18/03/2018 Sunday Politics London

Morning, everyone, and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is the programme that

will provide your essential briefing

on everything that's moving

and shaking in the

world of politics.

The Foreign Secretary accuses Russia

of "smug sarcasm, denial,

obfuscation and delay" in relation

to the Salisbury poisoning case.

As the diplomatic dispute continues,

where will this crisis go next?

Police launch a murder

inquiry in to the death

of another Russian exile.

So how many other deaths in Britain

are potentially linked to Russia?

We speak to the Chair of

the Home Affairs Select Committee.

Should transgender women be included

on Labour's all-women short lists?

The party postpones

a final decision.

While a government consultation

on changing the law

appears to be on hold.

Has the debate on transgender

rights become toxic?

In London, nine months on from

the Grenfell Tower fire, are local

businesses getting the help

they need to get back on their feet?

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today a panel

of political insiders helping me

to make sense of all the big

stories:

Matt Zarb-Cousin, Isabel Oakeshott

and Lucy Fisher.

Now, Russia's Vladimir Putin has

already been out this

morning to cast his vote

in the Presidential elections.

We'll be expecting the result

later this evening,

but you can probably guess

who the frontrunner is.

It comes at the end of a week

in which UK-Russia relations turned

positively sub-zero.

President Putin.

BBC News.

Is Russia behind the poisoning

of Sergei Skripal?

This week the finger of blame

for the Salisbury attack was

pointed firmly in one direction.

TRANSLATION:

First, work out

what actually happened

there and then we'll talk about it.

A deadline imposed by

the British government

calling on the Russians to provide

answers came and went.

The Prime Minister headed

to the Commons to update MPs.

They have treated the use

of a military grade nerve agent

in Europe with sarcasm,

contempt and defiance.

The only conclusion, she declared,

was that the Russian state

was responsible for the nerve agent

attack on the Russian double agent

Sergei Skripal and his

daughter Yulia.

23 Russian diplomats based

here accused of being spies are to

be kicked out of the country.

Moscow responded by

expelling 23 British

embassy staff.

UK-Russia relations are well

and truly in the deep freeze.

The Prime Minister's

response to the crisis has

won her some new fans.

Hello.

She got flowers and fist bumps

in Salisbury on Thursday.

The Defence Secretary had his own

idiosyncratic message for Moscow.

Frankly, Russia should go

away, it should shut up.

Go away, it should shut up.

The Foreign Secretary

escalated the row by going

further and directly accusing

Vladimir Putin of personally

ordering the poisoning.

Our quarrel is with Putin's

Kremlin and with his

decision, and we think it

overwhelmingly likely that it was

his decision, to direct

the use of a nerve agent.

Convention dictates

that parties often come

together on major foreign policy

issues but Jeremy Corbyn is not a

conventional politician.

How has she responded to the Russian

government's request for a sample

of the agent used in the Salisbury

attack to run its own tests?

Shameful!

That did not go down

too well with some

of his own MPs who tabled a motion

expressing their support for the

Prime Minister's response.

But Mr Corbyn held

his line, arguing in

Friday's Guardian that we ought not

to discount the possibility that

Russian mafia gangs could have

carried out the attack.

Labour frontbenchers

not exactly been

toeing that line.

We fully support the Government's

action because we

hold Russia responsible.

There is no alternative

explanation other than

that responsibility

lies with Russia.

The US, France and Germany issued

a joint statement of support

for the UK.

It's a very sad situation.

It certainly looks like

the Russians were behind it.

Something that should

never ever happen.

Today is election day in Russia.

And this crisis seems unlikely

to hurt Putin's chances of

re-election as Russia's President.

So to pick up some of that news with

our panel.

Lucy, later this week the National

Security Council will meet to talk

about what further action the UK

Government Meite, they briefed the

BBC there is more in the locker,

that was the phrase the useful

support any idea what they might do

next?

There is a whole suite of

options available to the government,

the idea of clamp-down on visas for

dubious Russian businessmen and

their allies wanting to travel to

the UK, there is talk on pulling the

plug on RTE, the Kremlin backed

broadcaster with Ruth Davidson

calling for that they. The most

important action the government

could take is on the wealth, the

Kremlin gold, and money swilling

around the UK invested here by

Russian oligarchs are linked to the

Kremlin.

Boss of people from Russian

politician stomach opposition

politicians who think would be the

most effective route. That's what

Labour are calling for and we

haven't really heard that's what

action the government will go in.

These are quite short-term measures.

What we're looking on with Russia is

a much wider, long-term problem.

What a lot of people in defence

circles talk about is a more

asymmetrical response, so rather

than in addition to the measures

Lucy has articulated, you need to

look at the whole suite of things in

terms of the disinformation campaign

that Russia puts out, we need to

look at where we can niggle Russia

by supporting Ukraine a bit,

supporting states like Azerbaijan

and a much more hybrid response, I

think.

Matt Zarb-Cousin is, there

has been a lot of discussion about

Jeremy Corbyn's response to this

this week. I'm interested, you know

him well, give us an insight into

what he is thinking. He supports the

Government's actions while not being

sure about the conclusion that the

Russian state was responsible. Why

support what they are doing if we

don't support the conclusion?

I

think the Russian state is culpable

and the Labour Party recognises

that. I think we all agree that it

isn't a proportionate response, it

goes nowhere near far enough if the

Russian state is culpable, to just

expel 23 diplomats and say to the

Royal family they are not going to

the World Cup. So they have to find

out obviously if the Russian state

is culpable, and then once they have

the evidence for that then obviously

build that international coalition

where we can actually take

meaningful action, not these

tokenistic measures. Even closing

down Russia's Russia Today emboldens

Putin, look at the West, they can

censor, he will say. What we really

have to do is go after Putin's kind

of circle. There is oligarchs here,

whether they are pro-or anti-Putin,

who have been allowed to settle here

and stow away their money here and

they have been affected by Putin. If

they are then affected by Putin, if

we say you have to leave, then that

is a very powerful coalition you are

building against him.

But Jeremy

Corbyn still isn't convinced that

the Russian state itself is

responsible.

No, neither is the

government.

He wouldn't back these

actions until they were proved.

