20/03/2018 Daily Politics

Hello.

On today's show -

Theresa May considers more

sanctions against Russia.

Fishermen aren't happy

with the latest Brexit plans.

And should new dads get

more paternity leave?

With me today Anand Menon,

Professor of Foreign Affairs,

who runs the Brexit analysis unit,

the UK in a Changing Europe.

Welcome to the programme.

Pleasure to be here.

First, Theresa May has been chairing

a meeting of the Government's

National Security Council this

morning, discussing what further

measures, if any, should be taken

against Russia for the nerve agent

attack on Sergei Skripal

and his daughter.

Our diplomatic editor,

James Landale, joins us.

James, tell us about some of the

measures she could use?

There are

lots of tools the Prime Minister

could deploy to exert the pressure

on Moscow. See could expel more

diplomats. She could be more

explicit about the economic pressure

that is going to be employed on

wealthy Russians who have links to

the Kremlin, based in the UK. There

is a whole palette of things she

could do. But the impression I get

is that there is a live debate

within government about how

strongly, if at all, the government

should respond to the latest

retaliation. Essentially what has

happened so far is there has been

the ritual exchange of diplomats.

The Russian diplomats are leaving

today. We have seen some pictures of

the coaches. There is a debate

within government that says yes, we

should continue to respond to the

Russians and look at the next phase

of this process. Others say, no, it

is more in our strategic interest to

keep this debate an international

one. Maintain the international

pressure rather than get sucked into

a bilateral tit-for-tat row with the

Russians. Interesting to see which

way they go.

It does look as if the

government, particularly Boris

Johnson, want cover from EU partners

and from Nato, who have certainly

shown solidarity, although there was

some quibbling over the wording

yesterday from the EU. Will these

other organisations actually exert

any sanctions and measures

themselves against Russia?

My own

assessment is it would be very hard

to get specific new unanimous EU

support for something like EU

sanctions. There is not the appetite

for it. Even before this crisis,

there was an appetite among some

European countries, saying they want

to try to weaken EU sanctions

against Russia anyway. I don't think

that is what the British are asking

for. What they are saying is, look,

this incident in Salisbury, that is

just version of Russia's aggression

affecting the United Kingdom. Look

at this as a pattern of behaviour by

Russia. Look at the threats to your

own countries. What do you think you

could do to put more pressure on

Russia individually, unilaterally?

We are not talking about agreeing to

anything collectively, but just

getting other nations, saying,

Russia has stepped over a line and

this is what we must do in terms of

putting pressure on economically and

in terms of cyber. In every

international forum Russia feels

more uncomfortable, more under

pressure. In a few months, they may

think they have overreached and gone

too far.

When might we hear about

any new measures?

There is a meeting

this morning. What normally happens

is we get a readout from the lobby

correspondence. We also may get an

update on where the investigation

is. Quite often the NAC -- NEC is

briefed on that. Also what is going

on in terms of the process of

keeping some samples to the chemical

weapons inspectors, who began their

work yesterday.

Thank you. Do you think Theresa May

should exert further sanctions bear

in mind the rhetoric has been quite

strong on Russia?

I agree with

James. I think the danger with

tit-for-tat is Putin is not the sort

of guy who lets the other guy have

the last word. There is a danger in

ratcheting at up. We have plenty of

backing within the European Union,

at least from a diplomatic position.

There will be no more new sanctions.

The EU has done all it can. There

has been an impressive show of

Western unity. We have to fight to

keep that. That is when the Russians

start to feel the heat. If we keep

doing small measures at commonly

Russians retaliate, we are in danger

of being outgunned. And it may not

achieve that much.

Theresa May and

Jeremy Corbyn said we need to engage

with Russia. Expel the diplomats,

what form or that engagement take?

We haven't expelled all the

diplomats. Back in the Cold War

there was a channel of communication

with Russia. There are all sorts of

issues. We are still, I hope,

talking about Syria behind the

scenes. There are also divisions we

need to talk to Russia about. We

should not be cutting them off.

Let's move on.

Time for our daily quiz.

The cash-strapped Parliamentary

authorities have got into hot water

for spending nearly £10,000.

So our question for today

is, what on?

Is it...

a) A home cinema for

John Bercow's appartment.

b) Money to stop the trees

in Parliament's atrium from

falling over.

c) A relaxation room

for stressed MPs.

Or d) Training for MPs

on how to use Instagram.

At the end of the show

Anand will give us

the correct answer.

You may have heard the words

"Cambridge Analytica",

"Facebook" and "elections" this

morning and wondered

what that's all about.

Well, we'll try our best to explain.

Cambridge Analytica is a political

consultancy firm which is accused

of using the data of 50 million

Facebook members to influence the US

presidential election in 2016.

Last night Channel 4 News aired

a film showing an undercover

reporter posing as a potential

client from Sri Lanka.

Let's take a look what was said

in the meeting between the reporter

and Cambridge Analytica

CEO Alexander Nix.

Joining me now is the BBC's

technology reporter, Zoe Kleinman,

and Labour's Shadow Digital

Minister, Liam Byrne.

