26/02/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

Jeremy Corbyn kicks off a big week

for Brexit with his speech

on life after we leave -

he's backing a permanent

customs union with the EU and he's

inviting Conservative rebels to join

him in defeating the government.

With temperatures falling

across the UK, the government claims

it will protect 11 million customers

from "rip off" energy bills.

We'll look at the details.

Sheep - plain and simple, these days

- have become industrialised.

They've become mere commodities, no

longer treated as sentient beings -

animals that can feel pain.

As MPs prepare to debate ending

live animal exports,

the broadcaster Selina Scott says

it's time to act.

And there's a big campaign to cut

the national voting age to 16 -

we'll be looking at the tongue

in cheek call for it

to go as low as 12.

All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole

of the programme today are two MPs

sheltering from the snow

and the wind in our studio

here at Westminster where we've got

the heating turned up.

It's Labour's Lisa Nandy and for

the Conservatives, Chris Skidmore.

Welcome to both of you.

So it's going to be a huge week

for Brexit, beginning

with Jeremy Corbyn's speech this

morning and ending with a speech

by the Prime Minister.

Plenty more of that in the show

today, but first...

The government should get ten out

of ten for timing at least.

Because just as the UK gets a blast

of Siberian weather a new bill

to limit the cost of some energy

bills is being introduced

into Parliament.

It's been calculated that domestic

customers using the big six energy

companies pay £1.4 billion more

on average than they would

in a truly competitive market.

The difference between cheapest

available tariff and the average

Standard Variable Tariff

is estimated to be around £300.

So the new law would mean Ofgem,

the energy regulatior,

would set a cap on standard default

tariffs and this would come

into effect by next winter

and would last until 2020.

It could then be extended

every year until 2023.

As you can imagine not

everyone is happy.

Energy UK, which represents

the energy providers,

warned "it's vital the cap doesn't

halt the growth of competition".

Let's have a listen to the energy

minister Claire Perry talking

about the plan earlier today.

What you're doing is saying, as

we've seen in other industries about

banking, all those great deals that

are out there for other customers,

come and switch to us, save on

average £300 a year, those sorts of

deals should be available to the

most loyal customers. Those who

can't switch or won't switch.

Switching is a great thing. We now

have about 20% of households out

there looking for the best deals.

I've switched twice, it does save

money. We know many people still

don't know about switching and lots

of steps are being taken to make

sure that improves, but equally some

people never want to switch and why

should those customers be paying

these unfair tariffs? Those are the

people who will benefit most from

this protection.

Centrica, which owns British Gas,

announced they will lose 4000 jobs

by 2020, partly down to your

proposed price cap. These plans

could damage the industry, couldn't

they?

I think having Ofgem set the

level of the cap is very important

here. This is a state control.

Having a regulator responsibly

taking decisions that will provide

that balance.

You've asked them to

do that to distance herself from

making decisions. Gallup the

business and energy select committee

has looked at it and said, if

for

too long the big six have argued

there will be consequences. We need

to be on the side of the consumer.

The Conservative Party as the party

of the little man and we need to

make sure we have the best value for

money.

You want to look after the

consumer, but the

consumer, but the company uSwitch

has said it is fraught with

unintended consequences and that the

cap could undermine the very

competition you want to see and push

up prices in the longer term and

harm the consumer. The bill has gone

through pre-legislative scrutiny. We

bought it through as a draft Bill to

see how we can make improvements.

We

will put it out to consultation. We

will see it pass through Parliament

as a bill and it shows the

government does have a domestic

policy programme in place and we

need to make sure we take the bill

through that there are concerns that

we welcome. This is about value for

money. B. On the standard variable

tariff, many people are locked in

and it could save them several

hundred pounds per year.

Do you

support it? This was the suggestion

that Ed Miliband, the former Labour

leader, proposed. It will help

people on that standard variable

tariff.

It was quite nice seeing how

far the Tory party has gone since

they told us we were dangerous

communists. To be honest, I think

it's a bit sad that you can't say,

we have a situation in this country

where people are being absolutely

ripped off and we think that the

state ought to do something about it

and be proud of that. This is an

important temporary fixed to the

energy market and I very much

supported. It doesn't deal with the

bigger problems in the energy

market. One of the biggest problems

as you almost highlighted is that

you have a handful of companies who

want just selling energy to

consumers, they're generating and

selling energy to themselves and

that's where the big profit margins

come. Centrica and British Gas are a

good example. British Gas five a lot

of gas from its parent company,

Centrica, which is where the big

profit margins come. That is a sort

of thing the government needs to

take action on.

Because that

balance. We don't want to criticise

companies. There are thousands of

people who work in his company is,

we are not anti-big business.

Are

consumers being ripped off or not

with yellow --?

Some consumers don't

have the time to switch so we need a

portfolio of options for consumers.

Penalised for loyalty. We shouldn't

allow a market to persist in which

customers are penalised for being

loyal.

Do you accept one of the

problems with the freeze is that the

price of wholesale energy, when it

came down, people would be paint

over and above the odds at the time

if Ed Miliband had pushed it

through.

That was a

mischaracterisation of the Labour

policy and it was always intended to

be a cap that bloated with the price

of wholesale rather than being

static. I agree that that would have

been a valid criticism if that were

policy. This is a temporary measure

which has had to come about because

of a very long period of time the

energy companies have been warned,

not just by political parties, but

by the independent watchdog, CMA,

that they are ripping off customers

and they haven't done anything about

it.