It

would be naive, it would be

difficult to build an international

coalition. Even the statement that

Germany France and the US put out,

the joint statement, said the nerve

agent was of a type developed by

Russia, not that it was developed by

Russia. It looks increasingly likely

that that nerve agent came from

Russia and Russia have lost control

of it, or have used it maliciously,

but we don't know that yet and it's

very difficult to take action until

we do.

There is a kind of false

dichotomy here in this idea that

somehow elements of Russian Mafia

might be responsible. Welcome

potentially they could be, but the

idea that the Russian Mafia is in

some way completely distinct from

the Kremlin is a misunderstanding.

In a sense, the Russian Mafia is in

extra typically linked to the

Kremlin. They are a sort of

paramilitary wing of the Kremlin so

it is a false dichotomy.

Lucy,

Jeremy Corbyn has taken a lot of

flak for his response this week.

Isn't it legitimate to be asking

these questions when, as Matt says,

even the French, US and German

governments don't seem this --

convinced this is state directed?

Early in the week we saw some level

of prevarication by Paris, Berlin

and Washington and that has firmed

up a lot. I think the quite

unprecedented international joint

statement put out by those allies

and the UK goes a lot further than

you say, Matt. I don't think it's as

equivocal as perhaps you suggested.

Some of the questions Jeremy Corbyn

asks will kind of strike a chord

with much of the public. I think, in

particular, raising questions about

the intelligence and exactly what is

known is something that people will

be thinking about in light of the

2003 Iraq War and some of the

evidence being politically sexed up,

people want to know that that's not

the case here.

Briefly.

We don't

know exactly how much Jeremy Corbyn

had access to in terms of the

intelligence as well. It could well

be that the government... Boris

Johnson and the Defence Secretary

Gavin Williamson have gone much

further and said... Boris Johnson

said it is Putin.

Overwhelmingly

likely.

Williamson said they should

shut up and go away, or whatever he

said. That suggests to me they are

either going off message or they

have seen more evidence that perhaps

Corbyn has not seen.

These are

questions we will explore throughout

the show and if you stay with us we

will talk to you throughout the

programme.

Well, let's stick with this story

because the Foreign Secretary has

been speaking on the Andrew

Marr Show this morning.

He was asked how the Government

could be certain that the Russian

Government was responsible

for the attack.

We actually have evidence within the

last ten years that Russia has not

only been investigating the delivery

of nerve agents for the purposes of

assassination, but has also been

creating and stockpiling Novichok.

To the best of our knowledge, this

is a Russian-made nerve agent that

falls within the category Novichok,

made only by Russia.

I'm joined now by the Foreign Office

Minister Sir Alan Duncan.

Thank you for talking to us this

morning. Russia have responded, as

you know, to our expansion --

expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats by

closing the consulate in St

Petersburg. Is there a second phase

of government action that will need

to be reintroduced in order to take

this further?

We have lots of

options. But this isn't just about

counting heads. This is really about

making clear to the world that one

of the great achievements of the

world since the Second World War,

which is a convention to ban

chemical weapons, has been violated.

And it is clearly traceable back to

a military grade nerve agent of

Russian origin. We said to the

Russians either you did it directly

or you have lost control of this,

tell us which. They basically just

stuck their tongue out at us. Their

irresponsible response to this

points ever more to them as having

done this, and so the response that

we have done I think is

proportionate. Yes, they have

responded back. But what matters

more than anything else is not that

we now go into some kind of

tit-for-tat stuff by accounting

exact numbers and things like that,

is that we actually corral the whole

world to realise that Russia is

totally out of order here and that

the Chemical Weapons Convention has

been violated in a way that could do

enormous damage to the world in any

country this happens to happen in,

in this case the UK, and that is

what we will do.

You are calling for

a concerted international action,

what would that look like?

We are

already very grateful to the very

clear response we have had from a

lot of countries. I was in the

Balkans over the weekend with

countries like Macedonia and Kosovo,

and they were very, very clear in

their condemnation of this, because

they themselves are countries which

suffer from wider Russian

interference. But we have the EU

foreign ministers meeting tomorrow,

they will be a Prime Minister level

March European Council on Friday, we

have already had an open discussion

in the UN at which the Russian

representative cut a very, very

lonely figure, and this is clearly a

Russian violation of the Chemical

Weapons Convention and we will

cooperate with the Organisation for

the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

to prove even further what we know

to be the case.

When it comes to

international action, a former UK

ambassador to Russia, agrees with

you that we need to take action

along with others and says the

sanctions imposed by the EU after

Crimea 2014 surprise the Kremlin and

continue to have an impact because

they were EU wide, but went on to

say Brexit has made Britain's task

harder in appealing for EU

solidarity this week and the kind of

international action you are looking

for.

I think that is total nonsense,

Brexit doesn't have an impact on

this and we are still part of the EU

and we operate EU sanctions

collaboratively and we're passing

legislation through the House of

Commons which will give us

autonomous actions regime following

the departure from the EU, and we

will include in that what I hope

will be a firm cross-party said

statement from the House of Commons

that the Magnitsky clause, as people

have been campaigning for, will be

included in the sanctions and

anti-money-laundering Bill. And the

passage of this bill predated the

Salisbury incident, has always been

something we wanted the whole of the

House of Commons today, not just

something in a committee during

passage of the bill.

Labour tried to

introduce an amendment to that bill

with the Magnitsky clause and you

wear minister in the Bill committee

that rejected those amendments two

weeks ago. -- you wear minister.

I

answer the question before you ask

the question, which is we wanted it

to be done on the whole floor of the

house and in the phrasing of the

amendment it wasn't consistent with

some of the other parts of the act.

-- you were a minister. We have an

understanding that we hope will be a

cross-party thing and that will send

a clear message to the world that

the House of Commons, along with

countries who have done it already,

will be aligned with the Magnitsky

proposal, which campaigners have

been wanting.

The Magnitsky powers would allow you

to take actions against individuals

guilty of gross human rights

violations. That doesn't allow you

to attack the money of Putin allies

unless you can find them guilty of

gross human rights violations so it

wouldn't really allow you to respond

to this attack, would it?

Again, I'm

afraid you're totally wrong and

don't understand the wording of the

bill because it is not only gross

human rights violations in the bill.

