In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis.
Browse content similar to 05/12/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Ireland is unhappy.
The DUP is unhappy.
And now some of the Brexiteers
in her own party are very unhappy.
This is a game being played out over
power and the answer at the end
boils down to who will call
the shots on this, and right now
we have to say, not good enough.
You need to change this process
and to back off, otherwise we get
on with other arrangements.
Can Theresa May escape the tangle
of competing demands
on her Brexit vision?
The clock is ticking.
We hear from the European Parliament
and from a prominent Brexiteer.
Should Britain or the EU make
the next concession?
A doctor made a series of mistakes.
A six-year-old child died.
Should the doctor be
allowed to practise again?
We hear from the mother
of Jack Adcock, who died
at the Leicester Royal Infirmary,
and a doctor who wants the NHS
to learn lessons rather than punish
those who make errors.
Putin likes showing the world
his sporting prowess.
But his country's team are barred
from the 2018 Winter Olympics.
Does he benefit from playing
the victim of the West?
We ask the president
of the anti-doping authorities
and an expert on Russian democracy.
A Brexit deal to get us
to the next phase of talks
didn't happen yesterday,
and today there's been more drama.
Theresa May is now trapped
between Brexiteer MPs' desire
to stop making concessions,
the Taoiseach's veto over the next
round of talks, and the DUP's hold
over her government.
Is it like the end
of Reservoir Dogs?
Feels like it.
But at the heart
of it is a trilemma.
The UK Government is looking
for three things from which the EU
says we can only have two.
Britain wants no land border between
Northern Ireland and the Republic.
It wants no sea border
between Northern Ireland
and the rest of the UK.
But it wants no EU control at home -
independence from EU rules -
which implies a border
between Britain and the EU.
The Irish say they'll not accept
a breach of number one.
The DUP will not tolerate
a breach of number two.
So does that mean we have no choice
but to breach number three?
Well, that's not what Iain
Duncan Smith and his
fellow Brexiteers want.
Brexit Secretary David Davis kind
of admitted that three
is the one to look at,
but in the Commons today he thought
we could still take back control
even if we align many of our rules
to the EU's.
The presumption of the discussion
was that everything we talked
about applied to the whole
Alignment isn't harmonisation.
It isn't having exactly
the same rules.
It is sometimes having
mutually recognised rules,
mutually recognised inspection -
that is what we are aiming at.
Well, can we really have a UK-wide
arrangement that allows us to be
different from the EU,
but similar enough for Northern
Ireland not to have a border?
There are two thoughts about this.
We need a fudge in a form
of words that simply gets us
to the next stage of talks,
and then we work out
a solution properly later.
Or that we have to face
the difficult choice now,
as it won't go away by a carefully
drafted piece of
Nick Watt is with me.
What did you make of David Davis 's
Those specific remarks were
meant to reassure the DUP that this
idea, this new buzz phrase, of
regulatory alignment would apply
across the UK. Yes, there would be a
Northern Ireland element, which is
essentially embedding those elements
are cross-border co-operation in the
Good Friday agreement, but the UK
wide element is how you deliver that
regulatory alignment and what it is
about is the UK deciding what to do
as a rule-maker, deciding which bits
of regulation to accept, not meekly
accepting them from the EU as a rule
taker. Now, this was not good enough
for some Tory Brexiteer is. I'm told
after that statement one leading
figure eyeballed David Davis across
the lunch table and said, this will
not do, you cannot sign up to this.
So I've been looking at how this row
with the DUP is now spreading into
the Tory Party.
The season of goodwill should soon
be upon us. For the moment, it all
feels a bit scratchy as the
Government's Brexit negotiations are
thrown into the air. In an ideal
world, Theresa May would have hailed
an EU deal with a European ally
today. A pre-Christmas meeting with
her Spanish counterpart still went
ahead. The Prime Minister now faces
a new headache after Tory-Leave
supporters rejected the EU proposed
deal in its current form.
Minister has bent over backwards in
every way and we have been rebuffed
by the EU. They need to go away and
think again. Today we want a trade
arrangement? In which case it's a
bit absurd to block everything up
before you discuss trade.
