days.

New Labour had another go in 2000,

proposing to put the limit up to 42

days. The then Shadow Home Secretary

David Davis resigned his seat to

fight a by-election on the

principles of British liberty, but

the plans were thrown out by the

Lords. In 2012, the coalition

Government and the then Home

Secretary changed the detention

limit back down to 14 day as the

protection of freedoms act. During

the election campaign and following

the Manchester and London Bridge

attacks she hinted that could change

When we have enough evidence to know

they are a threat, but not enough

evidence to prosecute them in full

in court.

And if... If our human rights laws

stop us from doing it we will change

the law so we can do it.

Jan, you have add indicateded an

increase to the current 28 day

maximum. Sorry 14 days with

precharge detention, what should the

limit be?

Well, I don't know, that

is something I think that the

Government should take immediate

detailed advise from the police and

security services about the

difficult diand how long it will

take to amass the evidence, against

these Brits who have gone over the

fight for Daesh, are already

returning to British shores, despite

what the Defence Secretary may say

in the press, and it will take some

time to amass that case.

So you

could be supportive of a move beyond

even 28 days.

Yes, of course I think

we need to be, we need to bring in

legislation, that will actually give

the authorities, the time to build

that case, because in the

overwhelming majority of cases

British men and women who go over

to, into that region, are not doing

so for appropriate reasons, there is

overwhelming suspicion they have

fought against British force,

against the British state, but, of

course our due process means we need

time to amass that case and be able

to put it in front of a judge.

Isn't it necessary when we face

hundreds coming back who have fought

in Syria?

No. It is not necessary. I

think it would be a really dangerous

move. Just to give you a sense of

the context, the UK currently can

detain people without charge for 14

days. That puts us out of step with

every other comparable democracy.

So, in France, even under the state

of emergency you can only detain

people for six days. In US, two

days. In Russia, only four days T

the Security Services and the police

are not suggesting they need more

time. There is just no evidence at

all to say that we need more time.

What is fundamental here is we are

playing fast and lose with the

values that this democracy is built

on. This is due process. This is

about saying people will be tried on

evidence before independent judges.

If you take people out of their

communities and you detain them for

days on end, on the say so of the

police or the Security Services, you

will deepen the divisions that this

society faces.

Where is your

evidence? There doesn't seem to be

anything to back up by the police

that they want more time?

We are in

a new situation. We have Daesh who

are collapsing in Syria, so many

hundreds of Brits who have gone over

are now either arriving back or will

in the coming months potential I

will be arriving back on these

shores. And that is what makes the

situation different to where we are

in the past.

Are there any examples

of the police who have an IS-related

suspect that they are or want to

charge, that they have actually

asked for longer than 14 days?

I

want to hear from the Home Secretary

whether that is a case. I raised it

with her in Parliament. During her

statement this week she said this

was worth considering and she would

come back to me and to the House on

this matter.

You accept at the

moment there isn't any evidence yet.

I wouldn't expect there to be as

such because we are in this in u

situation where Brits who have been,

often that I would have been held,

they would have gone over under this

brainwashed idea that they could go

and fight for the caliphate, many

who went there, found the situation

was horrendous, but were prevented

on the certainty of death at the

hands of Daesh from returning. Now

as Daesh collapses they are getting

the opportunity to flee. This

problem of people arriving back into

the UK, potentially being very

dangerous is a new situation.

Do you

accept it is a different threat? It

is a new threat and the authorities

are struggling to know how to deal

with it? We've had a minister, the

Defence Secretary, saying they

shouldn't come back at all,

British-born fighters who go out

there. They should be killed out in

the field - what do you say to that?

I think that is an extraordinary

position for a western democracy to

take. I accept of course there is a

threat. I am a Londoner. I get on

the tube every morning. I want good

security for me and my family and

everyone else in this country. We

don't have any evidence that the

police and the Security Services

need these extra powers.

Not yet.

If

there was, would you consider?

I

don't think the situation now has

radically changed. We talked about

Northern Ireland earlier. A policy

of internment is widely recognised

now to have deepened it by police

officers, by civil servants and

politicians. Coming on to Gavin

Williamson's point, the idea that

this country would advocate for

arbitrary killings abroad. We are a

country that disallows the death

penalty. We are a country that is

proud to say that we try people

before the law.

If they have fought

against their country, if they are

as people would see them traitors

and they are coming back with that

hateful ideology, what is arbitrary

about it?

So what you need to do, if

they are fighters and fighting, you

bring them back, you mount a case

against them and you try them and

lock them up for a long time.

We are

told it is difficult to get that

evidence from the field.

If what we

are saying is these people should be

taken out, killed in drone strikes

there must be, surely, more evidence

to justify killing than you would

ever need to justify just a charge

and a prosecution.

What about the

problem, if the evidence is

presented that justified in your

mind an increase to that 14-day

detention period, let's say 28 days

or beyond - what would that do to

community relations? What would it

do holding people while you mount a

case only to find that the evidence

is not there?

I think the

overwhelming majority are horrified

that some of their young people have

gone over to fight an ideology which

they, in every bit of every other

faith and none believe is abhorrent

to Islam and to British values.

Look

at internment - it didn't help the

situation, did it?

I think parallels

to Northern Ireland only go so far

on this. And actually I would hope

that communities right across

Britain will want to see the best

prospect of the British justice

system being enacted against these

people.

If powerful evidence is

brought from the Security Services

and the police to say we need more

time, will you support it?