So we can you bring us up to date

with the story? We have seen an

excerpt there about some of the

practices of Cambridge Analytica.

They say it was exaggerated. What

has been going on?

They denied all

wrongdoing. What they have been

accused of is twofold. Number one,

getting hold of an enormous amount

of Facebook data, 50 million users.

Using that data to target messages

supporting Donald Trump in the

run-up to the US presidential

election. Number two, they have been

filmed saying they are able to

influence the elections by

discrediting rivals, by setting up

stayings, where they might be

caught. It is against the law.

Sending girls to politicians'

houses. That sort of thing. They say

they were taken out of context. They

were playing along with the

undercover reporters because they

thought they may be clients. It has

opened up enormous questions about

what these companies are doing and

how much influence they have.

Liam

Byrne, let's talk about harvesting

data. Surely all political parties

do this when they hire a consultants

and they have election campaigns,

they go aggressively after voters.

Is this any different?

Yes, it is

different because they collected the

data for one purpose and reused for

something else. The reason we are

all very concerned is because we

know it is not just bad companies,

there are bad countries as well. We

know Russia intervened in the

American elections, we know they

intervened in France and Germany.

There is a suspicion that could have

been up to no good in the Brexit

referendum. We need to make sure

there is not an unholy alliance

between bad companies and bad

countries. We need to get the bottom

of this. What we have learned is the

information minister doesn't have

the speed to get search warrants as

she needs them. We were promised

more laws on this last night. We

have just heard this morning in the

House of Commons the minister

slightly backtracking from this and

saying, no, we didn't guarantee

Chilcot the information Commissioner

with new laws. We will come back to

you.

You don't think they are going

to do that?

I thought last night

there were but now I'm pretty

alarmed they want.

alarmed they want.

At the time when

this happened it was quite common

practice. A man who is a Cambridge

academic made a personality quiz

that people could take on Facebook.

Facebook has a set of instructions

which it gives to all developers saw

their stuff will work on the

Facebook platform. At the time it

was established as a default. If

anybody use that, not only their

data but the date of their friends

would be collectable by the

developer. This was common practice.

This was guess your personality

type, a fun game. It was played by

about 270,000 people. But in the

playing of that, and their friends

networks etc, possibly reached up to

50 million users in terms of the

data the app was able to harvest.

The developer sold that data to

Cambridge Analytica. Not only do we

have a situation where Facebook's

data should not have been sold on,

but a situation where it is not

transparent. Obama has an app which

he used to get himself re-elected.

It was very obvious what you're

doing. Planning a personality game

it was not obvious you are

supporting Donald Trump.

Where

should the boundaries be, Liam

Byrne? We all know when we complete

quizzes or go shopping on the

Internet, there is a box that asks

if you are happy for the company to

share your information. You hope if

you do not take that box your

information will not be shared.

Presumably there are millions of

people who tick the box, and perhaps

they don't really care. Is that

where the problem lies?

The problem

is twofold. Data was used in a way

that it was not collected for.

People were misled when they offered

their data. The second real concern

though is that Facebook say that

they received assurances that the

data was destroyed. Now it turns out

that perhaps it wasn't. A real

question about who provides the

oversight and the guarantees that

data is actually being used in the

correct manner. And frankly, even

the Secretary of State describes

this as a wild West where there are

no rules. That is why we are saying,

isn't it time to give the sheriff a

bit more power to bring some order?

We asked Cambridge Analytica for an

interview but nobody was available.

One of the slightly shadowy things

that has developed is when the DC MS

Minister Damian Collins tweeted that

Facebook were in the offices of

Cambridge Analytica last night until

they were told to stand down by the

information Commissioner. What do

you make of that?

It is unusual and

strains that the two had not been in

touch. It is good that Facebook is

deferring to the UK authorities. It

is happening on UK soil.

What will

happen now, Liam Byrne? You would

like new legislation and more powers

for the information Commissioner.

Would that do it? Three things need

to change. The information

Commissioner needs more power.

Second, we are proposing an

amendment called the honest ads act,

which means the Commissioner has the

power to find out who is paying for

what ads. At the moment dark ads are

very possible. The big changes that

we to bring the legislation for

these social media firms up to date.

They are regulated by a law brought

in in 2000, before they grew to the

size and scale they are today. We

will also propose an amendment that

said said deadline for when the

government needs to bring in that

the legislation.

Do you think there

has been widespread interference in

the way it has been interfering in

election?

It is hard to say. The

digital minister has talked about

these company having a duty of care

towards their companies. I would

imagine that includes our data not

being used for things we were not

told about initially, particularly

when it comes to shaping political

views. The best thing about this

story is that at one point the Dr

changed his name to Dr Spectre.

It is surreal.

This time yesterday,

the Brexit Secretary, David Davis,

was holding a press conference

in Brussels, to announce agreement

on a transition deal with the EU

which covers the "implementation

period" from next March

until the end of 2020.

Mr Davis said it was a "decisive

step" in the Brexit process.

The United Kingdom will be able to

step out, sign and ratify new deals,

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 United

Kingdom, and seizing one of Brexit's

greatest opportunities.