Duncan Smith took his cue from the
We want to see a sensible
Brexit and we will work through the
basis of the clear red lines we have
set down, which are, as we
understand it, the red lines of the
Government as well, so a sensible
Brexit in which the UK leaves as one
nation with a sensible relationship
with the rest of the EU.
Brexiteers are delighted with the
DUP. One told me, their intervention
has saved us having to rebel against
the Government in Parliament. Those
Tories want to use the pause is to
try and change the pace of the
negotiations. The aim is to stop the
Prime Minister offering what they
fear are irrevocable commitments to
the EU that could not be withdrawn
even if the UK is unhappy with the
final deal. If that can't be done,
they say simply the UK should walk
away. Labour is alarmed by the new
alliance between the DUP and the
It is grossly
irresponsible to be advocating
walking away from these
negotiations. And sure the Prime
Minister isn't going to do that. The
surest way to ensure a hard border
in Northern Ireland is to walk away
from these negotiations, it is to
walk away from our responsibilities.
The current impasse over the Irish
border prompted the leaders of
Britain's devolved bodies to warn
that the UK is facing a delicate
moment. The First Minister of Wales
believes the UK Government would be
wise to consult more widely.
would prefer to be more closely
involved in the Brexit negotiations.
I think we could be constructive in
terms of what we have to offer. We
can, I think, provide a helping hand
to the UK Government. It's not as
preventing Brexit, that's not going
to happen, but there are sensible,
pragmatic people in the government
who want it to be a Brexit that
works for Britain and not some
hard-line, nationalist Brexit that
some in the Tory Party seem to want.
Amid a swirl of uncertainty, Theresa
May is hoping to restore some calm,
but the Prime Minister knows she
faces a formidable challenge to
settle this issue.
And Nick is still here.
Do you think she can get this show
back on the road, particularly with
the clock ticking?
I sense a less
than optimistic view of meeting that
by this Friday deadline. There had
been thought that the Prime Minister
would go to Brussels after PMQs
tomorrow. I think she will not even
be there by Thursday because the DUP
are really digging in. Are saying
there have to be substantial
amendments to this proposed deal
with the EU. -- they are saying. The
wording stage, there needs to be
lots more wording, and then they are
saying, we are not accepting this
deadline, even the deadline of
sorting this out by the EU council
next week. They have said, the EU,
they can hold an emergency summit,
they've done it before, so why can't
they do it again? But there is a
potential chink of light for the
Government. The DUP's Red Line is
that there must be complete, let's
use our favourite word, alignment
between Northern Ireland and the
rest of the UK, and if that can be
achieved, then possibly Theresa May
could be able to win the DUP, if not
many of her Tory Brexiteers.
While Theresa May works her way
through all of this,
she does so, of course,
against the ticking clock
of the EU's deadline of the end
of this week to reach an agreement
if Britain is to unlock
the next round of talks.
So what's the mood in Brussels?
I spoke earlier to the Dutch
MEP Sophie in't Veld,
deputy of the EU Parliament's chief
negotiator Guy Verhofstadt.
I asked whether after David Davis
said in the Commons today
that the plan was always
for Northern Ireland
to have the same regulatory
arrangements as the rest of the UK,
if that was her understanding
of yesterday's deal?
Well, I think that's fantastic
because that in essence means Brexit
isn't going to happen, because if
there is regulatory alignment
Ferrari large part, then the UK
would still follow the same EU
rules. It doesn't make much sense to
me but if that is what he proposes,
that sounds very good.
If we went
down the David Davis route, would we
have to have free movement as well?
We're talking about very shady
proposals here. We don't know what
we are actually talking about.
sounds like you don't know...
At some point, we
would also like to know exactly what
it is that the UK Government wants.
Only once we have a clear idea that
Can I ask whether
you think there was any solution,
any solution, to the Northern
Ireland border issue that doesn't
involve a border between Britain and
Northern Ireland, and allows Theresa
May to keep her red line? She is
spelt out some red lines. Can she
keep those, not have a border down
the Irish tee and not have a border
with the Republic of Ireland? Does
that work in any way at all? -- down
the Irish Sea.