There are many purposes included in

the list of things you can do under

the legislation and it does include

what you have just described.

But

the powers the Government has

already on going after things like

this, like unexplained wealth

orders, have been used only once

since they were introduced. There

haven't been much evidence the

Government was serious in tackling

corrupt money brought in through

London.

That's because the

legislation has only recently come

in and of course it's not

politicians who make these

decisions. There's a distinction

between the liberal democracy in

which we live, where judges on the

law take their course from

politicians. And what we think is

happening in Russia, which is not a

real democracy, we are looking at a

pretty odd election taking place

today where Vladimir Putin will

undoubtedly be supposedly re-elected

for the fourth time. That is a deep

distinction between our values and

bears. One of the great values we

have seen in the world is the

creation of the chemical weapons

Convention. Jeremy Corbyn has always

been the great disarm and here we

have a violation of the ideological,

the sort of principled convention

that has been built up over many

decades, violated in our own

country, which is why I think many

young people are disappointed with

his response.

Ben Wallace, the

security minister, said we have

allowed nasty individuals to come to

the City of London and launder

illicit money. That sounds like an

admission that until now this

Government hasn't been doing enough

to tackle corrupt money in London.

I

think we are amassing the powers to

tackle exactly the kind of issue he

has identified, and indeed Ben

Wallace is the security minister who

has been supporting this, pressing

for it and administering it from the

Home Office point of view. We have

to make a proper distinction though

without compromising our values

between those who are guilty and

those who are not. Not every

oligarch is guilty and not every

rich Russian is necessarily a crony

of Putin and someone who should be

subject to sanctions so we need to

approach this without compromising

our values. But there is something

much more important than this, what

really matters is the world needs to

realise that if we allow chemical

weapons to slip into use any more

that's happened now, we will live in

a much more dangerous world and one

which is tearing up the rule book,

throwing away the chemical weapons

Convention which has been in place

for so many decades, indeed it was

one of the great idealistic

achievements of the post war world

that we put this in place so we have

to the robust in pointing the finger

at Russia and saying this violation

by the use of chemical weapons is

simply not acceptable.

Thank you for

that.

Well, earlier this week the police

announced that they were launching

a murder inquiry in to the death

of another Russian businessman

living in Britain.

A pathologist's report says

Nikolai Glushkov died

of "compression to the neck"

after being found dead

at his home on Monday.

The Metropolitan Police say

there is no evidence to suggest

a link to the attempted murder

of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

But the Home Office has announced it

will investigate a number

of other unexplained deaths

following the Skripal case.

Yvette Cooper is the Chair of

The Home Affairs Select Committee.

You specifically asked the Home

Secretary to investigate 14 other

deaths that you are worried may have

had Russian involvement, do you have

much evidence for that?

My concern

is that any area where there are

allegations that there may have been

either Russian involvement or

suspicious circumstances that may

need to be investigated should be,

because I think we have to have the

full facts. There was a BuzzFeed

investigation that made allegations

about 14 cases, there are other

concerns raised about others. It's

not for me to judge the individual

circumstances, my concern is these

cases, where there have been

preliminary conclusions of suicide

or natural causes or accident, that

actually there may be further

evidence of more suspicious

circumstances, they should now be

reviewed by the Home Office and

police.

The Home Office have said

they will do that but if you look at

the the case of someone who died in

2012, Surrey police says they will

not reinvestigate so will they be

able to cover new evidence?

I assume

the Home Office will assure there is

a review of all of these cases. The

Home Office Secretary will want to

satisfy herself that every corner

has been looked into and this has

been done properly and we get to the

bottom of this. I do accept the

priority for them at the moment must

be this current investigation and

the current circumstances in

Salisbury and where those

investigations lead, but they will

need I think to follow up by looking

at these other cases as well.

So you

have any doubt that what happened in

Salisbury was directed by the

Russian state?

I share the

conclusions of the French, German

and British government that it is

implausible the Russian state wasn't

involved in some way or another.

So

Jeremy Corbyn is wrong when he says

it is either the Russian state or a

chemical weapon that got out of

control and into other people's

hands?

We don't know which

individuals caused the attack and

how the nerve agent was brought into

the country, we also don't know

which bit of the Russian state was

particularly involved, but I think

the clear evidence, the way in which

the Russian government has been

behaving since this happened really

is not the behaviour of a government

that is saying we weren't involved

and we want to help get to the

bottom of this because we take it

seriously. This morning the Russian

Embassy has been tweeting

Embassy has been tweeting pictures

of Hercule Poirot.

So are you

embarrassed by Jeremy Corbyn saying

there isn't enough evidence to link

this to the Kremlin?

This morning

John McDonnell said we should

condemn the Russian government for

the way it's behaved on this, and

that the Russian government is

responsible, and I agreed with him,

and he went further than Theresa May

by pointing the finger at Putin,

something similar to what Boris

Johnson has said, so I think there's

a recognition that even though we

don't know which individual

delivered the nerve agent there is

responsibility here in the Russian

state and I think some part of the

security service is what we expect

as well.

It was clear in the House

of Commons this week there were

senior Labour MPs like yourself

uncomfortable with Jeremy Corbyn's

position. There's also been reports

this has been seen as a watershed

moment by some moderate Labour MPs

wondering what they are doing in

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party and

revived talk of a breakaway party,

is that something you have heard

about?

I think this is a load of

rubbish. I have not heard this so I

think this is in danger of

spiralling ever outwards and we are

also in danger of making this an

issue about domestic politics at a

time when there is very serious

international issues here that we

should be focusing on and coming

together to focus on as well.

That's

why it becomes a domestic issue

because it's at times like this you

might expect the leader of

opposition to back-up the Prime

Minister, you were clearly

uncomfortable with the way he did

not do that, so it has consequences

within the Labour Party.

As I

understand it, Jeremy has said that

the evidence points to wash, that

also he supports all of the measures

and that's really important that

and that's really important that you

have unanimity about the actions

that need to be taken, and calling

for further action around the

economic sanctions. They understand

he wanted to wait for further

evidence before going further and

criticising the Russian government.