You're trying to limit

competition which isn't very

conservative.

It's the balance

between ensuring we have the best

value and what we are against in the

Conservative Party is corporatism.

We leave in ensuring competition but

corporatism is not competition.

Unlike the Labour position where it

was a freeze, people would be able

to bid under this and it's being

able to create that dynamic where

people have the best value.

In the

meantime, we'll turn the heating up

for this week!

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been

making his big speech

on Brexit this morning,

and he was keen to try to set out

some clear red water

between his position and that

of the government.

While the Prime Minister has

insisted the UK will leave

the customs union, allowing it

to negotiate its own post-Brexit

trade deals, Mr Corbyn has confirmed

that Labour will in fact back

a customs union with the EU.

The Labour leader also

said his party would,

if it had the opportunity,

"negotiate a new and

strong relationship

with the single market" too.

Some Brexit-backing Labour MPs have

warned that the party risks

betraying those who voted to take

back control of immigration

and laws, although the speech may

have pleased the many more Labour

MPs who support a closer

relationship with the EU.

Let's have a listen

to Mr Corbyn speaking earlier.

We've long argued that

a customs union is a viable

option for the final deal,

so Labour would seek to negotiate

a new, comprehensive UK/EU customs

union to ensure there are no tariffs

with Europe and to help avoid any

need whatsoever for a hard border

in Northern Ireland.

Labour would not countenance a deal

that left Britain a passive

recipient of rules decided elsewhere

by others that would mean ending up

as a mere rule taker.

The European Union is not the root

of all our problems and leaving it

will not solve all our problems.

Likewise, the EU is not the source

of all enlightenment and leaving it

does not inevitably spell doom.

There'll be some who'll tell

you Brexit is a disaster for this

country and some will tell you that

Brexit will create a land

of milk and honey.

The truth is more down to earth

and it's in our hands.

Brexit is what we make

of it, together.

The priorities and choices

we make in negotiations.

That was Jeremy Corbyn

speaking a little earlier,

and joining us now from Coventry

is the Shadow Business Secretary

Rebecca Long-Bailey.

Welcome to Daily Politics. Labour

says Britain will need a bespoke

relationship of its own that you

seek to negotiate protections,

clarifications or exemptions were

necessary. In order to deliver on

your ambitious economic programme.

So to sum up, you want all the good

bit of the single market and none of

the allegedly bad bits, which I

think the EU calls cherry picking

and they have rejected.

No, there

are certain provisions we know

undermine our workers' rights. The

posted workers directives, it is not

in the interest of workers here in

Britain and we would want to seek

that exception. A number of EU

countries are currently pressing for

it to be removed. If it isn't, we

will be pushing ahead with it.

Ultimately the message that Jeremy

put forward is that we have domestic

economic problems, deep structural

problems within our economy that

need to be addressed. We've had

significant underinvestment in

particular regions over the last

seven years and people are

increasingly making their voice

heard that they're not happy with

this economic model. We can put in

place domestic interventions and we

said we will do that. We are

undertaking the most radical and

robust industrial programme that's

been seen in a generation in terms

of investing in our research and

development, skills, infrastructure.

That will only work if we have a

solid relationship with the EU that

supports and complements our

industrial strategy on our economic

programme going forward.

What

evidence do you have that the EU

would agree to all of that? This

really is having your cake and

eating it. We want to maintain the

benefits we have within the customs

union. We want to have our cake and

eat it, as do most parties in

Westminster. Where is the evidence

the EU would agree to that whole

long list of the domestic policies

you want to enact while still

retaining all the benefits of the

customs union and single market?

We've been clear from the start that

people didn't vote to leave the

European Union in order to have

worse terms and conditions, to have

lower rates of pay. We were always

good buy for Brexit that puts our

economy, jobs and businesses best

and we set out to do that. We know

we're in a strong negotiating

position with the EU. We are one of

their strongest bodies, with a sixth

richest economy in the world. Why

would they not want to negotiate a

bespoke deal with us in the same way

they did with countries around

Europe?

Do you think the government

has an equally strong hand went

negotiating its position on the

basis that you just outlined?

The

government doesn't have a strong

position at all, they can't decide

what they're doing from one week to

the next. In terms of the transition

period, they can't agree whether

we'll have existing terms or if

we're going to negotiate a

transition period. We'd been quite

clear today. In relation to the

transition period we'll observe the

current terms and conditions of the

customs union and the single market

so we are not pushing businesses and

workers off a cliff edge and not

having to undertake a new set of

rules and regulations to then do it

again once the final deal is

reached. We want to provide

certainty and we know that is not

what this government is doing at the

moment.

You still haven't been able

to tell us...

Long-term investment

decisions.

You haven't been able to

tell us why your position would be

any stronger than that of the

government. There was a plant that

came out of the meeting that then

Donald Tusk from the European Union

Council rejected as cherry picking.

You're saying that by remaining part

of a cousin union, our trade policy

will be dictated by the EU 27.

Sorry, I didn't hear that.

Do you

accept our trade policy will be

dictated by the EU 27 if the UK is

part of a customs union?

Know, we've

been very clear on that today. What

we're seeking to achieve is to

become part of a customs union with

the EU. That will be dependent on

there being a clear forum in which

Britain has a very strong position

in agreeing to, or amending, any

trade deals itself.

What is your

evidence the EU would sign up? There

is no evidence the EU would sign up

to those exemptions, clarifications

and protections you talk about.

Where in a very strong position for

the reasons as we set out earlier.

