19/03/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

David Davis is in Brussels

where an agreement between Britain

and the EU over the transition

period after Brexit looks

close to being struck.

We'll bring you all the latest.

The EU has offered "unqualified

solidarity" with the UK

as the investigation

into the poisoning of

ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal

and his daughter goes on.

Is the Government serving up

cuts to free school meal

entitlement for some

children, or is Labour

over-egging the pudding?

We'll try to find out.

Should shock collars for dogs

in England like Bella

and Abbie be banned?

We'll be debating this

charged political issue.

I think if I didn't have it two

years ago I wouldn't be here right

now. You can't put a price on it.

And MPs debate whether people

with cystic fibrosis should

receive a life-changing,

but very expensive, drug on the NHS.

All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole

of the programme today,

it's the shadow foreign office

minister Helen Goodman and

the Conservative MP Neil O'Brien.

Welcome to the show both of you.

First today - a deal

between Britain and the EU

on the transition deal,

that's the period of two

years after Brexit -

looks to have been reached.

David Davis is in Brussels

where he's been meeting

with the EU's negotiator

Michel Barnier, we'll hear that

in a moment, it's potentially a big

moment in the Brexit process.

It means there's an agreed set

of rules to smoothe the way

from our current relationship

to our new relationship with the EU.

The EU wants this period,

which the British government calls

the implementation period,

to last until the end of December

2020, so we're all looking forward

to finding out where each side

has given way.

Here's Michel Barnier.

TRANSLATION:

And what we are

presenting to you today with David

is a legal texts, a joint legal

text, which constitutes in my mind a

decisive step because we were able

this morning to agree that after all

those days and nights of hard work

on a large part of what will make up

an international agreement for the

ordered withdrawal of the United

Kingdom.

And we're also joined by Bernard

Jenkin, the Conservative MP. I want

to ask my two guests hear what do

you say to the announcement by

Michel Barnier that there has been a

legal text agreed on the withdrawal

agreement and there sounds like some

sort of agreement has been made on

the transition?

It is ready great

news because it is another milestone

on the way to delivering Brexit in a

smooth, orderly way, which is a big

prize because it means we'll get

back control of our laws, borders

and money so this is a big

and money so this is a big step

forward it is what most of this

country now want.

People voted for

Brexit, we need to get on with it

and do it in a sensible and orderly

way and this is another milestone.

Bernard Jenkin, as we understand it

the agreement has been done but

everything stays the same during the

transition period, that two-year

period, but we will not have a seat

at the table. In other words, we

will be a rule take and not a rule

giver. I happy with that?

It'll be

in the small print which we haven't

had a look at yet. Michel Barnier

has presented the pages of text on a

massive slide behind him saying that

all the bits coloured in yellow are

the bits where the drafting is

subject to alteration so we don't

have a finished text and there are

some bits that are in green which

seem to be on my television

indecipherable from the bits in

yellow.

But can you accept the fact

that Britain won't have a seat at

the table when decisions are being

made during the transition period?

There is going to have to be some

pretty significant safeguards that

no country would submit itself is

completely to a foreign

jurisdiction, which is what the EU

becomes after we have left, and just

accept new laws and court rulings.

There will have to be some mediation

arrangement, even if by our own

parliament because when you are no

longer represented on the court,

when you are not sitting at the

table to make the new laws, how can

we possibly make ourselves a

prisoner of this arrangement? That

would not be acceptable. There are

other issues, like we are going to

be bound by the doctrine of sincere

integration, but we want to

negotiate our own trade deals.

Do

you see this as success? A moment at

which the government can claim that

it has got agreement on this

implementation period?

I hope so

because we were calling for a

transitional agreement with access

to the single market and the customs

union a year ago and the government

made some demands which couldn't be

met and now they've had to accept

that wasn't negotiable, and we

really do need this smooth

transition because the amount of

uncertainty and chaos which has been

caused for industry and business has

ready been terrible. We don't want

to see a repeat of this pattern

where the government requests things

it cannot achieve. We need a better

approach.

Right, I'm going to talk

to if political correspondent for TV

island but first of all will you be

happy to support a deal when it

comes to parliament later this year

if the issue of Ireland and Northern

Ireland hasn't been completely

resolved or if there is some

infrastructure at the border?

We

think getting the Northern Ireland

border sorted on the basis of a soft

border is absolutely essential to a

satisfactory deal.

We've just heard

from Michel Barnier on the border

issue that both sides, the UK and

the EU, are committed to all part of

what was agreed in December.

Briefly, to summarise, what was

agreed in that draft text was either

there was going to be a full free

trade agreement that would take in

the issue of the board or that's

technology would provide the

solution, which is what the

government has been suggesting, but

has been rejected so far by certain

parties on EU side, or the third

backstop issue which is that

Northern Ireland would remain

aligned to the EU, which is the

least favoured option for most

sides, certainly in the UK. Gavin

Reilly, do you think this is a

problem that the issue of the border

hasn't yet been resolved, even

though this implementation period

has been agreed?