Obviously John McDonnell has

criticised the Russian government

today, but I'm not going to

criticise Jeremy for taking a

slightly different view because I

think there's been too much

temperature in this and you have

heard people being called warmongers

for condemning the Russian state,

you've also heard people being

called appeasers for asking further

questions.

questions. None of that helps. We

are not talking about military

action, we are talking about

systematic diplomatic measures,

criminal investigation measures and

I hope there can be unanimity about

what those measures should be.

Yvonne Cooper, thank you. I will

just pick up some of that with the

panel. Lucy Fisher, it was clear

listening to Yvette Cooper, and

Shami Chakrabarti, very much in the

Labour Party people who seemed to be

at odds at the beginning of the week

as saying there is nothing to see

here, is that true?

I'm not entirely

convinced, I think this has opened

up old wounds in the Labour Party,

the front bench has been strained by

this response, and while we were

talking about how some of the

questions he has asked are valid,

tonally I think the response has

upset a lot of Labour MPs, including

those who have called for the

Commons to unequivocally condemn the

Russian state.

Matt Zarb Cousin,

Labour has been

Labour has been calling for -- the

Government have been calling for

Magnitsky clauses, exactly what

Jeremy Corbyn called forth. Were you

satisfied with what you heard from

from Alan Duncan?

No, they are

watered down compared to what Jeremy

Corbyn had in the manifesto in the

last election. I think there is an

agreement among the Labour Party now

and the front bench particularly

that the Russian state is culpable

and that is shared across the house.

You are still couple books under the

chemicals weapons Convention if you

lose control of the nerve agent,

which is what happened.

Now the

Conservative government is serious

about financial powers in order to

target corrupt money? David Cameron

said one of his great regrets is

that he never introduced me

Magnitsky powers, the Government say

they will go ahead with it, is it

powers they will use in a meaningful

way?

I think they are absolutely

serious. The national security

adviser said he understands this, as

does the intelligence minister Ben

Wallace, they have already used

these new powers about freezing the

assets on unexplained wealth. A

fairly new measure which has already

been implemented in at least one

case as I understand it. I want to

come back on your comments, you say

the Labour Party is singing as one,

I don't pick that up from the

rhetoric. I felt Yvette Cooper was

extraordinarily diplomatic, but

trying to paper over serious cracks

within the Parliamentary party about

Labour's position on this. It is

clear Jeremy Corbyn doubts the

intelligence on it.

It is not the

intelligence he doubts, it is the

way the intelligence has been

interpreted by the Government, and

I'm talking about intelligence he

perhaps hasn't seen so we don't know

how much he has seen. Theresa May,

as Lucy's story showed this week,

hasn't necessarily shown the Leader

of the Opposition and chief of staff

everything. It is the same as Iraq

in a sense. It is not the

intelligence itself necessarily, it

is how the Government uses the

intelligence, and that's when it

comes back to the nerve agent being

of a type developed by Russia.

OK, talking of cracks in the Labour

Party we have another story...

On Tuesday the Labour Party

were expected to rubber

stamp their support for transgender

women to be included

on all-women short lists.

But this programme has learned that

that announcement has been delayed

so that arguments on all sides

can be heard.

The rights of the transgender

community have also become part

of a wider conversation

in Westminster after the government

backed calls to simplify the legal

process to for someone

to change their gender.

Greg Dawson reports.

This is Heather Peto.

I've always known I'm a woman,

it's when I became a teenager that

I really sort of like felt

the pressure to be who I was.

And, at the next general election,

she wants to make political history.

I'd like to be one of the first

transgender MPs in Parliament.

But that ambition has

propelled her and others

to the centre of a significant row

in the Labour Party

after she was included

on an all women's short list

as a Parliamentary candidate.

I don't think it's an issue to be

honest. I think the local party

decides and the best candidates will

get through so I don't think it is

an issue. I think it's being made an

issue by some people that are more

anti-transgender, but local people

don't seem to be worried.

Labour say they've always welcomed

self-identifying trans women

onto all women's short lists

but that policy has recently

come under attack.

Enter the self-described radical

feminists who descended

on Parliament this week

for a meeting they titled

"transgender and the war on women".

They've been described

as transphobic, a label they reject.

I can see already there

are trans-identifying

men cynically use -

what I feel - are cynically

using those positions.

You've got Heather Peto who is

the trans-inclusionary officer

of the Labour Party,

he went on to an all

women's short list.

The fact that you are referencing

Heather as 'he' against her wishes

would be insulting to her.

I could go on and on about

preferred pronouns.

Once we start using she for a man,

we are blurring the distinction.

Venice Allan is a Labour member

but those views got her suspended.

She knows what she says is offensive

to the trans community

but makes no apology for it.

I really do want to have this

conversation, like I say,

you don't have to agree with us

but you do have to listen to us.

Like the Labour Party, you know,

they're not listening.

I've tried to set up Momentum

events, Labour events, I've tried

to meet with Jeremy Corbyn

and other politicians.

Labour were supposed to formally

clarify their support for trans

women on all-women short

lists at a meeting at the

party's HQ this week.

We've been told that decision

would have triggered

the resignations of more

than 200 female members.

Then yesterday, Labour told us

that formal discussion

was delayed until June.

This is all a precursor to a much

wider political debate

going on with the Government

committing to update

the Gender Recognition Act.

As the Prime Minister has explained,

the changes would allow people

to self define their gender

without the need for

medical diagnosis.

We have set out plans to reform

the Gender Recognition Act,

streamlining and demedicalising

the process for changing gender,

because being trans is not

an illness and it shouldn't be

treated as such.

Since she made that speech

at the Pink Awards last October,

progress on those changes

to the Gender Recognition Act seems

to have slowed down.

A consultation was expected

in the autumn but nothing surfaced.

I've asked the Government what's

going on and they just say in this

very short statement that

a consultation will be published

in due course, but no date given.

And our various requests to speak

to politicians both in favour

and opposed to these changes

were all turned down, which came

as little surprise to some.

I know journalists and I know

politicians who have

questions about this,

who have doubts about it,

who don't dare express those doubts,

raise those questions,

because they are worried that

if they do they will be screamed at,

they will be accused of bigotry

and transphobia simply

for asking questions.

James Kirkup has written a number

of columns on the updates to the act

and isn't sure it's been

properly thought through.