We are one of the biggest economies

in the world. The EU wants a

positive relationship with us and we

want one with them. We know we're

only going to work as an economy and

the European economy as a whole if

we forge that strong relationship

together.

But you've just said that

the British government hasn't got a

clear direction, although its stated

what it wants to do in terms of

leaving the customs union.

They

can't decide...

But they said they

want to leave the customs union and

the single market, which is pretty

clear. And even some of the things

they would like to see done in a

bespoke deal have been rejected by

the EU. I say again, you say you are

in a strong position but there's no

evidence for that. Why do you think

you can have the same relationship

as Britain currently has now but

somehow give the UK a voice that is

more influential than each of the EU

27? That we'd be able to influence

EU trade policy more than them?

We're taking a reasonable and

pragmatic view of our future

relationship with the EU. The

government has not been reasonable

and pragmatic. They say they want to

have frictionless trade. They say

they don't want a hard border in

Northern Ireland and yet they

reduce... Refused to accept we must

have some form of customs union with

the European Union. We realise we

can't have that frictionless trade

without some form of customs union

and that's what we're taking to the

negotiating table. We also want to

be perfectly clear that were not

going to beat a passive recipient in

that arrangement. We want there to

be a forum, a clear forum where

Britain has the opportunity to argue

and fight for its future trade deals

on appropriate terms that are in the

benefit of our own economic

interests.

Isn't this just the first

step of you ratting? Ratting on all

those Labour leaders. They voted to

take back control of the money,

borders and laws. You'd sell them

down the river to get Jeremy Corbyn

into Downing Street.

No. This is

about taking back control and

ensuring we have full economic

control. To do that is...

You can't

live you're part of a customs union.

No, we have to make sure we have a

positive relationship with the EU in

order to do that. We can't sell out

our industrial base. We can't make

people worse off than they are now

on leaving the European Union and we

have defined a relationship that

satisfies our guys I do leave the EU

but also make sure we can maintain

those positive trading relationships

and other relationships within the

European Union. That's what we've

set out today.

Will you back and a

Subaru's amendment to enable the UK

to stay in the customs union and

potentially defeat the government?

We will take that decision

throughout the course of the week.

It will be interesting to see what

interventions they make today. They

are at war over the customs union

and I would not be surprised to see

some movement on that.

On

immigration Jeremy Corbyn said

Labour would design a policy around

the need of the economy based on

their rules and reasonable

management of migration and make no

apologies for putting those aims

before voters on targets. Are you

committed to ending freedom of

movement?

It will end, that is a

fact, when we leave the European

Union. We have to have a fair and

reasonable system in place. It has

to address our economic needs and

fill a skills gap and shortages. CBI

and the British Chambers of commerce

are calling for a clear guidelines

to make sure we can make sure that

industry gets the skills we need. We

have to address an underlying issue

we have in Britain, which is chronic

underinvestment in our own

home-grown skills and talent. 1.15

billion was pulled from the budget

in recent years. We have to make

sure the scaling of people living in

Britain is still

Britain is still addressing the

issue so we still have a pool of

talent in our industry.

talent in our industry.

We're joined now by the UKIP MEP

and of course prominent Brexit

campaigner Nigel Farage.

Is Jeremy Corbyn's speech a game

changer?

Governments do not

negotiate trade deals. The European

Commission negotiates trade deal. If

you are part of a customs union, you

will not be involved in that. They

are giving up on that. They are

saying, thank you very much, that is

great, we are happy with this. You

now need to go further on the single

market. The next speech down the

road will be that we are linked to a

single market but not the single

market. The biggest clue of the lot

was yesterday on the BBC when Keir

Starmer said we would have to have a

new treaty. We get rid of the

current treaty, we have another

treaty, and Labour voters were asked

are we really leaving?

Would you

like to see Labour commits to

remaining a member of the single

market?

Broadly speaking we are in

the right place in the country.

What

is the answer to that question?

That

is the answer. The position Jeromy

set out an hour ago was building on

the commitment that Keir Starmer

made, access to the single market

rather than membership of the single

market.

We can all have access.

It

gives you flexibility to be able to

negotiate specific terms. For me the

importance of all of this that is

being lost in the bluster and hot

air is that Labour does now have a

very clear position, which is that

we see our future as being a high

wage, high standard economy that

links as very closely to those

standards that operate across the

European Union.

Britain would be a

rule taker and that is where you

would be selling levers down the

line?

No, that is part of the

negotiation. The difficulty for

Britain is there is not agreement in

the Tory party, even within the

government. This is a choice, do we

want to peg ourselves closely to

countries like the US and China and

trade on those terms which will push

down wages in constituencies like

mine.

It will not push wages down,

it will open the door to

immigration.

I welcome to

immigration in a moment. What do you

say to that? Are you confident you

will still be able to get Parliament

to endorse leaving the single market

and the customs union?

First of all,

this is about taking back control.

People voted in June 2016 to have

control over their money, their laws

and their borders. Two thirds of

Labour constituents voted to leave.

They will be outraged if they feel

our future training policy is set by

the EU. The whole point of a customs

union means it will exclude the

ability for Britain to sign

independently to other trade

nations. When people realise the

customs union will lead to this,

there will be serious consequences

to the Labour Party.

Your party got

just under 600,000 votes in the last

election, against 17.4 million

people who voted to leave, as well

as others who voted to remain. Why

do you still get to defy what a

proper Brexit looks like?