It is a point of

anxiety that the Irish government is

still waiting to find a very

workable solution about how exactly

such technological solutions might

work. The Irish government has been

transparent and upfront and says its

best possible solution is a very

all-encompassing free-trade

agreement between EU and the UK

which would render the border? Is at

it because they would be part of the

same trading block. If that isn't

going to be any prospect of the UK

coming forward with technological

solutions, at least island considers

it feasible. The real question for

the Irish government is whether the

UK government is prepared to honour

the backstop agreement you

mentioned, where Northern Ireland

would remain part of the European

single trading area, even if it

means it become segmented from the

rest of the UK. The Irish government

says it doesn't want to do it and

the Taoiseach has been at pains to

article at this point because it is

perceived this is some sort of an

agenda to create a united Ireland by

stealth, to fragment the UK and have

Northern Ireland broken away from

the rest of mainland Britain. The

Irish government says it isn't its

intention at all but it wants to see

some commitment that it is prepared

to put its money where its mouth is,

the UK government. And that is

something the UK is prepared to

honour. It is interesting in the

agreement Michel Barnier posted at

text is highlighted yellow which

means that although the final legal

technicalities are not agreed, they

are agreed in principle. Two weeks

ago Theresa May suggested that

agreement was something no British

Prime Minister could stand over.

Bernard Jenkins, we've heard from

Michel Barnier on the UK island

border, we have agreed the backstop

solution must form part of the legal

text of the withdrawal agreement. It

will apply unless and until another

solution is found. Is that

acceptable to you the UK government

has signed up to the idea that

unless another solution is found

Northern Ireland will remain aligned

to EU rules?

I'd want to look at the

small print.

Well, this is what

Barnier has said.

They've just

published a very long document

annual quoting a very small part of

it. Until I've read it...

I'm asking

for your reaction to what is pretty

clear they've agreed the backstop

solution. Are you happy with that?

There will be no infrastructure at

the border on nest that you put it

there. If the EU is stupid enough

and wants to breach the terms of the

Northern Ireland peace agreement,

the Belfast Agreement, wants to put

up obstacles and be obstructive,

then they are going to go ahead and

do that but actually I think they

will not.

What do you say to that?

There is a political will lacking on

the side of the EU?

It is no good

saying just because someone else is

in the driving seat it doesn't

matter if we drive over the cliff

edge. What we really need is a clear

way to ensure that there is a soft

border, and, so far, the government

hasn't produced it.

Is there a lack

of will on the side of the EU? If

they wanted to find a solution, one

would be found.

I think it is a

tricky, technical thing to do

because of the red lines which

Theresa May has put forward, which I

think make it very difficult.

Why

should the EU break its rules for

the UK, in terms of the Irish

border, and other UK to come out of

the customs union and the single

market and yet keep a completely

open and frictionless border? As

they say, they will never agree to

us cherry picking when it comes to

the rules and integrity of the

single market and customs union?

The

reason we are agreeing on this is

because both sides want it, neither

side wants a hard border... On the

other hand we can't see a hard

border between one bit of the UK and

another bid. It won't be an easy

issue to solve, and it'll be one of

the last issues to solve but with

goodwill on all sides, it is

soluble. I feel sympathetic to

Bernard. To me, the text you read

out, which we have had no time to

respond to...

He has had time to

respond to it, he hasn't seen the

full document.

One last point on

this, it is saying something that is

obvious, it's always the case then

needs to be a real that deals with

the problem of the border between

Northern Ireland and the republic.

Obviously, that needs to be solved.

Are you happy with the fact the

agreement today during transition is

going to give EU citizens who come

during the two-year period exactly

the same rights as their

predecessors who were here before

March 2019?

If what you say is

correct, no, I am not happy because

we are going to leave the EU in

March 2019 and I suspect you'll find

in the small print that isn't what

the agreement says.

What differences

would you like to see?

We need to be

able to verify and register people

coming into the country.

We can do

that now.

To check they are EU

citizens.

We can do that now in the

single market. We don't do it but we

could do it.

The government could do

it. Under EU law that could be

described as discrimination that we

are registering some EU citizens and

not others so let's be accurate

about this. Also the enforcement

mechanisms. We can't have the United

Kingdom Parliament around Loch,

stock and barrel by the European

Court of Justice as it is now when

we are no longer represented on the

European Court of Justice. Why are

we passing an act of Parliament that

abolishes the European Communities

Act? It is going to be technically

difficult exactly replicate this. I

think there will be technical legal

details that will end up with us

having a subtly different

jurisdiction, where we perhaps have

regard to what is happening in the

EU and we oblige our courts to do

this, to have regard, but we cannot

actually be bound as we are now. We

are leaving! It doesn't respect the

referendum result!

Let's imagine

that is the case and that is what we

understand from the agreement today.

What are you going to do about it?

I

think it'll be difficult to get the

agreement through the House of

Commons because how can you... Most

constituencies in the House of

Commons voted leave, they voted to

be free of the European Court of

Justice and the lawmaking capacity

of the EU, that is what the

referendum was about...

And you are

not in agreement with that?

To end

up at the same case but without

sitting at the table, without being

a member, this becomes a

constitutional outrage and I am

quite certain the government won't

agree to it.

Will it be the same on

fishing? Would you feel the same

about fishing quotas?

Fish is a big

problem because how can we allow the

EU to set fishing quotas for British

boats, particularly as big changes

are coming through, when we have no

chance of taking part in the

initiation?