There won't be a
border. The question is how it will
work in practice. One solution is
going to be apparently one that the
government has in mind, which is,
OK, we won't set up a physical
border post but we will just put up
some cameras and sensors. No,
clearly that won't work because
people will not accept it. There
will have to be a soft border. I
think that's clear. Otherwise you
jeopardise the Good Friday agreement
and that would be disastrous.
are jeopardising the Good Friday
agreement by potentially ruling out
a deal with the UK that is
acceptable to the UK. It takes two
sides are there to be no deal,
doesn't it? If there is no deal, you
would want to put a border there to
protect the integrity of your single
This is a very strange way
of looking at it, and I am also a
little bit irritated. The EU is an
entity that's been around for around
60 years and for over 40 years the
UK has been a member. The UK has
been building the EU as much as any
other country and in fact it has
been in the forefront building the
single market. Now, the UK has
chosen to leave the EU for the time
-- and for the time being it looks
as though they want to leave the
internal market. The UK knows better
than anybody else what the rules of
the single market are. You've
created them together with the rest
I wonder whether you
think that the rest of the EU will
go all the way to the wire on this
issue backing up Ireland. Ireland
says we have a veto but we don't
need to use it because everybody is
supporting them. Is everybody
supporting Ireland on this?
way I understood it - I mean, I
wasn't in the room - but the way I
understood it is that Theresa May
said, OK, can we debate on this
notion of regulatory alignment for
Northern Ireland and see if that is
a basis for negotiations? That was a
very positive step. But then
apparently she got a phone call from
the DUP telling her, no, you are
not. So then she also has to choose.
Who is in charge?
Do you have some
sympathy for her predicament,
though, given she is between the
Republic of Ireland that has a veto
over the next stage, the DUP that is
holding her government in office,
and indeed the aspirations of those
who voted for Brexit last year in
Of course! I'm very
happy I'm not in her shoes. I
recognise it's very difficult and
contrary to what some of the British
media are reporting, there is really
nobody, I've met nobody, in the
European Parliament that is somehow
out to Pina lies the UK. Quite the
opposite. -- out to punish the UK.
People in the Netherlands want to
keep close ties to the UK but with a
limit to what you can do in saying,
OK, you can leave the EU, you will
have access to the single market but
you don't have to abide by the rules
everybody else has too. But is
simply not an option and I think you
and everybody will understand that.
Thank you for talking to us. I
Yesterday's deal, acceptable
to the Irish, implied that come
what may, when Brexit happens,
Northern Ireland will not diverge
from the EU in ways that might
require the construction
of a border.
As we've just heard from that
interview, it seems even now some
in the EU are not clear on exactly
what the British plans are.
We'll discuss this in moment
with a Brexit-supporting Tory MP,
but first our business editor,
Helen Thomas, has been trying
to make sense of the options.
Here is the problem in a nutshell or
a milk bottle. Everyone wants to
avoid a hard border between Northern
Ireland and the Republic, so milk
can flow freely between North and
South much as it does now. Hence the
proposal this week. If the UK
doesn't get the broad free trade
deal that it once it would still
commit to regulatory alignment,
particularly in key areas like
agriculture between Northern Ireland
and the South. What alignment means
was left probably intentionally
vague. Is it really any different
from Noel diverges harmonisation or
equivalence? But the main message
was clear, animals and animal
products would not need to be
checked at special border inspection
posts. Here is the first problem.
The implication was that Northern
Ireland could follow some single
market regulations, even if the rest
of the UK chose not to. Entered the
DUP. To them even that theoretical
diverges between Northern Ireland
and the rest of the UK is totally
unacceptable. It might mean no
border between Northern Ireland and
the Republic, but instead you would
need checks between Northern Ireland
and Great Britain. Why? Well there
is our old friend the chlorine
washed chicken. Say the UK did its
much discussed deal with the US and
accepted deploring chicken, banned
by the EU. To keep that pesky
poultry out would require a border
check either between Great Britain
and Northern Ireland or Northern
Ireland and the Republic. But that
is unacceptable either to the DUP or
the Irish. So could the UK align
itself entirely with EU rules in
certain key areas? No borders, but
then we couldn't agreed to buy US
chicken. That could scupper our
great plans for other trade deals.