The party

got fewer votes because the public

believed parties like Labour, the

Brexit they voted for, was going to

happen. Now we are seeing a

different picture. There were four

million-plus Labour voters who voted

for Jeremy Corbyn who genuinely want

immigration reduced significantly

and want us to leave the single

market, the customs union and to be

an independent country. So this is a

sell-out by any measure.

You always

said Jeremy Corbyn was a Brexiteer.

Why wouldn't people trust him to

deliver the sort of Brexit that

would protect jobs and the economy

as he has dated?

If you continue

with free movement... He wants to be

a citizen of the world. He said we

would not scapegoat anybody. There

were so many references there. He

also said Labour's priority will be

business commitments, not arbitrary

migration numbers. We will continue

with the low paid jobs and that is

what Labour has produced.

This is

absolute nonsense. If it was as true

as you say that you somehow

magically know exactly why every

single leave voter in this country

voted to leave and the specific

legal mechanisms that they want to

see in place afterwards, why did

your vote collapse in constituencies

like mine in 2017? We stood on a

very clear manifesto...

Leave the

single market.

We did not, we stood

on a very clear commitment that said

that we wanted to retain the

benefits of the single market. We

wanted access to the single market.

We wanted to avoid a hard border

with Northern Ireland.

We welcome

onto the hard border. Let's talk

about immigration. What do you

understand by Rebecca Long Bailey

and what was said in the Labour

manifesto that there will be an end

to freedom of movement which is then

followed by a fairer system of

managed by Gration according to

Jeremy Corbyn?

I am not part of the

internal discussion.

What does it

mean to you?

What I imagine it is

leading to, whether it is Tories

negotiating it or Labour, is

probably a system that looks like

work permits and looking at the

requirements to bring in non-skilled

labour and skilled labour. Would the

numbers go down? That is a red

herring because if you start saying

we will set an arbitrary target for

numbers, then you are not looking at

the interests of the economy.

In

terms of knowing what people wanted

about leaving the European Union,

are you saying there will be tens of

thousands of disappointed Labour

voters who will be disappointed if

we're not leaving the customs union?

Millions. They will be very

disappointed. If Theresa May was

able right now to grab the

immigration agenda, I think she

could do massive damage to Labour in

the north. I am not sure she will do

it, but everybody was clear we were

voting to leave the institutions of

the European Union and run our own

lives. Nobody voted lower wages.

They will get higher wages if we

control immigration. If we go global

we could be a richer country. What

you have done today is you have

stopped us going global by staying

part of a customs union.

You say it

will be a negotiation but it does

mean on paper that Britain would

remain a rule taker if we are part

of a customs union. There would not

be the ability to negotiate

free-trade agreements in the way

people envisaged. That is going back

on what was promised in the

referendum.

There would be

restrictions on the way in which we

could negotiate. But it would not

prevent us from negotiation.

On the

basis of being friendly it is not

evidence saying that the EU would

give you what you want.

What it

would entail, what Keir Starmer was

honest about yesterday, is we would

have to work closely with other

European countries in order to

negotiate free-trade agreement.

Sorry, Nigel you have had a lot to

say about this.

Let her finish.

Nigel. You are not telling the

truth.

The European Commission

negotiates...

You have had a lot to

say. Not one word is true. The truth

is that this is a choice in the end

about what sort of country we want

to be. We cannot be simultaneously a

high wage, high regulation economy

and a low-wage, low regulation

economy. We have to choose if we

want a close trading relationship

with Europe or not. That is why

neither of these parties are honest

with the public.

One other issue is

state aid, an important cornerstone

of what Jeremy Corbyn was to do in

terms of economic policy. Labour

wants to undermine the principle of

no state aid, which is a principle

that is crucial to the internal EU

market.

Why and how? I disagree with

that and I slightly disagree with

Rebecca in the way it was

characterised in that interview. If

you look at countries like France,

it is not true to say that remaining

within the European Union is a

barrier to state aid. I think it is

a genuine fear but one that is not

fully borne out by the fact. I think

it is possible to remain within the

European Union, not that we are, we

are leaving, but it is possible to

do that and intervene in markets. I

do not think that is a consideration

that should determine any political

party.

You were stating earlier that

it is the commission that is

negotiating, but it is also true to

say that other countries have had

bespoke deal. Look at Turkey with

regard to the customs union and

Switzerland with regard to

bilateral.

We were talking in the

context of doing trade deals with

the rest of the world and it is the

European Commission that does that.

Even as members, we did not have

that much say. You cannot be in a

customs union and exert influence on

outside trade policy. That is a

fact. However, what is interesting

is one thing is for certain, food

will stay expensive. It is the other

thing the customs union does, it

determines the tariffs on imports

from the rest of the world on items

like shoes, food, brass, the things

that the poorest families spend the

biggest part of their incomes on.

Those things will stay expensive if

we stay in a customs union and that

is something that Labour voters need

to understand.

What do you say to

that? There was a line from

that? There was a line from Jacob

Rees Mogg about that.

In

constituencies like mine relatively

speaking prices are higher than

anywhere else. The idea that you

could be the champion of the poor.

Food produced for those on lower

incomes in an average family would

be higher.

That is the difference

between the customs union and a

customs union because a customs

union enables you to negotiate.

No-bid does not. You are either part

of a legal entity or you are not.

That is also part of the argument

around the single market.

Keir

Starmer implied it would be the

customs union.

No, a customs union.

I see what you mean. We are looking

to mirror those terms so we can have

frictionless trade and help to move

us forward to solving the problems

in Northern Ireland. That seems to

be a good thing.