What is the government

going to do if there are people like

Jacob Rees Mogg and Bernard Jenkins

who can't sign up to this transition

deal?

The on fish, it looks from the

rumours on twitter like we are

actually getting a good deal today

on fish. I looked at what Jacob

Rees-Mogg said and it seemed like

something everyone would agree to.

Obviously we won't be able to

implement new trade deals until

we've left the EU, that's a matter

of logic. But if we can negotiate

them and get to the point of signing

them during the transition I think

everyone will be happy with that.

David Davis has said that the UK

will be able to step up, put and

sign new trade deals across the

globe that will come into force once

the implementation period is over. I

think we can hear him say it.

The United Kingdom will be able to

step out, sign and ratify new trade

deals with old friends and new

allies around the globe for the

first time in more than 40 years.

These will come into force when the

implementation period is over.

Providing new opportunities for

businesses across the UK and seizing

one of Brexit's greatest

opportunities.

Your reaction to

that?

I'm delighted. There is one

important caveat. We must be able to

conduct those negotiations in

private. We shouldn't be obliged to

have the EU sitting at the table.

They have said they would like to be

part of what's going on.

We can't be

conducting negotiations with the EU

alongside every negotiation we are

conducting in the World Trade

Organisation.

It is a diplomatic

triumph. A lot of people in Brussels

didn't want to agree that...

But if

they are overseeing it then actually

we don't have our own control, we

haven't taken back control over this

important part of our foreign

policy.

We have because we'll be

able to set our own trade deals.

That is something a lot of people in

Brussels didn't want to agree to and

now we've achieved it. That's a big

result.

Thank you very much for

coming in. Gavin Reilly, I haven't

quite dispensed with you before

you're allowed to go. In terms of

the Irish government, is there now a

more positive outlook from the Irish

government in terms of engaging with

the UK over finding a solution that

could involve technology?

There will

probably be a lot of good faith

about it. The fact they bid Davis

has been willing to stake his claim

and that the UK appears to be in

principle willing to implement the

backstop, that will help. There will

be some frustration on the Irish

side about how long that has taken.

What we got out of the UK last

December was an agreement that if no

other solution could be found then

Northern Ireland would enough

European rules in order to avoid a

border in the first place. It seems

after Theresa May seemed to

backtrack from that, that David

Davis has been prepared to commit to

bat again. All we've got is a

reassertion of a principle to which

the UK signed up three months ago

anyway. There probably be some

anxiety about how long it's taken

given that Brexit is now only a year

and a week away. There might be some

more earnest intention on the Irish

government's part to talk about

technological solutions, in part

because time is of the essence. If

we are going to have to start

looking at some kind of

infrastructure even if it is only

technological, surveillance and the

like, it is something Ireland will

no doubt be willing to pursue. It

was something that at the start of

the negotiations they had ruled out

in theory. Now it seems they are

open to it. The question is when the

UK will come up with the solutions.

The implementation period will end

in December 2020 which is what David

Davis had asked for.

And for more reporting

and analysis of Brexit,

check out the BBC News website:

Lynn Davidson is here and Sam Coates

for reaction. Something to cheer

about?

I think it depends what side

you are on. If you're a Scottish

Conservative MP at the moment you

may not be necessarily very happy

with what's been said about fishing.

John Lambert said he would be

willing to break down a final Brexit

deal if there were not guarantees

over fishing quotas and vessels.

What we are not entirely clear about

is the timing on that.

How much has

the government had to compromise on

getting this transition agreement

and this legal text of the

Withdrawal Agreement that was

broadly signed up to in December?

Quite a lot. You call it a

transition, Theresa May calls it an

implementation. Frankly it's a

standstill. Our relationship with

the EU will stay the same without us

having a seat in the decision-making

bodies. Just to get that 21 month

extension we've had to abandon plans

to stop EU citizens who come here

during the transition period from

staying, we've had to abandon the

desire to bring back control of

fishing, we even wanted the

transition to go on longer. Brussels

said no. On those things we've had

to eventually climbed down to insure

a relationship stays the same.

Briefly, how much trouble are the

likes of Bernard Jenkin saying he

wouldn't be happy to sign up to a

deal that gave exactly the same

rights to EU citizens who arrive

during that transition period and

colleagues like Jacob Rees-Mogg are

going to cause the Prime Minister?

I

think they are deciding right now as

it's all rolling out. Someone might

Bernard Jenkin is being loyal to

Theresa May and has been quite

outspoken about backing her. This

puts them in an awkward position.

Quotas are being decided and we

aren't even in the rim.

It will be

the vassal state Jacob Rees-Mogg

talked about.

Adam Fleming is there. We talked

about lots of colour coding going

on. There it is! If it has clear as

mud?

It's quite difficult to read.

Try reading that with the green

highlighter on it. My first

impressions are both sides are

obviously over the moon because

they've been negotiating all through

the weekend and all through the

night to get as much of this

document as green as possible, which

is obviously a big achievement. Two

weeks ago this was the EU's text,

the UK hadn't really contributed or

given their say. Now they've managed

to wrap up lots of it in quite a

short period of time and they've

managed to close some key chapters.

Most of the citizens' rights stuff

is agreed, most of the financial

settlement staff is agreed, most of

the transition period is agreed.