No. At

some point we have to stand up for

our values. There may be a tradeoff.

This would not be British justice.

If you detain people for days and

days of on end that is arbitrary

detention on behalf of the state.

That is a slippery slope. We would

have to focus on refoe using the

police so they could do those

investigations more thoroughly in a

time period which now works.

And the

trade-off would be what? Increased

security risk to this country?

The

tradeoff is we stand by our freedom.

We stand by the values that

terrorists seek to destroy. At the

moment there is no suggestion we

need these arbitrary powers. We

would be very wrong to cane into

those that our adversaries do.

When

will you have a timescale?

I will

press the Home Secretary about that

this week and about, there is some

element of agreement. Of course I

believe it is appropriate that

British combatants on the field of

battle are appropriate target. But

the idea they would surrender,

become prisoners of war and then we

would execute them completely

disredwarding the again the very --

disregarding the Geneva Convention

puts our own troops at risk.

Time Magazine has awarded its Person

of the Year award not to a single

person but to a group of people it

has named the "Silence Breakers" -

the women and men who came forward

to talk about sexual

abuse and harassment.

The movement is most closely

associated with the #MeToo hashtag

It got people to speak about their

own abuses.

a host of other women and men

including journalist Jane Merrick

who spoke out about how

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon had

"lunged" at her in 2003,

leading to his resignation

from the Cabinet in November

and Labour activist and campaigner

Bex Bailey who revealed earlier this

year that she was raped at a party

event as a teenager,

but was discouraged

from reporting the assault.

Let's see what some of the people

had to say about the award.

. We can't all be sluts. We can't

all be asking for it.

This reality

might not have to be our reality any

more.

I felt this crushing sense of

powerfullessness. This is the time

to take my power back.

Sexual

harassment...

I felt it was my duty

for the women who are silent to be

brave.

It is OK to stand up for

yourself.

Appealing in court today...

People

forget there is a human behind this.

Someone who is very hurt and

wronged.

I always thought maybe things could

change for my daughter. I never

thought things could change for me.

And I'm joined now by journalist

Jane Merrick who is one

of the people who has been

recognised as Time Magazine's Person

of the Year award.

Welcome to the programme. How do you

feel? Congratulations.

I feel

incredibly proud to be on this list

of extraordinary women and men from

all parts of society. Not just the

prominent individuals we have heard

about. There is a strawberry picker

who was sexually harassed and hotel

workers it is all parts of society.

When you wrote the article about

your specific experience with

Michael Fallon when he lunge at you

in that lunch in 2003, did you have

any idea of the impact it would

have?

I didn't realise it would have

this impact. When you are caught up

in something like that you don't

realise. Obviously I was aware of

the Harvey Weinstein allegations

which hit a few weeks before. The

sequence of events the issues

involving Westminster were

triflelised.

D

You felt nothing would be done

about sexual harassment, an abuse of

power here?

Michael Fallon had been

identified. He was involved with a

story touching a knee and it was

dealt with in her own way. But he

was saying that was sort of, it was

a long time ago and that was the

kind of thing that happened. I knew

what had happened to me was not

acceptable at the time and it was

not acceptable then. I was aware of

other allegations involving women

who could not speak out. That is why

I went public.

Why didn't you

before?

It is an interesting

question I have had to answer myself

and why when I was 29 didn't I

report to the whips or to the

newspaper I worked. I go to the

heart of this problem, I was scared

of being blacklisted by the

Conservative Party, that no Tory MP

would want to go out for lunch and

reprisals. When I was reporting

Michael Fallon to Downing Street I

was still worried about being

untrustworthy, somehow.

Have there

been reprisals? Has there been a

back lash at all?

Not something I

can put my finger on. There has been

a bit of criticism on twitter, but

broadly supportive.

Do you think

there is and more should be made of

the fact there is a difference

between what you might call clumsy

flirting - what you might call

inappropriate behaviour and sexual

harassment and them all lumped

together?

We are not aKuwaiting that

type of behaviour. We are not

equating what happened to me with

Bex Bailey

This was unacceptable.

This was not flirting. This was not

making a pass. He crossed the line.

People realise that. The rules of

flirting have not changed. The rules

of how we tolerate it have. Do you

think something will be done?

It is

great to have this. Times Person of

the Year, I don't want it to be just

about 2017, I don't want it to be

just the story of 2017, something

has to change. If we, I am very

lucky to have this platform to be

able to talk about it. We have to

carry on talking about it and making

sure that a culture will change.

That is the only way we will make a

difference, not for me and the

people on the list, but for women

who cannot speak out, for women who

are being harassed.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

Yesterday Stanley Johnson,

father of Boris, was booted out

of the Jungle in I'm a Celebrity.

He said he was looking forward

to checking his emails,

but what did he want to find out?

Was it: a) If England

were winning the Ashes?

B) If his son, Boris,

was still Foreign Secretary?

C) If Donald Trump had

abandoned Twitter?

Or d) If he was getting an invite

to the Royal wedding next year?

I think it was whether Boris has

kept his job. Let's have a look.

What are you looking

forward to, now you're out?

I'm absolutely looking

forward to my e-mails.

Are you really?

Isn't that pathetic?

I want to know what's been happening

in the great outside.

It's been very very quiet.

I want to know if Boris is still

Foreign Secretary, for example.

I mean, I want to know that.

I am sure he is, he's

doing a fantastic job.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

The One o'clock News is starting

over on BBC One now.

Andrew will be back tonight with

This Week.

Goodbye.