That seems to be a good thing.

Jeremy Corbyn's shift in direction

on Brexit has stoked speculation

that the government could be

defeated if Labour MPs

and Conservative rebels join forces

to inflict a defeat in the Commons

over the issue of the customs union.

Well, the international development

secretary Liam Fox yesterday urged

potential rebels to keep

an open mind.

I say to my colleague,

Theresa May has kept a broad range

of views on the European issue

in her Cabinet for a reason.

We sat down with those different

views, we looked at the issues,

we looked at the options and we came

to an agreement that

we are all happy with.

And I think that when the rest

of the Parliamentary party hears,

on Friday, as the Prime Minister

sets it out, what we...

She's going to win over

Anna Soubry, do you think?

Well, I hope they will have an open

mind and listen to what the Prime

Minister says because I think

what the Prime Minister

will set out will deal

with a lot of the reservations

that they've had.

Well, one of those potential

rebels is the Conservative

MP Stephen Hammond.

He's put his name to a cross-party

amendment calling for the country

to remain within a customs union

with the EU after Brexit.

He joins us now.

Welcome to Daily Politics. You just

heard Liam Fox saying your fears

will be addressed by the Prime

Minister in her speech on Friday.

What does she have to say to keep

you add other Tory MPs on-board?

I

think what I hope she's going to say

and specify... We were talking a lot

about a war the customs union. I

want to hear her talk about how

we'll get over nontariff barriers.

What would arrangements allow us to

do in terms of a customs union. I

want to hear her talk about all

these sectors of the UK economy and

I want to understand that we will

look at the real economic and

protect what businesses and jobs the

UK needs.

Will you accept anything

less than the UK being part of a war

the customs union?

the customs union?

I -- a or the

customs union? I brought the quote

of the Prime Minister made in her

Lancaster house speech in our party

manifesto. In our party manifesto we

are committed to a combo hence if

free trade and customs agreement.

Customs agreement could be a customs

union. I am prepared to be

open-minded.

Should the Prime

Minister say that on Friday in her

speech?

I think Brexit is a process,

not just an event and as part of

that process we have the

negotiations which will be taking

place later this month as next

month. As part of the speech, we're

talking semantics when it comes to a

or the customs union. A customs

union in itself binds us to a

collective decision-making browsers

when it comes to free trade deals

which is obviously what were not

going to do.

The key distinction

between a or the is a allows us to

do our own deals and the will allow

those deals which you and Liam and

others want us to do alongside a

jury our relationship.

There isn't

evidence the EU will allow that.

Would you accept a customs union?

No. We are looking for a partnership

which is separate from the union. We

are collectively binding ourselves

to the EU 27 when it comes to

setting tablets that would impose

higher prices on those goods coming

in from outside the EU. We also want

to ensure we have those deals with

the US, with China, the big global

nations. .

It doesn't like to get

what you want terms of a customs

union or partnership. If you don't,

will you press ahead voting with

Labour MPs to force the government

to make sure the UK stays within a

customs union with screen to be

technically correct, they'd be

voting with us. Your voting with

each other.

I bring Chris back. We

are very close to an agreement here.

I think that with a customs union

it'll be perfectly possible to agree

and secure a frictionless trade and

the tariff and I hope that nontariff

barriers. It will also allow us to

do outside deals. I'll be looking to

see what the difference between a

customs union and a customs

partnership actually is.

But are you

prepared to go through the lobby

with Labour colleagues?

This is a

process. Where a long way from that.

As Liam has said rightly, I will

listen to what the primaries says on

Friday. Until I have that, I

wouldn't give a view on something

that may or may not happen.

What do

you make of it being turned into a

vote of confidence in the Prime

Minister?

I'm sure that won't

happen.

But if it were to be

discussed, would that put pressure

on you to change your mind to vote

for an amendment to defeat the

government?

You heard Mr Corbyn's

speech today which was vacuous. He

had nothing more to say. He restated

his position he's had all the way

along. He had nothing to say about

the biggest sector of the economy,

nontariff barriers. He talked about

the regulatory race to the bottom

which David Davis has already ruled

out. The answer, if Jeremy Corbyn is

the answer, the question is how do

you destroy UK jobs? I want to do

anything to support that.

County

respond to that character Asian --

characterisation?

Voting on an issue

that potentially put him at

loggerheads with the Prime Minister.

The truth of this is that there is

very strong cross-party agreement

that a customs union could

potentially solve a lot of the

problems that we have and it seems

to me that we ought to be working

together in a constructive way to

achieve it. I don't think the

electorate Wood Group ward -- we

would any particular party that is

seeking to make capital out of this.

Our primary concern should be how do

we advance the situation in which we

are leaving the European Union and

we do so on the best terms for

British jobs and for Britain?

One of

the things Lisa raises in terms of a

solution is to the Northern Irish

issue, to the border. Being part of

a customs union would deal with that

in a way that hasn't been, even at

the end of that first phase of

negotiations.

It is obviously to me

else making speech. David Lidington

will be making a speech on how we

want the Brexit process to work for

all areas of the UK in terms of

Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

and how we create the internal

market. The Prime Minister has

committed at the end of phase one of

negotiations to dealing with the

issue.

It doesn't have a solution.

We committed to making sure the Good

Friday Agreement remains in place.

But being committed is not the same

as having an answer to how we deal

with it. If outside the customs

union there would have to be a

border somewhere. Whether it's down

the sea, which would break up the

integrity of the UK as the

Democratic Unionists see it, or

whether there would be border checks

between the UK and Ireland which

would threaten the Good Friday

Agreement.