They are pretty happy about that.

There's still some big caveats. It

looks like the 25% that hasn't been

agreed is governance. How do you

enforce disputes and make sure the

agreement is adhered to by both

sides after Brexit day and what does

the European Court of Justice have

to do with it? The other bit,

Northern Ireland and Ireland which

isn't agreed. Those two things are

quite big things to still agree.

They've been kicked down the road.

I'm surprised there's been no

decision about the European Court of

Justice and whether it would still

arbitrate over any disputes or new

laws that are brought in during that

two-year implementation period by

the EU.

So, what they've done is

they've have agreed a governance

mechanism for the citizens' rights

part of this. That was agreed in

December, the whole thing of the UK

courts will make voluntary

references to the

references to the EC -- the ECJ. Now

the British idea of a joint

committee to handle disputes that

arise during the fermentation or

transition period has been agreed to

and we'll have to go through the

document and see the details. It's

what comes after that which is still

to be agreed and is there a role for

the European Court of Justice. That

seems like quite a big sticking

point, still.

What about signing up

to free trade deals? David Davis

said the UK will be allowed to do

that but Bernard Jenkin said yes

that's great but not if we have two

deferred to the EU during that

two-year implementation period while

we are setting up these free trade

deals. Do you know what the decision

is there?

I'm trying to find that in

the document... Hang on! Article

124, paragraph four... It still has

the language saying they've got to

be authorised by the European Union.

The UK will have the power to

negotiate and sign and ratify free

trade deals, but they cannot be

implemented unless they've got

permission from the EU. That has

pretty much stayed the same. It's

always been a bit bizarre because

all along Michel Barnier has said

it's OK for the UK to go out into

the world and talk to third

countries and talk about trade

deals, it's just getting it written

down that the Brits want it.

When

the giddiness has died down in

Brussels, what happens next?

Michel

Barnier is going to take this

document to the meeting of EU

affairs ministers for the 27 to get

it signed off by ministerial level

tomorrow. Then he'll go to the

Wednesday meeting of the European

Commission with Jean-Claude Juncker

whether commissioners will sign it

off. Then he'll take it to the

European Council, the meeting of

leaders on Friday where they will

sign it off and they will also sign

of their guidelines for phase two

which is the 6-page document setting

out their blueprint for how the

talks about the future relationship

are going to work. That will be

another symbolic moment. We know

roughly what they will say. Then it

will be a case of how quickly can

they get down to talking about that

future relationship. Will be

straight after the meeting of the

European Council and the meeting of

the leaders, or will there be

another bureaucratic process where

Michel Barnier takes those

guidelines awake and clarifies them

into an even detailed document? Or

can he get down to it straightaway?

Worth remembering what the EU says

is the best case scenario for the

outcome from those negotiations. It

is a political agreement about the

shape of the future relationship.

The EU saying it will not be the

fully fledged free trade deal that

the British government talks about,

so that's what the next few months

is going to be about, how detailed

is that political declaration and

how much does look like a free trade

agreement.

Thank you, Adam.

Vladimir Putin has been elected

Russian President for another six

years in a victory that was assured

after the country's most popular

opposition politician

was excluded from standing.

There were reports of ballot

rigging, and turnout was up,

something Putin's campaign claimed

was due to the confrontation

with Britain over the poisoning

of Sergei Skripal.

International experts are arriving

in the UK today to assess the type

of nerve agent used to poison

the former double agent

and his daughter in Salisbury.

Tom Burridge is there.

Can you bring us up to speed with

what's going on in Salisbury?

In

terms of police activity over the

weekend, a pretty minimal amount of

visible activity. One focus of the

investigation is Sergei Skripal's

car. Parked in the city centre of

the afternoon that they fell

critically ill. The police want to

hear from anyone in Salisbury on

Sunday the 4th of March who might

have seen the car earlier in the

morning. The other main development

is officials from the Organisation

for the Prohibition of Chemical

Weapons, a delegation of ten

individuals are in Wiltshire now.

They'll be here for a week or so is

spending most of their time at the

MoD's scientific research facility.

The idea is that samples of the

nerve agent used to attack so Gail

and Yulia Skripal will be sent to as

many as 20 laboratories and 16

countries. These are independent

laboratories signed off by the OPCW

for testing. The idea is in about

three weeks' time at least the OPCW

will make its own conclusions about

the nerve agent used in the attack.

Thank you.

Helen Goodman, what is Labour's line

in terms of its confrontation with

the government over this issue?

We

supported everything that the

government has done in the wake of

Salisbury and we agree with the

Prime Minister's assessment that the

overwhelming probability is that

it's either deliberate on the part

of the Russians or they lost

control. On either bases they are

wholly culpable. What the Leader of

the Opposition was asking was for

the involvement of the Organisation

for the Prohibition of Chemical

Weapons. We've got that now and it's

extremely helpful. We also pressed

the

the government on Magnitsky and

they've done a U-turn as well.

On

Magnitsky, what do you say about the

governments and the party 's

opposition to something that would

strengthen what the row could be

used against Russian oligarchs or

money laundering in Britain?

It's

not a U-turn. We are in favour of a

Magnitsky style act...