That was the Brexit secretary David

Davis yesterday. How big a moment

was this, do you think? David Davis

seems to think it was, was it?

It

was a big moment for a lot of

companies in this country who had

been crying out for this agreement

so they didn't have to trigger

contingency plans, so it was a step

forward. To site the old saying

nothing is agrees until everything

is agreed and Jacob Rees-Mogg said

yesterday, so there is a long want

to go before this is wrapped up. Is

How much did the Government give way

in your mind?

There are some areas

on the transition deal where they

gave away, so the rights of EU

citizens who arrived during

transition, are initially the Prime

Minister said they won't have the

same rights who arrived before

Brexit day, now they will. And we

will have to abide by new EU laws so

the Government gave way on most of

the points the EU was insisting on.

Did the EU give way as well?

They

have given way on some the

withdrawal points so on the rights

of EU citizens they backed off their

original demand but they seem to

have got what they wanted.

Were you

surprised by the storm created over

fishing rights?

Yes and no. I mean

there are lots of different

constituencies involved in the

Brexit vote and fishing was

something where the government said

early on and Brexiters said we will

reclaim our fishing water, this is a

direct contradiction so it was

fairly predictable.

Well, with us

here is Nigel Evans and Alison

McGovern.

Take back control, have the

fishermen and people who wanted to

take back control of British waters

and fishing rights have they been

betrayed?

No look I am looking for

Jacob Rees-Mogg on within of those

trawlers, no the reality is we will

be in no worse off position during

the transition period, it could be

better, because it is open to

negotiation, at the end of the

period, after the transitional

period, then we will have taken back

control of our waters, one area I

find odd, though, is Nicola Sturgeon

saying this has let down the

Scottish fishermen because frankly,

if we stuck with what Nicola

Sturgeon wants we would be stuck in

the European Union for eternity and

wouldn't have any control in 2020.

It is not just Nicola Sturgeon. It

is Scottish Tories who met with the

Chief Whip and were told to stop

whining because it is not like they

are going to vote Labour, is that

the way with your colleagues?

No,

they are meeting with the Prime

Minister today, that is how

important they are being taken. They

have met with Michael Gove and we

want to make certain in the whole

mix we do, when we finally do leave

the European Union after the

transitional period, that we have

got total control of our water, we

are leaving the Common Fisheries

Policy and we will be able to get

the best deal for our fish American.

Do you accept Alison McGovern. You

are still behind the idea of

remaining within the EU, do you

accept that this was a moment that

some success and progress has been

made

Think there are is two problems

with what has happened over

transition, the first of those is

that many of the big decisions are

still being kicked down the road,

whether that is the position of

Ireland or what our eventual

relationship will be, we still don't

know, so, a lot of us talked about

and the importance of a transition,

when the first, vote first happened

for the reason Anand Menon

mentioned, which is businesses would

need a long lead in to deal with the

circumstances if that long lead is

is still real really a road to know

where, what are we talking about? We

don't know what our relationship is

going to be, and the second problem,

is to be honest, people like Nigel,

wept round in 2016 telling people,

when we leaf the EU, we will take

back control, we will have control

of fishery, and the borders, and

now, they are being told sorry, but

that is not really what is on offer

any more, and, I don't think that is

good enough, really, for people in

Britain, whether they voted leave or

remain. I think people were told

they could have something and they

are being told we are going to have

open borders, it is not really fair

on people. That is a huge problem.

I

thought it was bizarre to see Michel

Barnier and David Davis standing

behind that board full of sheets

with green ink over it, to o show

where agreements were made and some

where agreements are are still to

happen. I agree with Alison, if it

is is a road to know where I would

be opposed to it. It's a red to

leaving the European Union, so that

at the end of 2020, after the

transitional arrangement, both

Alison and and I can have a drink of

champagne in the strainers bar.

Somehow I don't think I will.

I'll

buy.

No thanks. That was clear.

The

issue of Northern Ireland, we are no

further on than we were before, in

order to not have an effective

border we need to be in the single

market. The Government is not

dealing with that issue. Is

Do you

agree...

Alison is saying unless we

say in the single market, even

Jeremy Corbyn isn't looking at. They

are looking at fudged customs union.

O do you make it would make it

easier to solve the problem?

No, we

are got going to do it. We are said

Theresa May has said there will be

no hard border between Northern

Ireland and Ireland.

Do you agree

with Alison on this point, about

that border, that that hasn't been

resolved. Itself is being kicked

further down the road and by doing

so, does it increase the chances of

a solution being found.

I agree on

the fact if you are not in the

single market or the customs union

it is almost impossible. The

government has talked about

technology, the agreement doesn't

just say no border, it says no

physical infrastructure, now

technology means cameras which is

physical infrastructure, no-one has

come up with a way of removing that

border short of single market and

customs union membership yet. That

is open to discussion, I suspect

what they want to do, is play chick

within the Irish in a sense, they

want to drag this out for as long as

possible. The Irish have two

problem, they don't want a border

and they want to continue trading

with us and the Government wants to

push the border issue...