There is another problem. Regulatory
alignment is not necessarily enough
to avoid any physical borders. For
that you might need a customs union
or agreeing the same set of external
tariffs for goods arriving from
non-EU countries. Without it, well
you are still going to need some
customs checks somewhere. Of course,
the government expects to get it
broader deal but even to start talks
means a border -based phage. The
possibility of Northern Ireland
having different rules from the rest
of the UK or the idea of the whole
UK aligning itself with the EU
longer term on regulations and
customs. I hope you have got the
hang of the conundrum.
Kwasi Kwarteng is a
Brexit-backing Conservative MP
and the Parliamentary private
secretary to the Chancellor,
Good evening. First, get you to
comment on what Iain Duncan Smith
said? He seems as if to say scrap
that if the EU do not move. We will
not try and have a deal.
thing to remember is that Iain
Duncan Smith, myself, Theresa May,
Ruth Davidson, we are all unionists
and the idea that Northern Ireland
was going to be treated differently
from the rest of the UK is something
that needs to be put to bed. That
stock were to happen. We are
committed to having a UK solution to
the problem you have outlined. What
I would say broadly is that there
are two aspects to this, there is
the British Government's negotiation
with the EU which I know your piece
did not reflect on but is going
well. The Chancellor said it was
likely there was going to be a deal,
Rather than talk
about my successes...
You did not
mention the successes. It is very
important that viewers realise that
the talks are going quite well.
got it down to the intractable end
product and these are the ones that
are not being sold because they are
difficult. Can I ask which you would
prefer? If the EU gave us a choice
would you rather there was a border
between Britain and Northern Ireland
which you have just ruled out would
you rather that Britain stayed in
the single market or close to it?
reject the premise. Both of those?
What I am saying is that we have two
issues, and negotiation with EU
which is going very well.
it has gone well on 90% of things.
Then we have the issue of the border
in Northern Ireland. We were very
close to a deal, the regulatory
alignment formula, as David Davis
said today in the House of Commons,
does not mean that we have exactly
the same rules. It is not the same
to use this phrase as harmonisation.
That is something that we have got
to get our heads around and at the
same time we have not really
entered, as your clip said, we have
not really entered the main nub.
You're happy with what David Davis
said today, that there is a degree
of alignment and to some extent, not
as much as been in the single
market, but the whole of the UK, to
some extent aligns itself...
look around the world, New Zealand
and Australia, they have a degree of
regulatory alignment. These
countries, forgive me, these
countries are sovereign nations.
They are not the same country. We
have got the alignment, that is
where we are and you would accept
that. I did not get the feeling that
Iain Duncan Smith would accept it
but you would, is that the Brexit
that people thought they were voting
The Brexit that people were
voting for broadly, which is as a
Brexiteer, is to have control of
borders, freedom of movement and I
think we will deliver on that. There
is also the issue of the European
Court of Justice being superior as
it were to British law and I think
we are going to claim sovereignty on
that and the third item was
obviously the money. It is clear to
me on the money side, we are not
going to continue playing -- pain
and net contribution of 10 billion
every single year until kingdom come
to the EU, that is ending and that
was the nature of... All three of
those issues I think we will deliver
It was not said in the campaign
that there would be a degree of
alignment, this problem seems to
have come as a surprise to the
Brexit side of the argument.
spoke to a Brexiteer on the
campaign, people were very keen that
we had a free trade deal. There
would be a free trade deal between
the UK and EU. The nature of free
trade deals, you are an economist,
you understand, that there is some
degree regulatory alignment in free
It is on that basis. When
Iain Duncan Smith says no deal, we
could walk away, what do you think
of the no Deal option? There are
differing views about how bad that
I think that is very
unlikely. I say that because I speak
to the Chancellor, people in
government and the broad
Is it bad, would
be a tragedy for the UK economy?
here as a Brexiteer, I campaigned on
your show, I took part in debates, I
have not been frightened of the idea
of no deal. I always said that
Britain had a great future and a
great ability to trade its way into
gaining prosperity is with no deal
but that is not something that I
think is on the cards and I think it
is much more likely that we will get
OK, thank you.