It is a

U-turn, you voted against it a

fortnight ago stopped with that was

because of technical problems. This

is too important to play party

politics. We all agree on a

Magnitsky act. We all agree on

people who have been involved in

corruption in Russia. We cannot let

the people who run Russia try and

divide us and make us play party

politics against each other. One of

the things I've been most disgusted

by is the way the Russians have

mocked us over this issue.

This is a situation where a brave

police officer and a man are nearly

dead because of a brush and

state-sponsored assassination

attempt on our streets and we must

not let them do what they always do,

when they shot down the passenger

jet over Ukraine, they blamed

Ukraine and they said the dues to

did. We've got to be canny about it

and not let the Kremlin divide us.

Do you think you've had support from

the Labour Party cuisine and I was

initially disappointed by Jeremy

Corbyn's responds.

It was a lot of

backbenchers who are disappointed in

his response but let's move on from

that now. We are getting together a

strong coalition about partners. The

Prime Minister is leading the

country strongly on this. We've got

people in from the Organisation for

the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

and the live the Russians are trying

to tell, firstly they are saying

they didn't make it at all, then

they are saying we made it but we

got rid of it. Then they are saying

maybe some got out of the country.

They are always using their

propaganda television stations to

muddy the water, to wrap you up in

process.

Do you think it should be

stopped in this country?

I don't

think any serious MP should be going

on it. Alex Salmond shouldn't be

going on it.

Should Ofcom stop

broadcasting it?

We have the rule of

law here and Ofcom will make a

decision on the basis of the fact. I

don't think it was right for Jeremy

Corbyn to go on that or to promote

it as a serious news outlet and I

hope the Labour MPs will not go on

there anymore.

Let's hear what the

shadow chancellor did say in terms

of Labour's response to what the

government had proposed in Theresa

May's Commons statement.

I agree

with the Prime Minister completely.

What she said is that Russia is

culpable either by direct

commission, Putin has ordered this,

or they've lost control of their

supply.

To be clear, she has backed

away from the pieces they've lost

control. She is holding him

personally responsible. You not

agreeing with that?

I do agree with

that. She has repeated that

statement three times. He is

responsible whichever way you look

at it. All the evidence points to

him.

John McDonnell was very clear

is today, Helen Goodman but Jeremy

Corbyn said that he still believes

the Prime Minister's initial line

there are two civilities for who

carried out the attack, so which one

is the official line? Did Putin do

it or do we need to pursue both

lines of inquiry that it could have

been someone else?

Vladimir Putin is

responsible because the nerve agent

was made in Russia. And, therefore,

whatever the root, Vladimir Putin

must be the person held responsible.

I think it is more important we now

think about what we need to do, and

I think the government is very weak

on the money-laundering because

we've got billions coming into

London. The National Crime Agency

estimates £90 billion of money is

laundered through London every year.

We have been putting down amendments

to this bill.

And we've talked about

the Magnitsky. We will come onto the

money-laundering in a moment. Let's

talk about Jeremy Corbyn and John

McDonnell. Where does the party

stand?

The Labour Party... It is an

uneasy compromise. John McDonnell

said yesterday the phrase the Prime

Minister is right to blame Russia.

That is quite uncomfortable when set

against what Jeremy Corbyn did last

week. I think John McDonnell has his

eye on the internal Labour politics

which have been very messy. I think

he is trying to put behind the row

brewing at the back end of last week

and smooth over some of the

difficulties. Whilst they are not

saying President Putin was

responsible, they are saying he is

to blame, which seems to be a line

Labour can more or less unite

around.

Except there has been a

divide. Last week there were a

number of Labour MPs that felt

Jeremy Corbyn was equivocating. In

his article, he said we shouldn't

resign ourselves to McCarthy like

intolerance of dissent. What did

that mean to you?

I was as

flabbergasted at as many Labour

backbenchers. You only had to see

Yvette Cooper's reaction when she

shot up immediately after Jeremy

Corbyn to make her position clear

and later John Woodcock's early day

motion. Some might say that John

McDonnell now is almost isolated

Jeremy Corbyn in his position but

any journalist who stood in the

huddle last Wednesday after PMQs

when Jeremy Corbyn spokesman's

brought up the weapons of mass

destruction dossier would be no

doubt.

Was that irresponsible of the

director of communication to set had

been failures in intelligence in the

past and we should be cautious over

this?

Mary Griffiths pointed out to

the BBC, the shadow defence

spokesman, that these situations are

rather different, and I think she's

right, they are.

So the spokesman

should have spoken out of turn?

He

has to say what he thinks is best in

the moment when he says it but I

think once we have reflected, it is

clear this is quite different from

the Iraq situation.

Do you think we

have to hear the Labour leader say

that in the same way we've heard

John McDonnell, who is very clear

that Putin is responsible whichever

way you look at it, and all the

evidence points to him?

I think that

it is really important that we all

support the action the government

has taken which Jeremy has done,

that we condemn the attack which

Jeremy has done...

He said this

serves neither justice nor our

national security. Is he right?

The

role of the oppositionist was

questions and he asks questions. He

is not denying the Russians are

responsible. He is saying the

Russians are responsible.

He hasn't

said Putin is responsible. Should he

quiz low I haven't got the text in

front of me and you have but what he

has said is we have two

possibilities.