The

European Union wanted to put the

cart before the horse, when hen you

do that it is amazing the cart

doesn't go all that far, what we

need to do is deal with the UK EU

border and if we get that right, now

we can get on with that, the whole

problem between Northern Ireland and

Ireland disappears.

It doesn't. The

idea a trade deal gets rid of these

issues is wrong, we would need to

have full regulatory convergence and

the only way do that is a single

market. For people who think this is

a non-issue, put yourself in the

shoes of my age, who is Northern

Irish, who has identity that looks

both ways who has grown up with

peace and imagine how this

discussion feels to them of people

dismissing concerns about the

border. That is unfair.

Are you

going to join Jacob Rees-Mogg when

he goes on that boat to discard the

fish?

I am not sure my sea legs are

that good. No, it is not jubilati

for Jacob Rees-Mogg but it is semi.

And for more reporting

and analysis of Brexit,

check out the BBC News website.

That's bbc.co.uk/brexit.

For the last couple of years

new dads have been entitled to take

more time off work when their baby

is born, sharing parental

leave with their partner.

But a report out today from

the Equalities Select Committee says

very few men are actually taking it.

It argues the government should be

doing much more to encourage fathers

to stay at home, including

increasing paternity pay.

Elizabeth Glinka has been to meet

one dad who has chosen to take time

off with his young children.

Shared parental leave is something

that has been available to dads here

in the UK since 2015 but the latest

figures show that only between two

and 8% of fathers are likely to take

that up. We have come here to south

London, to see Michael, and his two

daughters. Hello. Hello. And Michael

is a stay at home dad. Michael, what

do you make of these figure, why do

you think so few dads are taking up

the opportunity of having time off

with their children?

Think it is a

difficult decision to make, there

are still a lot of barriers cultural

and economic to deciding to really

take time off for your kids.

What difference has it made to you

having time off with the children?

I

think it has been great for me h it

has brought out a lot of different

aspects of my personality, I have

learned to be more patient and more

caring, as a person, and for the

kids, I think I have managed to

develop a much closer relationship

with them.

When you tell people you

are a stay at home dad, how do they

react to that?

I get different types

of reaction, a lot of times people

commend me but I think that is

strange because you would never

commend a mother for staying home

and taking care of their children.

Other times people just are a little

surprised I have decided to take a

year off of my professional activity

to watch my children.

So what do you

think would make a difference, in

terms of encouraging more men to

actually do what you are doing?

I

think that if we are really as a

society looking for pay equality,

and for equality gender equality, in

general, we need to start at home,

as well. So I think that the

Government could make some efforts,

to ensure that all fathers are paid

and enjoy longer paternity leave,

but I also think it's a question

that should be addressed, in the

family, and in the home.

OK, thank

you very much. And thank you girls

shall we baefc to the studio? Can we

wave. Bye.

They were very well behaved there.

They were very well behaved there.

Maria Miller chairs

the Equalities Select Committee,

and joins us now from central

lobby inside parliament.

Welcome to the programme, take up of

the Government shared parental leave

policy is as low as 2%, does that

surprise you?

Well, it does on one

level when you look at the fact that

more than half of new dads want to

be able to spend more time with

their children, and are talking

about down trading their jobs to be

able do that, so the low take up of

share is aed parental leave showses

that you know, family have

modernised more quickly than the

workplace has.

Does it mean it is a

failure the policy?

It is a policy

that needs review, and the Select

Committee report we have published

today tells the Government how they

should review that, by firstly,

giving dads 90% of pay for their

parental leave they give the pattern

the I leave they have for two weeks

but having 12 weeks protected time

for dads during the first week,

first year of a child's life to make

sure that dads take that. It is a

use it or lose it which we know

works to change the culture and get

dads to take this leave rather than

have to say just continuing in the

old ways.

Right and just to clarify

would they get paid the 90% of their

earnings during that time?

At the

moment we haven't got a full costing

for that, we want Government to look

at it as part of their review of

their policies is on Shahhed

parental leave but we have to

believe they get paid more because

as your interviewer has said that is

one of the reasons dads are not

taking up this important part of

their children's lives.

No doubt the

take up would be high perthe

policies is as you explained them

get put into force but are companies

signed up to this idea of losing

members of staff, key members of

staff for that length of time?

What

we are hearing now from larger

companies, who perhaps are looking

at this in more detail is they are

equalising the support, to allow

dads to have more paid leave, but I

am not sure the company, the country

can afford to ignore this, because

we have got so many new dads who are

saying they could down trade their

jobs, leave the labour market and if

the government wants to tackle the

gender pay gap, they won't really

tackle that until they have tackled

the issue of dads taking up more of

those caring responsibilities,

particularly in the first year.

Do

you think if Government is committed

enough to closing the gender pay gap

and helping dads stay at home who

have newborn kids, because although

the proposals are better on the face

of it, are they really radical

enough to reverse the sort of gender

roles in the way they are set?