This will be looked at

Friday the draft text is published.

With a draft comes the ability to

extend negotiating positions and you

know it's right we listened to

Ireland's concern, Northern

Ireland's concerned.

What's the

solution quiz the yellow -- what's

the solution?

That is taking the

situation... When you look at the

Northern Ireland situation with the

border there we have the opportunity

to look at how we can preserve the

union in Northern Ireland but also

making sure goods and services can

flow freely.

I understand the aim

but not the solution if you're

outside a customs union.

I believe

we have the opportunity at looking

at...

There isn't one.

Special

passes, electronic opportunities and

looking at how we can create that

order. It's not a hard border. The

Prime Minister has been very clear

and I believe her when she says we

won't go back to hide border. We

need to allow her the space to

negotiate and come up with a decent

solution.

How concerned are you

about your colleagues like Stephen

Hammond who will vote against the

government if there isn't some

indication of a customs union?

I was

a minister taking through the EU

withdrawal bill last year when we

were looking at devolution in the

Avent office. We have 60 amendments

and one defeat. This is a legal

process by which we have to listen

and that's why the government

delayed the legislation in order to

have the opportunity to react.

Come

back and tell us what you think of

the speech on Friday. At some stage.

I'd be delighted.

Any viewers who

have a strong allergic reaction to

more news about Brexit should look

away now.

Because it's shaping up to be

another busy week in politics,

and the "B" word is going

to figure throughout.

Tomorrow, International Trade

Secretary Liam Fox will give

the latest "road to Brexit" speech.

He is under pressure

to justify his claim

that the benefits of being outside

the customs union outweigh

the potential losses.

Tomorrow will also see Theresa May

update the full cabinet

on the Brexit Meeting at Chequers.

On Wednesday the European

commissioners will publish its full

legal text of Britain's exit treaty.

That's the deal that was struck

at the end of the first

round of negotiations in December.

Theresa May will meet EU

President Donald Tusk

in Downing Street on Thursday.

And then on Friday, Theresa May

will give her fourth

major Brexit speech.

Look at this scene!

We're joined now by two journalists

who can tell their managed

divergence from their customs union.

It's Jessica Elgot of the Guardian

and Jack Blanchard of Politico.

We've kindly given them a reason

to take a break from their nice warm

offices on College Green outside

Parliament.

You'll never agreed to do this

again, will you, if the weather is

like this. No need to brush the snow

of your coat! Your reaction to

Jeremy Corbyn's speech. Does it

change the terms of crit trade

between the two parties?

Its doors.

There is now really sort of clear

water in between the Conservatives

and Labour. Not perhaps if you dig

really deep into the detail of

Corbyn's speech. He says we want a

special partnership with the EU and

even echoed the phrase the premises

to use is quite often that we are

leaving the EU was not Europe.

There's still a lot of striking

similarity apart from on this one

key issue which is that they would

seek a customs union with the EU

which would mean there is some limit

on the amount of trade deals Britain

could do.

How much pressure does it

but on the Prime Minister?

A huge

mind. We have the vote looming on

the customs union. We thought it

would be in the next week but the

Tories have put it back now until

date unknown in the next few weeks

because the truth is there not sure

they've got the numbers to win it.

If enough Tory rebels joined with

Labour to defeat the Prime Minister

I really don't know what happens

then. It's a huge problem for her

and I guess the crunch comes, can

those Tory rebels be peeled off once

they realise the potential

consequences of them doing that

would be bringing down the whole

government.

Is that how you see it

too, Jessica, that is talked about

turning any vote on the trade built

around this amendment to stay in a

customs union that's actually been

proposed by Anna Soubry could be a

vote of confidence on the Prime

Minister?

That's the argument Tory

whips will be making to their

quivering colleagues on that. It's

not quite the same as voting on an

amendment. The withdrawal bill which

is about parliamentary democracy and

getting a vote on the final deal.

This is about really keen tenant of

what the Prime Minister's

negotiating strategy is. I don't see

how it's anything other than a

confidence vote on the Prime

Minister. There is another key

problem to getting this vote

through, that is Labour

Eurosceptics. Labour Eurosceptics

voted on the amendment to defeat the

government last hurrah. This is a

different ask them and it will be up

to Labour whips to make sure they

can keep them in mind, as well.

What

does it do, Jack, to the 80 Labour

MPs or so who would like Jeremy

Corbyn to go further than just

saying the UK would remain in a

customs union under Labour's policy,

but actually that Labour should

confirm it would remain in the

single market with eye and it step

in the right direction as far as

they're concerned. They want Corbyn

to go much further than that and I

don't think he's going to do that.

The Labour leaders have been very --

Labour leaders have been clear that

staying in the single market would

maintain free movement and no that

would alienate a fusion of their own

voters. It would put them over to

the charge that there are defying

the will of the people.

I don't

think you will go that far. Those 80

MPs I think would be reasonably

happy that they helped to ship later

into a position to stay closer to

Europe than they might otherwise

have been.

Let talk about Ken

Livingstone, the former Labour Mayor

of London. His suspension from the

party is due to end at the end of

April. What is actually happening in

terms of him being readmitted to the

party winner hasn't yet been an

enquiry into what he said in terms

of Hitler supporting Zionism?