Back in 2011 a young
boy, Jack Adcock, died
in hospital in Leicester.
It was obviously a tragic case,
but also one with implications
for medical staff today.
A doctor and a nurse were convicted
of manslaughter over Jack's death
and the doctor is now at the centre
of an argument about
whether she should be allowed
to continue practising.
A letter to The Times today
from hundreds of medics and others
says she should be allowed
to keep working.
Here is a brief history of the case.
It was February 2011
when six-year-old Jack Adcock,
a child with Down's syndrome,
died of a cardiac arrest
at Leicester Royal Infirmary.
He had developed sepsis
but it was not diagnosed.
And although not a cause of death,
Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba stopped other
staff performing CPR on Jack,
mistakenly thinking that he was
subject to a do not resuscitate
For that and other failings,
she and a nurse, Isabel Amaro,
were eventually convicted
of manslaughter by gross negligence
at Nottingham Crown Court.
They got suspended jail
sentences and both were
suspended from their posts.
But Dr Bawa-Garba was given
a second chance to practise
as a paediatrician.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal
Service found that there had
been system problems
as well as individual ones,
and thought she should be kept
on the medical register
as she would not be
a danger to patients.
The General Medical Council
disagrees with that and the issue
is now about to be decided
by the High Court.
Should she be allowed
to practise as a doctor or not?
For the many who wrote to The Times,
the case criminalises medical error
and makes it far harder
to learn from mistakes.
With me are Jack's mother,
Nicola Adcock, and Dr Jenny Vaughan,
from the campaign group
Manslaughter and Healthcare.
Good evening to you both. I will
start with you, Nicola, what was
your reaction when you heard about
this letter from hundreds of medics.
I was mortified, I was devastated.
That all these doctors had got
together and obviously supported the
fact that she had been charged with
gross negligence in a criminal court
by a jury, it was a long... We were
in court for four and a half weeks
and I don't understand how a doctor
could be charged with gross
negligence and manslaughter and
still be able to work. Where does it
give the public any faith, any of
the community any faith? I would
like as most people watching, if
they took their child to the
hospital, and a doctor, who has been
charged with gross negligence and
manslaughter over the death of a
child, a six and a half year old
little boy, would they be happy that
that Doctor is cheating -- treating
that child? She should be struck off
Micro. She got away with a two-year
suspended sentence and now she has
not even been struck off.
justice for Jack is a slogan because
you're trying to collect signatures.
All of these people who got
together, they are doctors but they
are parents as well.
Does it make a
difference that a lot of people have
said, there was a lot going wrong at
I want a clear that
up. I need to make sure that people
understand this was not a system
blunder, not a system error, this
doctor was a trainee. I need to
clarify that she was a level six
registrar, she had lots of training,
where she may stop was basic things,
as in cold hand, cold feet, he had a
heart condition, not flinching when
they put the Dublin. I wrote down 20
We do not have nearly enough
time. Would it make a difference if
doctors could persuade you that we
would save more lives... Rubbish. By
learning from mistakes.
If I was too
quiet in my car and I was to run
someone over, I would get charged
with manslaughter. I would go to
prison and I would lose my license.
This was not a system blunder, this
was more than 20 mistakes. I
understand we are human beings and
we make mistakes, one or two but not
more than 20, it is not acceptable.