I

think they are radical enough to get

dads to really think again about

their role in their children's lives

and ability to take time off,

particularly if they are low paid,

but you know, the most important

thing the Prime Minister said

recently in this topic she is

supporting flexible working from day

one and wants to see businesses take

that and that, of course, would

really benefit not only dads but

mums who often fail to get the good

quality jobs to get back into the

labour market and get rid of this

dreadful gender pay gap. I think

there are positive noises coming

from the Government and I hope this

Select Committee report today will

give them further food for thought.

We've been joined by John Adams,

who runs Dad Blog UK,

and by Kate Andrews

from the Institute for

Economic Affairs.

Welcome. What do you think of the

proposals and the way Maria Miller

explained them?

I am in favour of

the majority of the proposals. The

one about parental leave is a bit

confusing. I'm not sure if the

committee is proposing we do away

with shared parental leave.

The

implication seems to be a few

overhaul the system, that you would

somehow abandon shared parental

leave. Would you be in favour of

that?

No, I think it is a bit too

soon to abandon shared parental

leave. Where other nations have

introduced it, Sweden, Iceland, for

example, where they have introduced

ring-fenced leave for a father 's,

stand-alone leave, what you've got

is a much greater male participation

domestically, greater female

participation in the workforce and

greater gender equality all round.

It does come at a cost to business,

it has to be said.

But a price worth

paying because of the benefits to

society?

The policy should not be to

get an equal split between men and

women doing the same thing. It

should be to give partners the

freedom to choose what is right for

them in their own home, whether that

is the woman staying at home, the

man will stop regardless, it should

be a free choice. It should be as

flexible as possible. In terms of

paternity pay, I support the

decision to increase it. Small

businesses can reclaim most of the

costs from the government. It is a

cost to the taxpayer but it may be

something we want to prioritise and

Lagarde in a separate discussion. I

am more concerned about essentially

required badly. This is the

government saying if you don't make

the decision, we will threaten Terry

-- to use it might lose it, threaten

your benefits or your time off if

you don't do what we want. In

countries like Sweden they have had

problems getting men to take it up.

They still do not have a 50-50

split.

Do men actually want this? Would it

work?

I think Kate is right. We are

not getting to 50-50. We shouldn't

really be looking at having a great

world where childcare is shared, or

moment that work part-time. It has

to be what is right for each

individual family. These proposals

will create flexibility so families

can choose what is right for them.

There are barriers in place at the

minute would stop them from showing

their abilities as carers for

children within the family unit.

This policy has worked. It may sound

heavy-handed, but it is a case of

changing work and culture.

Will it

do that, do you think? Isn't Eddie

Kidd until the working culture

changes, you will not get the

flexibility?

The key is changing

culture. That is why they are

adopting this sort of approach. In

the workplace at the moment it is

still considered a bit odd that the

dad is going to do this. Introducing

the system as a way of bringing

about a cultural shift. You don't

have three choices.

Culturally we

have so much of a problem. Hopefully

the future generations will move in

that direction. I agree completely.

They haven't done it so far. Is it

because the law is not favouring

them and the culture is not changing

quickly enough?

You do not bring in

heavy-handed policies to force

people to do something that may not

be right in their individual

circumstances. Increasing paternity

pay, making it easier for men to

take time off work, that is one

thing. But saying everybody has to

do it this way is what I am not

comfortable with.

What are the

challenges you face being a stay at

home dad at the beginning? When I

was on paternity leave, you didn't

see many men at all. Is it

difficult?

It is. The biggest issue

is social isolation. The issue you

have is that women will be

socialised from before their child

is born. It carries on into nursery.

You do not always become a stay at

home dad from day one because mum is

breast-feeding. Very often you

become one through redundancy or

other things. There are tightly knit

social groups already formed among

women. You have to make your way

into them. What is really sad, my

own daughters get socially

instituted, but you're stoned.

That

is a shame. From any would like to

stay at home and they hear these

stories, which are true, from

personal experience, it will put men

off, never mind the cultural

practices at work?

Of course. It

starts in the home. Men and women

need to have some serious

conversations about how they want to

raise their kids. Mum and dad are

illegal. We want to see them do

similar roles at home or at work.

Women need to be stronger about this

and have serious and frank

conversations with every male

partner, to say, it is not just on

me to do the housework. Men are

becoming more receptive to that,

which is positive.

On the gender pay

gap that Maria Miller talked about,

she said some of these moves will

have to deal with the gender pay gap

that she says blight the lives of so

many women over 35. Do you agree?

Queue equalised between the genders

in terms of who looks after the

kids, absolutely. One of the reasons

for the gender pay gap was that

women disproportionately looked the

kids. So yes, I would imagine it

would.

The main reason for gender

pay gap is a mother pay gap. Many

figures are distorted. If you're

going to tackle it you have to have

more women pursuing the same career

trajectories as men.

Thank you.

Later today, Labour will confirm

who will be taking over

as the party's

new General Secretary.

Iain Watson is across the story.

Why should we care about who the new

general secretary is?

There are two

reasons. This is hugely symbolic

because we are having two female

candidates competing for this role.

Christine Blower, who used to be in

charge of the annuity, and Jennie

Formby from the Unite union.