Technically what would happen is if

somebody is suspended as a member

then once the suspension ends they

continue to be a member. The problem

that Labour MPs, some of whom are

incredibly opposed to Ken

Livingstone being readmitted, is

that the control of the NEC, which

is Labour's governing body, which

decides on a lot of these matters,

they decide on whether to have an

enquiry into this, is now very much

controlled by supporters of Jeremy

Corbyn. That is thoroughly mean

supporters of Ken Livingstone, but

those who want to push Ken's

suspension have a task.

I was told

by someone in Labour HQ some weeks

ago that they have no doubts Ken

Livingstone was coming back into the

party.

Thank you very much. Quickly

run back inside! Are

you in favour of Ken Livingstone

being readmitted?

I think he should

have been expelled in the first

place.

Do you think that the

decisions the NEC should make?

We

have to follow due process but my

feeling is the NEC will discuss this

at some point before the suspension

ends and Obee

at some point before the suspension

ends and Obee, people urging them

that people who express views like

that should not be in the Labour

Party.

Later today MPs will be debating

another aspect of life after Brexit

when they respond to a petition

calling for an end to the export

of live animals for slaughter.

It's been an emotive issue

for years, with campaigners

blockading ports to stop

what they see as a cruel trade

which can mean animals

travelling long distances

to abattoirs in Europe.

The broadcaster Selina Scott says

that once free of EU rules,

the UK should ban it altogether.

Here's her soapbox.

I have a farm in this beautiful

corner of North Yorkshire.

My life these days

is tied to the seasons

and the farming calendar.

Soon, it will be spring,

and in these fields all around

here there'll be newborn lambs

frolicking in the fresh

air with their mothers.

The life of a lamb,

unfortunately, is a short one.

Once they're a year,

old and after fattening,

Once they're a year

old and after fattening,

they're taken to the local market

and sold for slaughter.

Or worse.

It was the monks of great Cistercian

abbeys, like Rievaulx here,

who brought huge flocks of sheep

to the area and made immense amounts

of money out of the sale of wool -

riches that Henry VIII seized along

with their land.

600 years later, and the sale of one

lamb at auction can fetch

between £80 and £100 -

not nearly enough to pay

for the full-time shepherding skills

needed to care for sheep.

Skills that are now a dying art.

Sheep - plain and simple, these days

- have become industrialised.

They've become mere commodities, no

longer treated as sentient beings -

animals that can feel pain.

And we as a nation of animal lovers

- and to our everlasting shame -

have turned a blind eye

to the cruelty inflicted

on our sheep and lambs once

they're sold at auction.

The condoning of the trade in live

lambs across the European Union

is absolutely abhorrent.

In the UK, thousands of lambs

and sheep are herded

into overcrowded trucks

from counties like Cumbria

and Yorkshire, and driven hundreds

of miles, without food or fresh

water, to be shipped from Ramsgate

in Kent to revolting abattoirs

somewhere in southern or Eastern

Europe.

Instead of a humane killing

in a local abattoir,

sold on as a carcass,

these poor creatures have

to suffocate in transit,

suffer with broken bones and damaged

bodies, until they reach

their destination, where they meet

an unspeakable death.

For years, the EU has been the prime

enabler of this cruelty.

And successive UK governments have

supinely acquiesced.

Well, we're at a turning point,

and now there is no excuse.

We're leaving the EU.

We no longer have to follow EU rules

on live transportation of animals

across the continent.

We must finish off this

trade once and for all

and with immediate effect.

And Selina Scott joins us now.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. What

do you say to those within the

farming industry itself who say that

leaving the EU will put their

industry at risk?

First of all, we

are not talking about dealers, but a

lot of farmers do not like this

business and do not want this

business of animals going off like

this. They send them to market and

they sell them. There is nothing

they can do about it after that. The

other point is this is still a very

marginal trade. One in 300 sheep is

sent to Europe and to far-flung

places further on from Europe. But

even so it is a filthy business. I

talked about sheep. Calves are being

sent, I'm weaned calves from

Northern Ireland spent six days in

trucks all the way to Spain. As a

nation do we care about the animals

that we put into these situations?

Do we care that they suffer? That is

basically the question. Farmers are

on the whole behind it, but it is

now down to politicians to do

something about it.

Do you accept

that there are some journeys, going

to France and Belgium for example,

might be shorter than going to other

parts of the UK?

No, the fact is we

are talking about welfare. If you

send any animal over a long distance

over water, you do not know where

they are going to end up. Yes, a

farmer consent his or her animals to

an abattoir in France. It can then

be re-exported to Turkey for

example. The other day a Brazilian

court stopped the live

transportation of animals from

Brazil to abattoirs in Turkey

because of the grotesque conditions

that Turkish abattoirs put their

animals through. This has been

happening for 40 years.

What is the

government doing about it? They have

said once they have left the EU,

there will be the ability to

consider further this area. It is

opaque.

Once Brexit happens we will

have the opportunity to create our

own separate, new, public body that

will look at environmental standards

and public welfare.

Should

environment be a major issue?

There

is already legislation to bring in

CCTV in abattoirs in this country,

but there is a balance about the

standards not being abroad. We have

higher standards in the UK and it is

right that we need to look at this

going forward. It could be an

enormous benefit.

So you are warm to

the idea.

And you, Lisa? Very warm.

It is not true to say there is

nothing we can do at the moment

because although it is right to say

the single market potentially

prevents us from banning live

exports of animals, it does not

prevent us from putting stricter

standards in place into the court

system at the moment. I would like

to see something done now rather

than wrangle about what we do in the

future with a view to ending this

practice.

Do you agree, more could

be done right now before leaving the

EU?

