Browse content similar to 07/12/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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
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
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.
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
They are doing it not just on the
behalf of the British people but for
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
That is highly
It is not incidental to the
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.
mind what is the capital of Israel?
The capital of Israel is Tel Aviv.
That is the way it must remain.
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.
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
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
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
This has made it much more
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
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
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
How? What have they done
that will bring Mohammad Abbas to
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.
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
This is not an important
point in great scheme.
It is very
important to the Palestinians. It is
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
talking about your Conservative
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
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
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.
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?
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
What is the is
the solution in your mind on the
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
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
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.
you being highly responsible?
100% behind the Prime Minister. I
understand the Prime Minister is
thinking about taking me to Brussels
to sort the problem out.
putting more red lines in her way,
making it harder to move on to the
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?
think he got slapped down by the
Prime Minister on that. It is not
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
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
Was it irresponsible of
the Government not to have briefed
the DUP with the wording of the
draft document to prevent them from
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
were called pink, actually.
argue about the colour. Do you think
the deadline will be met and there
will be movement on phase two?
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
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.
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
Should the charter be
there in black and white?
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.
guarantees will be given. They say
sovereignty should have been given
to them as parliamentarians to see
which laws will be included and
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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
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
Have you got evidence to
show that phonics has made a
positive impact on children's
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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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
But they said they
have committed error, so they
haven't kept the standards that are
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.
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
You would say that because
Momentum has been caught making
error, do you think is important to
have rules on spending
probity is key to democracy.
have no problem with the Electoral
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.
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.
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
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.
accept it causes harm to voter
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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?
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
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.
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.
there was, would you consider?
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
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.
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.
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
If powerful evidence is
brought from the Security Services
and the police to say we need more
time, will you support it?
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.
trade-off would be what? Increased
security risk to this country?
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.
will you have a timescale?
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
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.
might not have to be our reality any
I felt this crushing sense of
powerfullessness. This is the time
to take my power back.
I felt it was my duty
for the women who are silent to be
It is OK to stand up for
Appealing in court today...
forget there is a human behind this.
Someone who is very hurt and
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
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
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
You felt nothing would be done
about sexual harassment, an abuse of
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
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
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
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
We are not aKuwaiting that
type of behaviour. We are not
equating what happened to me with
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?
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
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