Either they did it

pop deliberately or they've lost

control and on either bases the

Russians are responsible.

But

actually it is clear in terms of

what John McDonald is saying, that

Putin did it. I mean, there are no

two ways, he is saying. He isn't

saying let's have a look at the

evidence. Who is right? The Labour

leader or shadow chancellor?

We are

having a look at the evidence now

and your correspondent has pointed

out that it is being sent round to

20 different laboratories around the

world.

Should we wait for that

evidence?

I think it would be

helpful to wait for what comes out

of that evidence. My own view is

that Putin is responsible and I've

made that clear.

Should we be

waiting? Did Theresa May rush to

judgment? If we have people going in

to decide exactly what the nerve

agent was and how it was used,

should we have waited before

pointing the finger of blame firmly

at Putin?

I agree with Helen. The

Prime Minister was right to give the

Russians one last opportunity to

explain how this nerve agent which

only they make had come to be on the

streets of Wiltshire. They haven't

been able to do that. They've mocked

us. Putin in a triumphalist way has

gloated about this. And it is

absolutely clear he did this. From

the conversation, the winner of this

discussion is that a mere Putin

because we've spent a long time

talking about party politics.

Our

party politics not important?

Not

enough time thinking about what we

will to about the problem. This is a

Richey MEDLINE, hacking into the

defence Defence Ministry, they've

attacked the Bundestag in Germany,

they've destabilise the Baltics and

now we must come together and take

firm action to stop this

state-sponsored murder on our

streets.

Thank you both for coming

in.

If you live in England you can

still, at the moment,

use a shock collar to train your dog

or your cat.

But not for much longer, it seems,

after Environment Secretary Michael

Gove launched a consultation

with a view to banning

what he called "punitive devices."

Well, they're due to be banned

in Scotland and were

banned in Wales in 2010.

Here's how the BBC

covered it at the time.

This is Lady.

She's being trained as a guard dog,

but there's a problem -

she likes chasing sheep.

She's been fitted with

a so-called "shock collar".

When her trainer presses a button

on a remotely-controlled handset,

it emits a pulse of electricity...

LADY BARKS.

..And Lady leaves the sheep alone.

We're joined now by Nathalie Ingham

a canine behaviourist

from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home.

She's brought along Bella

a staffordshire terrier

and Abbie a chihuahua.

Journalist Quentin Letts also joins

me in the studio and Deidre Brock

from the Scottish National Party

is in Edinburgh.

First of all tell us what these

shock collars two.

Shock collars

administer an electric shock to the

animals so normally they are worn

around the collar. They should in

theory give off a sound to

pre-warned the animal that a shocker

is coming but not all of them do.

And the idea is that people utilise

them in thinking they are going to

stop an unwanted behaviour but the

realities are very different.

What

methods do you recommend the

training?

We recommend people use

positive reward -based method so it

is important owners of dogs create a

solid bond with their dogs so learn

how to play with their dogs, so they

have a connection with the animals.

By doing that, animals will want to

seek that attention from the owner

and will be able to respond them

more. So they'd look to the owner in

a situation rather than making their

own choices all the time. So

definitely using play, food as

rewards, anything that will

strengthen the bond and reward good

behaviour is.

While they're sitting

quietly and not disturbed by you,

are you a fan of them?

I'm not a fan

of those ones you press the button

and the dog gets shocked. We have

badly behaved terriers.

Is that a

failure of the owners training?

I'm

not sure it is because one of them

as a rescue dog and it goes around

the perimeter of our garden, and it

means when the dog goes near the

wire, it gets a sound and if it goes

a bit further, it doesn't get a

shock but a vibrating. And these

devices which are terrific, and are

very good for animal welfare...

So

you wouldn't want to see them

banned?

Michael Gove wants to put

these out of business because he is

a politician, he's playing games,

triangulating or whatever these

ghastly politicians do, trying to

show the Tories are very good on

animal welfare. I'm not going to

cost judgment on that but what is

going to do is make life worse for

cats and dogs that use these

containment devices which stops them

going out on roads and getting run

over.

So, it'll make it worse for

dogs and cats.

I'd have to disagree

with that. In fact the vibrating

collars are still permissible in

Scotland but I'm proud of the fact

the Scottish government have banned

these collars. What we'd like to see

is this go further and the actual

sale is banned throughout the UK,

that is something under the quirks

of the devolution settlement that

the UK government has the power to

do at the moment so we are calling

on the UK government, and not us

alone. This is a cross-party

situation. The ban of these collars

is cross-party and we've done a lot

of work with colleagues in different

parties on this issue.

Do you think

they are cruel?

I had a Brave

colleague who volunteered to be

zapped by one of these collars on

his hand and it was only at 30% of

its strength but he was shocked at

how painful it was, and this was

very recently at an event I hosted

with other MPs and the parliament

which featured dogs trust UK, kennel

club and others, raising the profile

of this particular issue, and he was

accusingly later telling me that

some half an hour later his hand was

still numb afterwards.

That's cruel,

isn't it?

We've tried these things

to. You know those things you get

that joke shops when you shake

someone's hand and they put a

vibrating thing on? That is what it

feels like. The dog gets it once or

twice in its life and it learns.

Once or twice in their life they

might get a vibration, then that

means they can roam free, have a

terrific life and not get run over

and not chase horses all walkers.