What is stopping us? In an

agricultural bill stop it now,

finish it. It has been going on for

40 years. This is a country that

thinks of itself as a nation of

animal lovers. People like me, lots

and lots of people feel marginalised

by this behaviour and we should stop

it now.

If it could be done now

without or even before leaving the

EU, how much pressure can you put on

the government, the current

government to take you up on this?

There is a petition and if anyone is

listening and wants to sign it,

there is a petition called petition

200, go to the Parliament website.

Put your name to it because it is

the power of the people that will

change this. If it is left to the

politicians, we will argue about the

rights and wrongs and whether the

farmers wanted and the dealers

wanted, allowing unscrupulous people

to take advantage of this transition

period we are supposed to be going

through and that is not good enough.

Except the Scottish Government is

not keen on what you are proposing

and they want to stay in the EU.

They say it would damage the

livestock industry there so you will

not have their support.

I don't know

how the spokesman for the Scottish

parliament can live with himself

when he sees I'm weaned calves taken

off their mothers and put into

trucks and spending six days

travelling. How can a man like that

get up in the morning and say he is

doing his best?

He will say, and I

am not a spokesman for the Scottish

Government, but he will say it will

damage the livestock industry.

damage the livestock industry.

The

English system of subsidies which

are given to farmers for acreage.

They do not have to raise animals to

get the subsidy. In Scotland it is

per head of sheep or cattle. It is

different. Eventually this all has

to be brought into line. It is up to

the politicians to work out how

Scotland comes into line with

England and help England comes into

line with Scotland. The most

important thing is the welfare of

animals.

Selina Scott, thank you.

Selina Scott, thank you.

Now, you may be aware

of the campaign to give 16-year-olds

across the UK the right to vote -

it's been endorsed by

the Labour Party, among others,

although it's opposed

by the government which argues

the voting age should remain at 18.

But one campaigner says he wants

it to go even lower,

although we suspect he may just be

trying to make a point.

At age 12 you can have your ears

pierced, but you are not allowed to

vote.

The man you saw there

launching his campaign,

which we assume is satirical,

is Tom Harwood.

He joins us now, as does

Liam Preston from the YMCA

which is campaigning -

entirely sincerely I think -

for the voting age

to be lowered to 16.

Is it a joke?

It raises an important

point. That is a lot of the

arguments about votes at 16 can be

applied to 12-year-olds will stop

you might say that 12-year-olds are

not allowed to buy alcohol, buy

cigarettes, drive, fight for the

country, marry without permission,

but that is true of 16-year-olds as

well. When you look at the issue of

lowering the franchise, we need to

rest it on what we consider to be an

adult in this country. Lowering it

to 16 races of difficult questions

about responsibilities and rights of

16-year-olds.

What do you say? It

has raised the awareness of the

issue of votes at 16. Young people

at 16 and 17 are mature enough to

vote, they are well educated enough

to vote. They are already engaged in

the type of issues debated at

elections. When they are given the

opportunity, like in the Scottish

referendum, they will come out and

vote and I cannot see why we are not

lowering it to that franchise for a

more equal society.

It is a question

of what age you become a citizen. 16

is the suggestion. People can

register to vote at 16, but they

cannot vote. In Scotland they can

register at 14. Soon we will be

registering at ten. You have to ask

what is the space people can have to

grow up without being bombarded by

messages from politicians. Look at

Nicaraguan, Ecuador, Argentina,

Brazil, most of these countries are

18.

It is quite clever stunt. We

mature at different ages, you do not

become an adult overnight. You can

be criminally responsible for your

actions at ten. It seems to me that

what we are arguing about is a

question of where you strike the

right balance. For me the question

has always been when we have

extended the franchise it has always

been a good thing. The question

should be not why do it? But it

should be why not. In the case of

16-year-olds at the moment I cannot

see any reasons for not to.

I would

say the arguments about 12-year-olds

could be applied to 16-year-olds.

16-year-olds have the right

political knowledge and education

and that is true, but I do not think

we should be basing the franchise on

knowledge and education.

Can the

same arguments be applied to

12-year-olds are 16-year-olds?

When

you are 12, you are in a very

different place in life than when

you are 16 and 17. 16 and

17-year-olds know how mature they

are and they want to engage in

society and they want to shake

democracy. One of the issues is that

politicians do not engage enough

with young people and this will give

an opportunity for parties to look

at themselves, what can they do for

young people?

I have a undermining

the campaign being run?

If anything

undermines the campaign it is people

who campaign for votes at

16-year-olds comparing themselves to

suffragettes. You might not have

done, but many campaigners have them

and that is what I am trying to

satirise. There is not the same

systematic discrimination against

the marginalised groups in the past

and against 16-year-old and

17-year-olds.

But they are more

affected by the decisions we make.

Climate change is a good example. If

we do not deal with it, that

generation will be more affected.

And 12-year-olds even more affected.

Generally speaking we do not accept

12-year-olds operate independently.

They have someone at home looking

after them, they do not go out very

much by themselves. 16 is different.

The age of majority, the age in

which someone comes into charge of

their own actions and block liable

for someone else, that is 18.

Is it

because they do not have a say?

Arguing that this is a transactional

approach and if we do not give

16-year-olds vote, politicians will

ignore issues, misses the point.

When it comes to looking at youth

services, when we look at what we

want to provide in the future, and

one of the key arguments for

reducing the deficit was making sure

that we did not saddle the next

generation with it.

We have to do a

whole programme on this.

We have to do a whole

programme on this.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now.