There are questions about access

to safe spaces for women

in domestic violence refuges,

there are questions

about the collection,

collation of statistics

on crime, on pay.

Questions that should be asked,

debated, discussed and answered.

Heather Peto says the changes

are long overdue though,

and hopes she can one day speak up

for the rights of the

trans-community from the benches

of the House of Commons.

As a feminist, I would stand up

to that and say, no,

I will just be who I am.

I have the self-confidence that I'm

a woman and I always have been,

and people should just

accept me for that.

The two chip significant issues to

pick about bout the Labour Party and

the Government's consultation about

transgender rights, let me start

with you, Matt -- two significant

issues. The government is in a

terrible tangle on transgender women

on all women short lists and they've

had to put it off until June.

Self

identifying trans-woman has never

been disbarred from being on a

women's short list in the Labour

selection. The consultation was, as

I understand it, coming up with a

form of words...

Clarifying the

position that trans-women are

elaborate rules to be on all women

short lists, it has caused such

around the party with two prominent

members threatening to resign if

that warning is put in, that the

party has been bucking the decision

and kicking it into the long grass.

The conversations I have had with

the leader's of this suggest that is

not the case, they are still

consulting on it and exactly what

the form of words will be there is

no actual plan as far as I'm aware

to stop trans-women self identifying

and being on a women's short list.

Can I ask how many trans-women are

applying to be on all women short

lists?

I'm not sure.

I suspect it is

zero.

Heather Peto is one of them in

the film, there may be several.

There may be but I suspect it is

less than the number of women on

this.

Not from any disparaging how

difficult it must be to be in that

situation. There would be a simple

way of resolving the switch would be

not to have all women short lists

and select the best candidates for

the job.

It is also about whether

Labour MPs have access to the

leadership programme, whether they

can stand as women's officers in

local parties. What Labour did is

they jumped the gun by saying it is

fine, or self identifying

trans-women can have access to these

full rights. I think it is quite

welcome to have a consultation.

Politics is the art of persuasion

and there was no real attempt by the

Labour leadership to bring the

party, bring some of the feminist...

There are radical feminists in the

party who will take more than a bit

of gentle persuasion to get

accustomed to the idea that people

who were born men should be on an

all women short list.

That's right

but as we saw in the VT they are

asking for an opportunity to be

heard and the debate to be had so it

is quite welcome there will be a

consultation.

It's not just the

Labour Party that seems to have

kicked on this issue of it, we don't

know what happened to the

Government's consultation on making

it easier to self identify as a man

or woman. That's going to be a

difficult one for the government.

Remember the culture wars within the

toy party that David Cameron fought

over gay marriage.

Absolutely and

this is even much more complicated

and a sensitive issue. It is so easy

and I've been guilty of it myself to

get the language are wrong on this,

to upset people, and I can only

imagine the Prime Minister's qualms

about opening this can of worms

within her own party, where there

will be people who are incredibly

off message about it. It seems they

are pushing agendas are long grass

and there are bigger issues to worry

about.

You are talking about 2000 or

3000 people in a party of 650,000.

It is a rounding error.

In the

Labour Party, you're talking about?

It is not splitting the party, it is

a small minority of women who don't

believe in trans-rights, that's it.

Interesting to hear Theresa May

talking about the Government's

consultation. That was a clear

statement she made at the pink news

conference saying she wanted to

streamline this and trans-wasn't a

mental health issue, she made a

strong commitment to trans-rights

and she didn't have to do that.

She

didn't at all and it was fascinating

she went as far as that. It is not

unprecedented. Ireland, Argentina,

Colombia and Malta have changed

their processes to deep apologise it

so it is merely a legal process and

that is what the government is

getting at. My understanding is for

a person to legally change their

gender they have to live as their

desired gender for two years and

they have to have psychiatric

evaluations and medical opinions

from two doctors and tests that some

have claimed are incredibly

traumatising. It can be made legal

process from precedents aboard.

We

will carry on talking to you

throughout the programme.

It's coming up to 11:40am,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Still to come -

There is a big row brewing

in the Brexit Select Committee

and I'll be talking to its Chairman

- Hilary Benn.

First though, it's time for

the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to

the London part of the show.

I'm Jo Coburn.

I'm joined for the duration

by Vicky Foxcroft, Labour MP

for Lewisham Deptford

and Mark Field, the Conservative MP

for the Cities of London

and Westminster, who is also

a minister in the Foreign Office.

Welcome to both of you.

Good

morning.

Now I want to start with a subject

in which both our guests take

a particular interest as members

of the Youth Violence Commission,

the problem of knife crime.

On Wednesday at Prime

Minister's Question Time,

Vicky raised the issue

of access to knives.

Youth violence is complex and needs

long-term solutions.

But some things can be

done right now such as

legislating to ensure that

all knives and sharp instruments in

shops are locked away,

or stored behind counters,

ensuring that no one can steal them

and use them.

Will she do this?

SPEAKER:

Prime Minister.

The Honourable Lady has raised

an important issue and, as

she says, this is a complex problem

and we need to ensure we have

long-term solutions for it.

My Right Honourable friend,

the Home Secretary, will shortly be

publishing a new Serious Violence

Strategy which will put an emphasis

on interventions early

with young people.

But it's important we have tough

legislation on knives.

But we also do need

to work in partnership

with retailers.

We have recently consulted

on new measures including

restrictions on knives sold online,

and in March 2016 when I was Home

Secretary we reached

a voluntary agreement

with major retailers

about

how knives were displayed and

the training given to sales staff to

support action to

tackle knife crime.

But the Honourable Lady is right

to raise this as an area of concern.

You raised this at PMQs. How will

simply changing where knives are

kept, removing them from shop

floors, deal with the issue of knife

crime in London?

I think that's

absolutely right, I raised one issue

but actually in terms of the work we

have been working on in terms of the

cross-party Youth Violence

Commission it is very much taking a

root and branch look at everything

and really a long-term view of

stuff, so any strategy needs to be a

long-term strategy that looks at the

trauma that young people are facing.

Have you got any figures around how

many knives are taken or stolen from

shop floors to indicate this is a

problem that needs addressing?