Secondly, both are on the left of

the party. Symbolically this shows

how the party is shifting towards

those who support Jeremy Corbyn's

leadership and heavy party machine

will effectively be in the hands of

those around his leadership, whoever

wins. -- how the party machine.

Jennie Formby is the favourite. She

is a close personal and political

ally of Len McCluskey, who heads the

biggest union fonder of Labour. She

will be working in tune with the

leadership and the Labour leader's

office, perhaps a lot more so than

the previous incumbent, who was

elected under Ed Miliband. Some of

the areas she will be looking at is

how to change the Labour Party

campaigns, using some of the

techniques that got Jeremy Corbyn

elected and re-elected as Labour

leader, using them more widely in

terms of the Labour Party. More

grassroots campaigning as well. One

of the other reasons we should be

watching closely is she is also

going to be the person who

implements the party's democracy

review. It can change the way the

Labour Party operates. Again, giving

more power to the members, shifting

the balance of power away from some

of the MPs. She could be a highly

influential figure.

Explain why a

number of Labour staffers walked

out?

Yes, some key staff left. Six

yesterday. Before that, the general

secretary. Before that the person in

charge of elections and campaigns.

Some big losses. Most of them

leaving in the next few months. And

certainly in some cases they felt

they were more in tune with the

previous regime than the likely

regime under somebody who is firmly

on the left of the party, closely

connected to the United macro trade

union. Some of those leaving felt

more comfortable under previous

Labour leaders. Some had worked for

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. This

also gives the person coming in,

likely to be Jennie Formby, room for

manoeuvre in reshaping the party

machine, reshaping the backroom role

of the party, more in the image of

those who have supported Jeremy

Corbyn's leadership all along.

Thank

you.

I've been joined in the studio

by the Labour backbencher

and supporter of Jeremy Corbyn,

Chris Williamson, and

by Margaret Prosser,

a Labour peer and former President

of the TUC.

Welcome. Margaret Prosser, do you

have any reservations about the

outcome of this election?

I've got a

lot of reservations about the way

the whole thing has been organised.

In a way you could describe the

general secretary of the Labour

Party as being the civil servant of

the organisation. Obviously it is a

political party, obviously the

general secretary is good to be a

person with a political background,

political membership. But that

person has two slightly stand above

the fray. The way this has been

conducted, as soon as a vacancy was

announced, it was almost immediately

announced by senior people within

the party, senior members of

Parliament, that Jennie Formby would

be a really good candidate. Now

there should be, there is, a person

specification for this job. There is

an application form, and interview

process, other candidates. How is it

that the leadership of the party has

decided who they want before any

that process has been conducted?

They may say they have a preference.

They may say that. But this puts the

whole thing into some kind of a

shambles. It just is really not

fair.

Why has the leadership done

that for a post that is supposed to

be above the party political fray?

First of all it is not an election,

it is an appointment by the National

executive. The leadership doesn't

the point. It is the NEC that will

appoint.

Should they have expressed

such a firm preference for Jennie

Formby?

I'm not sure Jeremy has

expressed any preference one way or

the other. It is a matter for the

National Executive Committee. We

have two incredibly tandem with --

talented candidates who I think will

serve the party will be well. They

are effectively the civil service of

the Labour Party. The Labour Party

is a flourishing party now. It is

very much in tune with the British

people and we are going to have a

general secretary who will ensure

that we implement Labour's programme

throughout the membership of the

party, and helps to mobilise this

mass movement the Labour Party is

now, to carry Jeremy over the

threshold of Number 10 when the

general election comes and bring

more people into the party. It has

to be a good thing.

Do Jeremy Corbyn

not express a preference in the way

that you thought due Everybody

around him is expressed a

preference.

preference.

That is my point. The

whole view has been that Jennie

Formby is going to be the right

person for the job. I have known her

since the early 1980s. She is a very

capable woman. Whether or not she is

right for this position, would be a

matter for another discussion.

Do

not think she is right?

The party is

split down the middle. I have to

remind everybody that just because I

am not a Corbyn fan does not make me

a right-winger. I have never in my

life been a right winger. I am on

the progressive left of the party.

Loads of people who express

themselves to be on the left are

actually quite reactionary in many

ways.

Do you feel you are being

described as a right winger?

If you

are a Blairite, my goodness, you

might as well hide yourself away. It

is a pathetic way of describing what

is going on in the party, and we

need somebody in that general

secretary position who is going to

be able to bring people together.

Do

you accept it is split? That is

Margaret Prosser's perception.

Margaret would show she is not a

right-winger -- would say. Do you

accept that is the current state of

the Labour Party?

Margaret says the

party is split down the middle. I

absolutely disagree with that. I

have been a member for 42 years and

I have never known to more united.

It is true, there are a handful of

people who don't like the direction

of travel. There are a few people in

the Parliamentary Labour Party. Hold

on a second, Margaret, the

Parliamentary Labour Party is not

the Labour Party. We are a party of

600,000 members. Overwhelming

support for it. The other important

thing is that Labour's programme is

very much in tune with the

overwhelming majority of the British

people. Let's just remember that. We

are incredibly moderate and

mainstream. That is the Labour Party

now. Plain common sense is what we

are offering.