She even mixed him up with another
child at the end of the night. When
asked how you mixed up a child with
Down's syndrome with another child,,
she said she got their parents mixed
Thank you. Jenny, obviously this
is a tragic case. What is the
reason? You have heard the
arguments, what is the case for
saying you would employ this person
as a doctor after a blunder like
I have worked with many
bereaved families and I really
respect Nicola coming here, she has
lost her child and I'm not in that
position. Dr Bawa-Garba... The
reason that it was felt... Their
tribunal found that there were
systems failure is. There were over
70 systems failure is identified by
the hospital. They were all enclosed
in a serious incident report and the
jury did not hear about all of those
we talk about system failures we
mean things going wrong on the day,
hospital results, although normal
ranges did not come through, there
was a lack of a senior alert system,
there were failures at every level,
failure is on trainee supervision,
lots of different failures.
we see the geography of the argument
about how you apportion blame. I am
interested in the bigger picture,
what is your worry about what
happens to medical professionals if
doctors are struck off for this kind
It is sad. We are all on
the same side. Doctors are on the
same side as patience, what we want
is a safe culture and the only way
you really get a safe culture is no
blame culture where people can be
frank about their errors they made
and they can discuss them and not
feel challenged and they come out in
the open and say I did this wrong,
that is the only way you actually
improve patient safety.
agree that there are some errors
that are too gross, that you would
say, you are not fit for this job?
Doctors get struck off for fraud. In
this case, the tribunal heard all
They did find that
there were protests errors on the
day and they said it was the fact
that she had redeemed herself...
has had honest failure and basically
honest failure should not be
rewarded with punishment or
retribution. She has been suspended,
she has had trial by media and a lot
of things have happened.
let her look after your child?
absolutely would. Through all of
this we are on the same side as
patients. I would say, before all of
this and after Jack died, she showed
that she went on courses, she did
show that she had insight into her
errors and she expressed that. I
would have no trouble in having her
look after my child now because she
has shown insight into those errors
and that is that the whole
profession. All of us need an open
culture will become and express
errors otherwise patient safety will
not improve in the future.
We should say that of course
Dr Bawa-Garba hasn't herself been
able to respond to any of what has
said about her today.
We did make contact with her earlier
through her solicitor
and she gave us a statement.
She said, "No words will ever bring
Jack back but I would
like to apologise once again
to his family for my clinical
failings in his care.
I think about this tragic case every
day with regret and remorse,
and if I could turn back time
I would do things differently.
My thoughts are with Jack's family."
I know that you've never had...
She's never shown remorse. She's
never said sorry. As far as I'm
concerned, she's got a heart of
And it would make a
difference to you...?
Not now. When
we were in court there were nurses
on the stand. Everybody that took
that stand was so sorry and so
remorseful. I mean, the nurse...
Others have said she did have
That's because they are
doctors clubbing together again,
have any issue with any doctors and
nurses out there. There are amazing
doctors and nurses out there. This
is just my thing about the one
doctor that neglected my son that
day. I don't want another family to
go through this and I wouldn't wish
it on my worst enemy.
either, which is why we want
everybody to have an open culture.
We don't want this either.
both very much.
Time for Viewsnight now.
This time last week we brought
you one arguing that Donald Trump
had changed America for the better.
The President has had
a busy week since then,
packing in a diplomatic tweet row
with Theresa May, getting his tax
reform bill through Congress,
and yesterday getting backing
from the Supreme Court
for his controversial travel ban.
In the interests of balance,
here's Brian Klass from the LSE,
arguing that America's democracy may
not survive this Presidency.
We are fighting the fake news.
It's fake, phoney, fake.
Because you'd be in jail.
You may not find the conclusions
very surprising, but according to
the International Olympic Committee,
Russia has been involved
in systematic doping in sport.
The IOC's disciplinary
head Samuel Schmid said
there is scientific evidence,
there are witness statements,
documents and correspondence,
as well as the detailed testimony
of a whistle-blower to prove it.
As a result, the IOC have excluded
Russia from the next Winter
Olympics in February,
though a few athletes will be able
to compete under a neutral flag.
Now, that is more draconian
than anything in the Summer
Olympics, when individual sports
made their own decisions
on Russian participation.
I'm joined by Sir Craig Reedie -
he's the president of
the World Anti-Doping Agency,
and in Berlin is the LSE visiting
fellow Oksana Antonenko,
whose research focuses on Russia.