This

is one of the things that we did try

and go and gather, those figures,

but those figures are not recorded,

you can either get the figures for

the number of things that have been

shoplifted, or the figures for the

number of knife crime incidents.

None of that is entirely reliable.

Can I pay credit to Vicky, she has

been the leading light in this

forum, not least the commission's

work, I was part of two or years ago

before I became a minister and I can

do less work on it now. This is a

classic area where parliamentarians

can work together on a cross-party

basis, we are trying to get evidence

together and one of the things we

have discovered is it is difficult

to get evidence about the issues of

knife crime in the numerical terms

but the other thing is the gang

culture to which we refer is

changing fast, more and more young

people get involved in gangs, the

sense that the mechanics in the way

gangs operate is changing, a lot of

it has tended to be with postcodes

within particular states. That is

changing and we are finding in

Westminster in the centre of London

Berra links between gangs and groups

in Suffolk, what one might call the

free Suffolk Ipswich and place like

that, where a lot of the drugs trade

goes on. This is where the work

being done by this commission is

going to be invaluable feeding into

the Home Office in order to get some

laws that will work for the future

but also being flexible.

Are you in

favour of legislating? Are you in

favour of this suggestion of

ensuring that knives are not left

out on the shop floor, or do you not

think this is a key part of the

proposal to try and bring down knife

crime?

To be honest, I think there

is now almost an epidemic of knife

crime in London in particular, and

not that we need to do something for

something's sake but the

availability of knives is pretty

horrific and to try and do something

along the lines Vicky has pointed

out would be a sensible first step.

How bad is it in Lewisham?

It is

pretty bad, it's the whole reason I

started talking about this issue

because very quickly after I was

first elected as an MP two young

people were murdered, now it is

seven young people, but it's the

impact it has on the whole

community. Every time I go into a

school children know somebody else

who has been murdered. This is the

reason why in terms of the work of

the commission, and the reason why

it is really important that it is

cross-party, is we can't keep having

strategies that are just four years.

Winnie to have long-term strategies

that are ten or 20 years and if you

look at Scotland in terms of the

violence reduction unit and public

health model approach they have

adopted that could be something that

we could learn from nationally. --

we need to have. That involves

having long-term strategies that

really do get to the cause in terms

of young people and their life

experiences.

It's something we

talked about on this programme,

emulating some of the work done in

Scotland. In terms of some of the

voluntary agreements that have been

put in place by the government,

Theresa May mentioned with

retailers, voluntary agreements

aren't enough, they? There must be

something tougher.

Voluntary

agreements can work and particularly

as we said, in areas where there

have been deaths, not least pressure

brought by local residents who have

said we expect the voluntary

agreement to hold fire. Probably

having... I don't want to jump in

before the commission reports, part

of the idea is to have a really good

evidence -based...

When is it due to

report?

Over the summer.

It has been

the last two or three years, we are

getting evidence together and we

hope we will be able to act on it.

We will follow it then.

Nine months on from the fire

at Grenfell Tower, only 62

of the 209 households in need

of housing have moved

into permanent homes.

And now it seems the local economy

is also facing a serious downturn.

City Hall this week announced

further funding to support local

businesses, on top of support

from the council.

But will it be enough

for the already deprived

area to make a recovery?

Tanjil Rashid reports,

and I should warn you that there

are some disturbing descriptions

in the film.

It's quiet in the vicinity

of Grenfell Tower.

Some of the shops are shuttered,

others are for sale.

People seem to be keeping away.

After the fire last summer,

there was a flurry of interest

in housing issues locally but one

thing that some say has been

overlooked is the perspective

of local businesses.

Many of them, according

to the Portobello Business Centre,

are now on the brink of closure

following a downturn of up to 70%

in some cases.

And adding to their

difficulties, they say

it is now proving virtually

impossible to recruit staff to work

here so close to Grenfell Tower.

Narain Jagatiani has been fixing

cars right by Grenfell Tower

for more than 30 years.

There was a flame of nearly

40, 50, 60 feet high.

There was a smell, you know.

The smell of bodies

and the smell of plastic.

But the business has struggled

on in the face of the losses,

not just the lives of his

neighbours but also customers

who have been keeping away.

We lost, in the takings,

£57,000 in the fire,

in 12 weeks to 15 weeks.

You've got to look at it

from a different angle.

You've got to look at it how you're

going to go forward.

This is something that's behind,

and you've got to look forward.

You can't dwell on the thing and say

it's not going to work.

As of this week, City Hall

is providing a fund of more

than £100,000 to support local

businesses, on top of

further grants and rates

relief from the council.

We've put together a package of over

half a million pounds in order

to give them - to support them

and to get them back on their feet.

Any council tenant who's

obviously been effected,

a lot of those in proximity

to the fire, we gave them rent-free

for the first eight months

of the year

with a transitional rent-free going

on until September and the cost

of that is about £200,000.

We've also given them rates relief

but importantly we are trying

to give them support in their local

area because clearly the local

area has been affected

by a large decant of people.

It really isn't good enough,

and in the same way as the council

hasn't got to terms with its housing

needs of the area,

they haven't come to terms

with the business needs either.

I would say it's been slow

and it's been grudging.

Yes, they did give rates

relief for businesses

but in the immediate area,

and I'm talking about the impact

on a wider area, I see

vacancies and empty offices,

empty shops, empty business premises

so you only need to look around

the area to see the impact

that it's had.

The council say they do

have an additional fund of £80,000

precisely to support businesses

affected in a wider area.

For Shaun Bailey, a London Assembly

member who grew up around here,

local businesses provide vital

opportunities to young people.

I've worked up and down

the Portobello Road.

I used to work in a fantastic

comic shop over there

for years, it was great fun.

But the real thing about local

business is how much work it brings

here and how much vibrancy it brings

to the area.

The suppression of business

after the Grenfell disaster

is definitely a challenge for local

businesses, but one

of the real ongoing challenges

is the advent of change.

of the real ongoing challenges

is the advent of chains.

If you run a small coffee shop

around here, you now have to keep

compete with Cafe Nero

and Starbucks.

The regeneration needs

of the community are massive

and how local business can help

is by making sure it isn't

an excuse for gentrification.