Is

it better than King run over?

My

concern is there doesn't seem to be

any upper limit on the voltage of

electric shock collars. Most many

factors are a member of an

association which means their

products meet latest technical

requirements but some of these

collars can shock up to 6,000 volts.

They are painful. Just suggesting

they might only be used once or

twice and that will solve the issue

is I think... I am glad his dogs are

so well-behaved...

No, they're not,

that's the thing! People say why

don't you put a fence up? Peep

don't you put a fence up? Peep --

they'd dig under these fences.

Michael Gove of all people who

believes in small government, why do

they want to wreck life for dogs and

cats? They will make life so much

worse for them and ruined the

freedom these animals have. I find

it baffling. I can't understand why

anyone would want to cause an animal

pain or distress, particularly in

the UK a group of nations renowned

the world over for its love of

animals.

To still be containing...

Our last dog did not have one of

these and she was run over and spent

two years... She was in such pain we

had to put her down. That is what I

am trying to stop. And I get so

furious about this. It is a classic

example of politicians making life

worse for people.

Maybe Michael Gove

doesn't think he is going to make

life worse for people. What will you

do if you ban is it?

We will have to

obey the law but I'd trip to think

what will happen to our dogs. Will

we give them away or risk them

getting run over. I will put one of

their dead bodies on his desk.

Most

organisations think positive

reinforcement training is far more

effective than the collars. Doesn't

seem to be any particular

restriction on the of these items.

Anyone who wishes to, you can go

online and see a huge range of these

collars on offer, you can purchase

them online or you can purchase them

from countries that haven't banned

their sale or use.

I don't think

you're talking about containment

fences. These are the things that

will be caught by this rotten and

life ruining and life... Law.

I

would argue animal welfare policies

have come on so much, why would you

want to endorse any sort of...

We

will have to leave it there.

Ultimately I think there are better

ways of training dogs and cats. When

you look at the behaviour, you need

to look at motivation behind those.

Shock collars can be sold to

anybody. Anybody could put one on

tiny little bell here. Research

shows the shocks administered were

inconsistent with the manufacturing

guidelines, so it can cause a lot of

distress.

We have

distress.

We have noted the

difference between shock collars and

containment fences. We're going to

say goodbye now. Thank you.

This afternoon, MPs will debate

a petition calling for people

with cystic fibrosis to be given

a life-changing, but

very expensive, drug.

Elizabeth Glinka has been to meet

a young woman who's had access

to the treatment as part

of a medical trial and believes

strongly it should be

available on the NHS.

Cystic fibrosis is an inherited

genetic disorder, which you get

from your mum and your dad

being carriers, and then

you have a one in four chance

of getting cystic fibrosis.

Two years ago, 21-year-old

Chantelle Millward was

running out of options.

Her condition, which affects

breathing and digestion,

had become so severe a lung

transplant was the only treatment.

I didn't really have a life.

I was in and out of

hospital every 4-6 weeks.

When you get referred

for a lung transplant,

your life expectancy is two

years or less.

So, that's literally

the last option.

So, it's either a lung

transplant or die.

But it was then Chantelle

was offered a place

on the Orkambi drugs trial.

It's a treatment which slows

the decline of lung function

in around a third of patients.

But at £100,000 a year,

in 2016 the drugs advisory body Nice

concluded it wasn't cost effective

for the NHS.

Since then, patients

and their families have

been campaigning for

a change in guidelines.

So, what difference has

Orkambi made to your life?

I feel like I can plan

for my future, whereas two years ago

I couldn't even plan the day let

alone my future.

Chantelle's daily routine

involves taking more than 50

drugs and supplements,

but that's actually better

than it used to be.

So, where's the drug that's made

such a difference, then?

I keep this one in the box,

because it's the treasured one.

So, I have a morning

and evening dose...

But while Chantelle's quality

of life has improved on Orkambi,

she's acutely aware that's not

the case for everyone.

The past two years, I've lost four

very, very close friends.

I've lost a lot over

the years, but these four

were very, very close.

We speak every day.

One I recently lost

just before Christmas,

on the same ward, and, yeah...

It's very, very hard.

How old was your friend who died?

She was 20.

Didn't even reach her 21st birthday.

Vertex, the drugs company,

can withdraw it at any point,

and that's the bit that worries me

the most, because if that happened

and that drug gets taken from me,

I'm going to be back in the same

position as I was two years ago,

which I really don't want to be in.

And so if people were to say

to you this drug is too expensive,

we can't afford it,

what would you say?

Over a year, in the long

run it would actually

save them a lot of money,

because I already know it's reduced

my admissions, which obviously

is reducing the costs.

Three antibiotics have stopped

because I don't need them anymore,

and with my IV, antibiotics

and things, I don't have to go

in as often as I did.

And you're at work, as well.

Exactly!

It's brought me

together as a person.

It's built me up, and I just think

if I didn't have this drug two years

ago I would not be in this place

right now, so...

You can't put a price on it.

The life expectancy for people

with cystic fibrosis has increased

to 47 in recent decades,

but the condition is still

life-threatening, even in the young.

For sufferers, the price of a drug

like Orkambi is one worth paying.