Do you welcome this

move to allow the members do have

more say? Do you agree the

Parliamentary Labour Party is not

the Labour Party?

I of course

welcome a move to engage more and

more people. What I don't welcome is

the way in which this has been

organised. We do have loads of

people engaged with Momentum, who

are also members of other parties.

That is not true.

It is true. We

know it is true.

I'm sorry, but it

is not true. You can't be a member

of Momentum unless you are a member

of the Labour Party. They did a

fantastic job in mobilising people

at the last election.

That was not

what I said.

what I said.

Go on.

What I said was

there are many people in momentum

who are also members of other

parties. Well, research has shown

that is the case. Secondly, if the

vast majority of people in this

country agree with the current

position of the Labour Party, how

come we didn't win the election? I

absolutely accept that the manifesto

met the grievances and the upsets

and the awful situations, that many

people find themselves in, where I

kind of differ as we go along that

path, is who is going to deliver

that programme for us? I have no

faith that the current leadership

would be able to do that.

We had the

biggest increase in vote share since

1945.

But you didn't win.

The reason

is there was a view abroad and that

is true of the party head office,

that pause we were a long way behind

in the opinion polls so it is

understandable and they were

fighting a defensive campaign. If we

fought an offensive campaign.

You

thought they fought a defensive

campaign?

No I think the party head

office were fighting a defensive

campaign...

Let me ask one final

question...

Given the opposition in

the election was the Conservative

Party, who fought the worst campaign

in living memory.

And we fought the

best campaign.

Leave that aside, the

fact of the matter is, that the

leadership of the administration of

the party needs to be a person to

bring everyone together and you may

take the view that the party is not

split down the middle. I think that

is utter tosh, Chris, frankly.

I can

assure you in all the meetings I go

to, there is huge support for the

agenda that Jeremy is spearheading

now.

We have to finish the

discussion, you won't agree on that

which is fair enough. We will find

out later or have that appointment

confirmed, the Labour Party are

saying that staff haven't walked

out, in the way I expressed it, they

are working their three month notice

period but they are leaving, as a

result of the way this is handled

and you may say that is what happens

when there is a change of the guard.

Thank you both for joining us.

Thank you both for joining us.

Later this afternoon, a mother

and her six-year-old son will be

heading to Downing Street to present

a petition calling for him to be

granted a special licence

to use medical cannabis.

Alfie Dingley has a rare form

of epilepsy and can suffer as many

as 30 seizures a day.

Our reporter Greg Dawson

is live at College Green

with Alfie and Hannah now...

Thank you 380,000 signatures on that

petition, which will be presented to

Number Ten this afternoon. It is all

about this boy, six-year-old Alfie,

he has enjoyed his day today, he has

been given a red bus which he has

loved rolling round here, his mother

Hannah is with us, Hannah, just tell

us a bit more about Alfie's

condition please.

Alfie has a very

rare condition, there is only nine

boys in the world with PCHD19. It is

genetic, it is very rare, there is

no understanding about how to treat

it, and it is very aggressive and

we, he has had a very difficult time

since he was a baby.

You have taken

him to the Netherlands where he was

treated with cannabis oil. Talk to

me about the differences that you

noticed.

Before we went to Holland

Alfie was in hospital every four to

ten days with a severe cluster of

seizures needing up to five doses of

steroids plus other medicines, he

had tonic chronic seizures where he

went purple. Very frightening. He

would always need a balance. We

lived like that for 18 months and it

is the most horrendous thing we have

had to endure, it was awful. Our

doctor said if we carry on Alfie

would become very sick, you know,

possibly get psychosis or his organs

would fail and he could die. We had

no choice, we took him to Holland

Add and you noticed a huge change.

He has one seizure a month. One dose

of steroids, he had a happy life. He

noticed his sister, he played with

her, we had family days together,

which were normal and we hadn't had

that for a long time. It was a

miracle for us and we wanted to

replicate that in the UK, with our

family and with our friends and with

our job, and you know try to get

back to some sort of normality.

At

the moment Alfie cannot have that

cannabis oil, he had a seizure last

week, naturally he becomes ago

sieve, and that is difficult for you

to manage.

It is horrendous, I get

no help other than from family, he

has a seizure on Monday night. We

had to rush him into hospital and he

carried on having seizures on

Tuesday so he had two doses of

steroids, this is what he does to

me, if you look at my hands, this is

what he does, he is aggressive, he

is angry, he does, I am frightened,

I can't leave him alone with his

sister, it is horrendous, he

couldn't go to school because I

can't put him in a situation at

school where he might hurt other

children, it is no life and we have

gone from having a lovely life, in

another country, to having a

horrible life again where I am a

full-time carer, it is very

stressful, very upsetting is and it

is more upsetting because I know

none of it needs to happen.

The Home

Office said they couldn't let you

use licensed this medication in the

UK, subsequently they said they

would consider a three month trial,

but they could make no promise, you

haven't heard anything since that,

that was about three months ago,

what is your response to this delay?