People here want local businesses

and housing as well that

reflect their needs,

not the needs of a community that's

remote to this place.

The challenge of regenerating north

Kensington following the Grenfell

tragedy will have to contend

with forces larger and longer

lasting than the fire itself.

It is clear the impact of the fire

will be felt for a very long time,

but looking at businesses in the

area, because there has been a focus

on housing, how is it important to

you to keep businesses from closing,

and some say they are on the brink

of closure.

I think it is critical,

and a bit unfair to say it has been

grudging, the actions of Kensington

and Chelsea. I accept this is a huge

task for any local authority. Where

I think Shaun Bailey got it right in

his comments is the worst thing

would be for this to be used as an

excuse for further gentrification.

There's a broader issue about small

business rates that we have seen

within London as a whole...

But

should there be special exemptions

given on a continuing basis?

One of

the difficulties is you do want to

get back to some sort of normalcy

before too long so I don't beg you

want to have essentially businesses

that will be unviable being kept

going year upon year.

But would you

like a bit of an extension?

Yes, we

all realise that the comedy and

magnitude of what happened at

Grenfell Tower, and many times your

viewers travel up and down the A40

and see the tower still there, a lot

of work needs to be done. But there

has been progress, on small business

rates. I have campaigned in places

like Westminster where we now have

257 businesses...

257 businesses... The city of

Westminster is literally half a mile

away from the boundary.

We heard

testimony about how important local

business is because it will help

with the regeneration and provides

jobs. Is there more City Hall and

the mayor Sadiq Khan could be doing

specifically to help local

businesses?

I think one of the

things that needs to happen is

people need to be having the

conversations with the local

businesses to find out what it is

may need to be able to survive. I

was talking to somebody who said

they didn't really feel those

conversations and dialogue had taken

place. Sometimes in terms of

politics, politicians can put the

finger in the air about what should

happen but having conversations with

local businesses...

Shouldn't they

be more proactive at City Hall then?

People are asking for further

exemptions and extensions on things

like rates coming back now to the

area and more money so what more

needs to be said? Why doesn't City

Hall react?

City Hall have already

given a lot of support, I'm not

saying it's necessarily enough but

it is not one of the poorest

councils. They need to be investing

more in terms of supporting local

businesses.

What about that compared

to housing, because the focus has

been on housing, rightly so, and a

lot of people are still not in

permanent accommodation. Do you see

that as the priority?

Of course

day-to-day it is a priority but you

need to develop a community and you

are not going to get a community

that is restored and proud for the

future unless you get business

right. £300 million has been given

in small business rates relief. In

Kensington and Chelsea will be a

similar amount of money. I would say

to everyone living nearby, please

use your local businesses, go to the

local cafe, go to the local

newsagents instead of Tesco or

Waitrose to buy your paper on a

Sunday morning. Use the local

services as far as you can because

otherwise they will die off.

How

would you stimulate the local

economy?

When you were talking about

housing, there is concern over the

inaccuracy of the figures, this week

Sajid Javid said there are only 25

houses, they haven't been placed in

housing, and the figure you show --

quoted earlier is entirely different

so we need to be transparent and

make sure the people are rehoused as

soon as possible and in housing they

are happy with as well.

Those

figures, fewer than half have been

rehoused in permanent accommodation,

it's not good enough, is it?

I think

Vicky touched on something that a

lot of people are holding back, in

temporary accommodation and want to

return to the flat they were before,

but your point is right, that you

alluded to the least, that actually

not that we ignore the housing but

let's get the community working

again and not just have the focus

only on the housing, let's get small

business is thriving in that area

again.

Time to move on.

A damning report into Harmondsworth

detention centre, which holds

migrants deemed to be in the country

illegally, has highlighted

serious concerns over

the treatment of its residents,

with evidence of prolonged

detentions and poor management.

Jerry Thomas has more.

Harmondsworth Immigration

Removal Centre, the largest

of its kind in Europe.

This week a report by Her Majesty's

Inspectorate of Prisons

into the privately-run centre has

prompted concern to the wellbeing

of its estimated 555 male detainees.

A series of damning observations

include filthy prison-like

conditions, some detainees held

for excessively long periods,

23 men had been detained for over

a year, and one man had been held

for over four and a half years.

Inadequate safeguarding

of detainees, and excessive use

of handcuffing, especially

for outside appointments.

I think the report on Harmondsworth

was shameful, it revealed

shameful conditions.

People held for years and years,

over four and a half years in one

case, very poor medical

conditions, rat infested.

Those conditions are a disgrace.

These conditions reveal

that we have a broken

immigration detention system.

A Home Office spokesperson said...

I'm joined by Martha Spurrier,

Director of the Human Rights

campaign group Liberty.

Welcome to the programme. Would you

like to see a time limit on the

length of detention?

Yes, we are

urging the Government to put a 28

day time limit under tension.

Currently the UK is the only country

in Europe that doesn't put a time

limit on detention. The Government

is detaining tens of thousands of

people every year, that includes

survivors of trafficking, torture

and rape, asylum seekers, and the

brutality of the detention estate is

extraordinary.

What time limit is

the average in other European

countries?

It ranges from 28 days up

to about a year but having a

definite -- indefinite detention

makes us an outlier?

Would you

support that?

Often the whole thing

can jog on, and I think would not be

acceptable is to have a short

maximum period and then people being

allowed to leave and probably going

to ground.

But what about a specific

time limit that was somewhere

between, let's say six months?

I

agree with that. The Home Office

have omitted a lot of it makes

uncomfortable reading, they will

have to have a look, and I'm not in

anyway disagreeing with some of the

dangerous conclusions that have come

up in this report. However it

strikes me that we have a system

that allows indeterminate delays. We

want a quick, fair and just system

but we need to get people

essentially having a determination

of their position at the earliest

possible opportunity, not allowing

the thing to drag on with constant

appeals and this is of course why

you have this dreadful situation of

one man being in there for four and

a half years. Presumably that's an

ongoing legal process which is not

good for him nor the rest of us, who

want to have a system we can be

proud of and feel is fair and just

but we need to get it sorted out.

Martha, is it practical to put a

time

time limit on it at the moment,

while the legal system is such that

asylum seekers or people claiming

asylum can appeal decisions and that

means they are held in these

detention centres for possibly

months, even years?