If I can start with you on the
sports side, Sir Craig Reedie, it
was remarkable what they were doing.
Just give a sense of what we now
know they were doing.
tonight's news from the commission
and it corroborates what we've known
for the last three or four years,
that Russia had a systematic system
of breaking the rules. Every
positive test that came into the
laboratory wasn't recorded in our
recording system so we didn't have
any positive tests. And then there
was the cheating in Sochi.
this thing with the hole in the war
and the samples were passed through?
-- hole in the wall.
they went to that trouble, but in
addition, if they had dirty samples,
they knew they had to have clean
samples to replace them, so there
was a bank of clean samples to send
Why has this taken so long to
happen? Because many people have
said it was obvious the Russians
have been sophisticated in this
If you look at the Sochi
situation, we had a laboratory
expert who worked conscientiously
between eight in the morning and
eight at nine, he didn't work
between midnight and 4am, when the
cheating went on, and I'm afraid
most of the information that has
come to us has come from
whistle-blowers. -- eight in the
morning and eight at night.
minister who has been banned from
the future Games has been part of
the World Cup, Fifa.
But there is
corporation that this went to the
top of the ministry.
What you think
the reaction of ordinary Russians
will be to this?
I think most of the
Russians and opinion polls agree
that those who violate the doping
should be punished and those who
enable it should be punished as
well. But today will be seen as a
collective punishment, not the
punishment of those who violated the
rules but the punishment of the
entire Russian nation. And I think
as always in Russia, of course we
know Russians are very proud people
and proud of their sporting
achievements, so that will produce a
running around the flag effect and
come the president -- presidential
elections it will strengthen support
for President Putin and the very
system which enabled doping, and
perhaps will create a less conducive
environment to investigate properly
what is -- what went on in Sochi and
other Olympic competitions.
think it benefits President Putin
but they do accept there's a sort of
justice that says you a
discriminating punishment, and those
who cheat get booted out and those
who don't don't.
least among the opinion polls that
you mention, the perception in
society is that those who violate
the rules should be punished, but it
is also very important that it is
seen as fair in terms of a process,
in which the law of rule is followed
-- the rule of law is followed,
because otherwise it is being
exploited, particularly through the
state media and other sources of
information, that this is
discrimination against Russia.
blanket ban the right thing to do?
Curling, for example, is their drug
cheating in that? So banning that
team is an indiscriminate band.
There are two groups here. There are
the so-called clean athletes in
Russia who could come to the games
provided they go through the
necessary criteria so that they are
as clean as we can make them. But
there's another group who, since
2011 and 2015, have lost medals,
championships because of a systemic
doping system, so the world actually
believes there has to be some
sanction on Russia for organising
that and the cheating on the clean
athletes over the years. We will
work hard to make sure proper
controls are in place so that
Russian athletes can take place in
the Games in John Chiang.
wants to create a situation that
means more support for President
Putin, but what do you do about
systematic cheating in sport, the
biggest that has ever occurred?
think it is important to distinguish
between those who violated the rules
and those who followed the
But the state violated
the rules. It was the system, the
government. It wasn't just the odd
team or team member.
think that has to be investigated
very thoroughly and transparently
but also you have to acknowledge a
lot of Russian athletes who didn't
violate the rules and to our clean
athletes, and who are now under a
lot of pressure it -- politically
not to participate because they will
not be participating under the
Russian flag and they will face a
lot of pressure internally at home
not to do that.
Thank you both very
That's all for this evening.
But before we go, do you ever find
yourself cursing the air pollution
that blights our towns and cities?
Well, nothing's new.
65 years ago today the great smog
of London descended.
And despite there being many times
more cars these days,
it's probably fair to say
things have improved.
'...operate this evening.
'And the following trains will be
Are we doing all we can
to minimise the dislocation
caused by fog?
Most of our efforts are remedial.
In London, we still suffer damage
that can be estimated
in millions of pounds.
The fault is largely our own.
The fog is made worse by man.
It is up to man to stop it.