So, as I said, this is being debated

at Westminster later today,

the drug Orkambi hasn't been

approved for routine use in the UK.

The National Institute for Health

and Care Excellence, known as NICE,

which advises the NHS in England

and Wales on which drugs to buy

and use, said NICE issued guidance

in July 2016 which did not recommend

Orkambi to treat cystic fibrosis.

We were talking about the deal on

the Brexit transition that's been

reached between the EU and Britain.

Let's have a listen to David Davis

speaking at that press Conference.

In Munich and at Mansion House, the

Prime Minister set out a powerful

deal, one which will ensure with

economic and security cooperation

reflects our unique starting point

and shared history. My job and that

of my team is to deliver on that

vision, and in doing so we must

seize the moment and carry forward

the moment of the past few weeks.

The deal was struck today on top of

that agreed in December which should

give us confidence that a good deal

for the UK and EU is closer than

ever before.

Do you agree with that

analysis, that a good deal for

Britain is closer than ever before?

I don't know about that. I'm a bit

sceptical about these new trade

deals he's parading, because what I

hear from the other side of the

fence from the other countries is

that the British government just

wants to roll over the existing EU

trade deals because it takes so long

to negotiate any improvement. If you

look at China, for example, the

Germans are selling twice as much,

no, five times as much to China as

we are and they are still in the

customs union and single market.

Obviously David Davis is relieved

that this stage is over but I'm not

convinced it's that great.

What

evidence is there that the free

trade deals that can be done with

third countries by Britain will

compensate for any loss of trade

done with the EU?

You're assuming

there will be a loss of trade with

the EU...

You don't think there will

be any?

I think the purpose of what

the government is trying to do is to

minimise friction...

Theresa May

said in her most recent speech that

there would be some loss, we won't

get the same benefits. Let's take

her word...

We've made another major

step towards delivering Brexit which

means we'll get out of the situation

we are in now where we are paying

£16 billion a year into the EU,

where we are not able to control the

free movement of people between the

EU and the UK and we are not in

control of our own laws. These three

match the profound changes in this

country that Brexit will deliver,

this is another step towards

delivering that. We will also be

able to do our trade deals with

third countries and that is another

benefit. People always want to pick

at every micro-detail but...

Someone

might debate about whether it is

micro-detail...

Towards getting a

better situation for this country.

If you follow politics on social

media, you might be confused

about what is happening

with free school meals.

Have a look at this.

PIANO MUSIC THROUGHOUT.

James Cleverly for the Conservative

Party disputing claims made by the

opposition.

Yes, the Labour Party seems certain

that the Conservatives are pressing

ahead with a plan that could stop

more than a million children

receiving a free school meal.

The Conservatives say that's

"scaremongering and misinformation",

and actually the reverse is true -

an extra 50,000

children could benefit.

Well, to hopefully shed a bit

of light on what's happening

here I'm joined by the BBC's head

of statistics, Robert Cuffe.

No pressure to clear up this. Our 1

million children going to lose the

right way school meal?

It depends on

how you ask the question. No one is

really arguing with the arithmetic

but each party is choosing a

different comparison. If you go back

to before Universal Credit was

started, back then free school meals

were means tested. When Universal

Credit was rolled out the government

promised as an interim measure only

to give free school meals to

everyone receiving Universal Credit

and have now decided it wasn't going

to be forever and they are going to

stop means testing again. It is true

to say that the current means

testing is more generous than the

old version was. That's how you get

the extra 50,000 kids receiving free

school meals. But of course means

tested meals are less generous than

meals for everybody so it is also

technically true to say that had

they gone on providing this for

ever, which they never said they

would do, their 1 million Jordan

would be receiving this.

Is this

about a hypothetical situation being

created in the future? Are any

children receiving free school meals

now going to lose it?

Nobody is

going to go into a school ready to

grab a tray from underneath a child.

The government made clear that

anyone receiving it under current

provisions will continue to receive

it. But children in the future will

not be getting them and they might

have been entitled, at the

government decided to continue this

benefit.

Are you happy you've been

responsible for at least confusing

the issue in terms of statistics?

The way has been described as good.

1 million children who would have

had it under the current regime

won't get it. Actually all wrong

because people sometimes go on to

Universal Credit and off it and on

it again. You can be an UC now,

getting free school meals, go off

it, make a new claim and then not

get it. Perhaps that is an extremely

complicated approach.

Do you accept

they aren't having their meals taken

away?

I thought the government has

said 100,000 children were losing...

Not true at all.

And I thought it

was the government saying only

100,000 were losing and the

Children's Society were saying 1

million...

Should you have put out

that sort of information if you

weren't sure?

This is why post-truth

politics. We've just heard from the

BBC's independent fact checker that

not one single child getting free

school meals will lose it and 50,000

more schoolchildren will be

eligible.

Tell us why that is truly.

We've made the system more generous.

The Labour Party Palm Springs and to

social media hoping to get things to

people before the fact checkers

catch up -- the Labour Party pumps

things into social media. We've

inherited a situation where...

We

haven't got time, I must let Helen

responds.

Some children will lose...

It's simply not true. Not one child

will lose...

It's been cut to £7,400

which is below...

Higher than the

threshold.

Who knew statistics could

be so fiercely argued over! LAUGHTER

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

Bye bye.