It is absolutely

practical to have a time limit, as

we can see in other countries in

Europe. The majority of people who

go into detention are released into

the community and don't go

underground. 95% of migrants in the

community report to immigration

officers so they are kept track of.

There is this bogeyman idea of a

flood of people who will go

underground, it just isn't a reality

and the human cost of detention is

so great, and the fact we have no

time limit means the Home Office

allows these cases to drag on and

people's lives are destroyed.

But

you do accept these detention

centres are there because people

have been overstaying their welcome

or they are here illegally and need

to be detained?

This isn't about

whether people

whether people should be here or be

deported...

That is part of the

immigration system, isn't it?

It is

different from the question of

whether they should be detained.

Let's have a fair and just system to

remove them, or if they can stay let

them have their due process but

infringing their rights to liberty,

destroying physical and mental

health in the process is not

necessary, effective or just.

What

does Labour want to see happen to

detention centres?

I think detention

centres in the way that they are at

the moment, saying they are worse

than prisons, people should not be

detained in such an inhumane way.

So

what would you do to these people?

We wouldn't have indefinite

detention, we would have a time

limit on that. We think it is

extremely important, and terms of

the problems with the legal system

we need to speed it up and get it

right.

But would you would still

keep these detention centres and

hold people in this way?

As much as

possible we wouldn't be putting

people in detention centres, you

need to deal the immigration system

in a tighter and quicker fashion.

We

have discussed the legal

difficulties but is it really right

morally to hold people in the sort

of rat infested conditions that have

been described? Vicky says it is

worse than prison. Is it defendable?

Harmondsworth is clearly an

exception, but the reality is we

have hundreds of thousands of people

who have gone to ground, many of

whom are playing a full role in the

community but actually cannot work

other than on the black economy

because they are unofficial

individuals, then every so often the

demand comes up, we must have an

amnesty for the hundreds of

thousands who have overstayed. If

you don't have a fair system, it's

not right for those who come here

legally and do play the system by

the rules if you are allowing others

to stay on an unfair basis and part

of the difficulty is you have a

legal system that allows this whole

thing to drag on.

Martha, pick up on

the point about the fact there would

be many people who would go

underground

underground or who are already

underground and difficult to detect.

It is just not the evidence of

what's happening now. You describe

the idea of Harmondsworth being an

exception, that's not the case.

There was a panorama programme about

this, about denial of medical

treatment and unlawful use of

restraints, it is rife in the

centres. The consensus is building

that time limit is the humane and

civilised thing to do. We've had

faith leaders, doctors and

lawyers...

We need to do this in

tandem with a time limit on the

legal process as well.

This is now

the consensus.

We will have to leave

it there, back to Sarah.

it there, back to Sarah. Welcome

back.

A row has erupted in the influential

Brexit Select Committee of MPs.

The majority of pro-Remain MPs

on the committee, led

by the Labour Chairman Hilary Benn,

have backed a report saying

that the Article 50 process may

need to be extended,

so that Brexit would happen

later than March 2019.

But that infuriated the minority

of pro-Brexit MPs on the committee,

who have published their own report,

which says that delaying

Brexit would not respect

the referendum result.

One of those pro-Brexit MPs

on the committee, Jacob Rees-Mogg,

said: "The majority report

is the prospectus

for the vassal state.

It is a future not worthy of us

as a country, and I am sure that

Theresa May will rightly reject

a report by the high

priests of Remain."

The majority report is an attempt

to keep us in the EU

by sleight of hand."

The Committee Chairman is Labour MP

Hilary Benn and he joins me now.

Have you been called a high priest

before?

Many things but never a high

priest. He says you are trying to

delay Brexit possibly indefinitely

because you are a passionate

Remainer. That's not the case, not

about undermining the referendum

result, is about the problem we

face, there are seven months to go

until the Article 50 negotiations

are due to end. There is a whole

host of issues that have not yet

been addressed. We haven't started

negotiating our future economic

relationship, what will happen to

trade, services, 80% of the British

economy's services, how will we work

together on defence, foreign policy

and security, really important in

the wake of the Salisbury attack,

cooperating on aviation safety, food

safety, medicines, research, and the

question of how to keep an open

border between Northern Ireland and

the Republic.

Aren't you setting up

false deadline by saying this must

be set out by October?

We didn't set

the deadline, Michel Barnier said

the deadline of the sort of the

negotiating process because he

pointed out when the deal is agreed

it must be ratified by the European

-- European Council. If there are a

whole load of things that have not

yet been negotiated the government

could ask for an extension to the

Article 50 process and one of the

things that we say is when David

Davis came to give evidence to us,

he said we don't want to be

negotiating really important issues

in the transition period because the

balance of power changes. What we

are seeing is the best way to get

the best deal for the British people

is to do so when you have the

maximum negotiating clout and that

is during the Article 50 period.

Without a hard deadline of the two

years since triggering Article 50,

the EU could just delay and delay

and delay this to the point that it

is a never-ending process that sees

as not leaving the EU.

The body

wants a never-ending process.

Might

be some in the EU who wouldn't mind,

they would prefer it to a full

Brexit.

They might but the

referendum decision has been made.

We have seen another example this

week, Chris Grayling, the Transport

Secretary, said we would not be able

to put checks on goods coming in to

Dover. Knows that the customs

relations are not ready so these are

serious issues that face the

country. Or the businesses I speak

to so we understand how it works

today and can you tell us how it

will work tomorrow when we have left

and the answer is we don't know

because we haven't negotiated it. It

is about taking a sufficient time to

get a decent deal. Everybody knows

that the detailed negotiation is

going to take place during the

transition period because you are

not going to sort all of this out

between now and October. Would you

need to impose another hard deadline

in order to keep minds focused.

Not

allow the balance of power to shift

to those in the EU who could delay

and delay if this is an open-ended

process?

You certainly could do that

and this would only happen if the

government were to ask for it. It

would be the agreement of all of the

other EU 27. Of all of the other

member states. But it is about

having flexibility, remember the row

when the government put a hard

deadline of 11 o'clock on the 29th

of March? Lots of people including

Conservative said this is not

sensible. When you are engaged in a