It is very upsetting, we are getting

a lot of platitudes, we are getting

people saying we understand your

situation, they don't, they don't

live my life every day, they don't

live my son's life, we want clear

clarity, we want to understand that

they are committed to helping Alfie,

committed to helping our family, we

want them to make that public and we

want them to help our doctor, to

prescribe this and get a licence.

Without their support and without

them driving this, this won't happen

and it needs to come from them. I am

a full-time care e my partner is

trying to keep a roof on our heads,

it is not my job to do this, it is

the Home Office's job to make this

happen and today, we want clarity

and we want their support publicly.

Thank you for joining me Hannah.

Hannah Deacon and Alfie who is over

there. A lot of supporters including

Sir Patrick Stewart. Just quickly,

we only have a few seconds but

outline the reasons you are

supporting the case?

Because it is

exceptional and it is urgent, and

the longer wider process of the uses

of medical marijuana in the UK will

have to be discussed. This case has

extreme urgency attacks to it and I

would hope -- attached to it, I hope

would the Home Office will come to a

conclusion in Alfie's favour very

quickly.

Thank you to your guests

there.

That case was very powerfully and

emotionally put to the Home Office,

do you think that should consider

it, they weren't available to do an

interview?

This is a total no

brainer, where it can can do good,

you regulate it and use it. Drugs

they press crane asking dangerous

and have side effects which is the

case with marijuana, but when it can

alleviate suffering, I don't see the

case for not.

What you to say when

they have stalled in terms of a

response to granting a pilot, even

for three months, to give some sort

of leaf to Anna and Alfie?

Who knows

what processes go on within

departments. It is not unusual for

things to get stalled in the system.

With luck the publicity this case is

getting will do something to shift

the wheels of the Home Office, but I

don't understand why this can't just

be done.

And if the Home Office

would like to get in tough with the

programme and we would be delighted

to talk to anyone from the

department to find out if they will

make an exception, in the case of

Alfie. While we have been talking I

have two other bits of news to bring

you, first of all a letter that has

been sent by Jean-Claude Juncker,

and this is from the European

Commission head, congratulating

Vladimir Putin on his re-election,

in the letter Jean-Claude Juncker

says I have argued that positive

relations between the European Union

and the Russian Federation are

crucial to the security of our

continent and our common objective

should be to reestablish a

co-operative pan-European security

order. I hope you will use your

fourth term in office to pursue this

goal and I wish you every success in

carrying out your responsibilities.

Is that appropriate what we are

going through at the moment?

I think

the phrase that comes to mind is

tone deaf. What is interesting it is

Sarah Wollaston who has confirmed

this. Who a lot of people would have

had down as a potential rebel so it

is interesting it will feed into how

people feel.

Briefly we are talking

about Cambridge Analytica and how

data has been harvested and the DCMS

has confirmed it has request that

Mark Zuckerberg the CEO of Facebook

appear before the committee's fake

news inquiry.

news inquiry.

Time to find out the

answer to our quiz.

The question was, what has

Parliament just spend £10,000 on?

a) A home cinema for

John Bercow's appartment.

b) Money to stopt the trees

in Parliament's atrium

from falling over.

c) A relaxation room

for stressed MPs.

Or d) Training for MPs

on how to use Instagram.

So Anand,

what's the correct answer?

I think I know. I think it's B. Is

Which were...?

The trees.

You were

right. Pathetically excited or not.

You don't get to take

You don't get to take a tree home.

Believe it or not, the fig

trees are costing nearly

£10,000 to keep straight.

Even without this, the trees

cost £20,000 a year

as it is to maintain,

and this has led to calls for root

and branch reform.

The Commons has ordered a review

into how to keep costs down

leading to speculation

the trees could be axed.

However a spokesman has said:

We've been joined in the studio

by Freddie Blackett, who runs

an indoor gardening company.

What is the plant?

It is difficult

to remember the Latin name, we call

him big Ken.

That is better! Do you

think fig trees were the right trees

for lining the atrium?

In short, I

don't. I think these particular

types of figs are native to propical

-- tropical conditions.

We haven't

had a lot that?

They are suited to

warm low light conditions can and as

you can see Portcullis House does

not provide at least those light

conditions, and you know, it is that

type of space is better suited to

plants like succulent, palms rather

than tropical plants like figs.

Are

you surprised they are leaning, and,

there are attempts to straighten

them?

As a result of that there are

two things you need to consider when

you are buying plants for a large

space like this or a small one like

a flat or home, and that is the

plant and the space, and if the

plants in this case a tropical one

is inappropriate for a consieve

triessentially it won't be growing

in the appropriate conditions.

But

it is, surely a lovely thing to have

in terms of the a working

environment. Portcullis Houses is

where all the politicians and the

staff in Parliament gather, and all

the services are there, they do add

something to the, woring

environment?

Absolutely. I read John

O'Connell said that politicians

should be spend Mogger on necessity,

plants plants will be very effective

at removing pollutants from the air

strike at reducing noise and

creating a greater sense of calm.

All of those things provide a

working environment that helps MPs

better serve their constituents.

You

can leave the plant here. Thank you

very much. Andrew will be here

tomorrow for live coverage of Prime

Minister minister's questions. Bye.