18/03/2018 Sunday Politics Wales

Morning, everyone, and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

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.

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?

Also coming up:

The ups and downs of two years as

Welsh secretary, and market in your

diaries. Another devolution landmark

on the way.

to make sense of all the big

stories:

Matt Zarb-Cousin, Isabel Oakeshott

and

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

in the Presidential elections.

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.

President Putin.

Is Russia behind the poisoning

of Sergei Skripal?

This week the finger of blame

for the Salisbury attack was

pointed firmly in one direction.

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

So to pick up some of that news

Lucy, later this week the National

Security Council will meet to talk

about what further action the UK

Government Meite, they briefed the

about what further action the UK

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

dubious Russian businessmen and

their allies wanting to travel to

the UK, there is talk on pulling the

the UK, there is talk on pulling the

plug on RTE, the Kremlin backed

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

could take is on the wealth, the

around the UK invested here by

Russian oligarchs are linked to the

Kremlin.

Boss of people from Russian

politician stomach opposition

Kremlin.

Boss of people from Russian

politicians who think would be the

most effective route. That's what

Labour are calling for and

most effective route. That's what

action the government will go in.

These are quite short-term measures.

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

a much wider, long-term problem.

circles talk about is a more

asymmetrical response,

circles talk about is a more

than in addition to the measures

Lucy has articulated, you need to

than in addition to the measures

look at the whole suite of things in

terms of the disinformation campaign

that Russia puts out, we need to

that Russia puts out, we need to

look at where we can niggle

that Russia puts out, we need to

by supporting Ukraine a bit,

supporting states like Azerbaijan

and a much more hybrid response, I

think.

Matt Zarb-Cousin

and a much more hybrid response, I

has been a lot of discussion

and a much more hybrid response, I

Jeremy Corbyn's response to this

this week. I'm interested, you know

him well, give us an insight

this week. I'm interested, you know

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

Russian state was responsible. Why

don't support the conclusion?

I

think the Russian

don't support the conclusion?

I

and the Labour Party recognises

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

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

is culpable, and then once they have

the evidence for that then obviously

build that international coalition

where we can actually take

where we can actually take

meaningful action, not these

meaningful action, not these

tokenistic measures. Even closing

meaningful action, not these

down Russia's Russia Today emboldens

Putin, look at the West, they can

censor, he will say. What we really

Putin, look at the West, they can

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

who have been allowed to settle here

they have been affected by Putin. If

they are then affected by

they have been affected by Putin. If

we say you have to leave, then that

is a very powerful coalition you

we say you have to leave, then that

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

responsible.

No, neither is the

actions until they were proved.

It

would be naive, it would

actions until they were proved.

It

difficult to build an international

coalition. Even the statement that

Germany France and the US

coalition. Even the statement that

the joint statement, said the nerve

the joint statement, said the nerve

agent was of a type developed by

the joint statement, said the nerve

Russia, not that it was developed by

Russia. It looks increasingly likely

Russia, not that it was developed by

that that nerve agent came

Russia, not that it was developed by

Russia and Russia have lost control

of it, or have used it maliciously,

Russia and Russia have lost control

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

very difficult to take action until

very difficult to take action until

we do.

There is a kind of false

dichotomy here in

we do.

There is a kind of false

somehow elements of Russian Mafia

might be responsible. Welcome

somehow elements of Russian Mafia

potentially they could be, but the

somehow elements of Russian Mafia

idea that the Russian Mafia

some way completely distinct from

idea that the Russian Mafia

some way completely distinct from

the Kremlin is a misunderstanding.

some way completely distinct from

In a sense, the Russian Mafia is in

extra typically linked to

In a sense, the Russian Mafia is in

Kremlin. They are a sort of

Kremlin. They are a sort of

paramilitary wing of the Kremlin so

it is a false dichotomy.

Lucy,

it is a false dichotomy.

Lucy,

Jeremy Corbyn has taken a lot

it is a false dichotomy.

Lucy,

flak for his response this week.

it is a false dichotomy.

Lucy,

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?

convinced this is state directed?

Early in the week we saw some level

of prevarication by Paris, Berlin

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

statement put out by those allies

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

equivocal as perhaps

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

Some of the

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

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

the intelligence and exactly what is

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

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

know exactly how much Jeremy Corbyn

be that the government... Boris

Johnson and the Defence Secretary

Gavin Williamson have gone much

Gavin Williamson have gone much

further and said... Boris Johnson

said it is Putin.

Overwhelmingly

likely.

Williamson said they should

said it is Putin.

Overwhelmingly

shut up and go away, or whatever he

said. That suggests to me they are

either going off message or they

either going off message or they

have seen more evidence that perhaps

either going off message or they

Corbyn has not seen.

These are

either going off message or they

questions we will explore throughout

the show and if you stay with

questions we will explore throughout

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

We actually have evidence within the

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

Petersburg. Is there a second phase

to be reintroduced in order to take

Petersburg. Is there a second phase

this further?

We have lots of

options. But this isn't just about

counting heads. This is really about

options. But this isn't just about

making clear to the world

options. But this isn't just about

of the great achievements of the

world since the Second World

of the great achievements of the

which is a convention to ban

which is a convention to ban

chemical weapons, has been

which is a convention to ban

And it is clearly traceable back to

a military grade nerve agent of

Russian origin. We said

a military grade nerve agent of

Russians either you did it directly

or you have lost control of this,

Russians either you did it directly

tell us which. They basically just

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

done this, and so the response that

proportionate. Yes, they

done this, and so the response that

responded back. But what

done this, and so the response that

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 that we actually corral the whole

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

enormous damage to the world in any

country this happens to happen in,

country this happens to happen in,

in this case the UK, and that

country this happens to happen in,

what we will do.

You are calling for

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

clear response we have had from a

Balkans over the weekend with

Balkans over the weekend with

countries like Macedonia and Kosovo,

and they were very, very clear in

countries like Macedonia and Kosovo,

their condemnation of this, because

they themselves are countries which

suffer from wider Russian

interference. But we have the EU

foreign ministers meeting tomorrow,

interference. But we have the EU

they will be a Prime Minister level

March European Council on Friday, we

have already had an open discussion

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

representative cut a very, very

Russian violation of the Chemical

Weapons Convention and we will

cooperate with the Organisation for

the Prohibition of Chemical

cooperate with the Organisation for

to prove even further what we

cooperate with the Organisation for

to be the case.

When it comes to

international action, a former UK

to be the case.

When it comes to

ambassador to Russia, agrees with

to be the case.

When it comes to

you that we need to take action

along with others and says the

sanctions imposed by the EU after

Crimea 2014 surprise

sanctions imposed by the EU after

continue to have an impact because

they were EU wide, but went on to

continue to have an impact because

say Brexit has made Britain's task

harder in appealing for EU

say Brexit has made Britain's task

solidarity this week and the kind of

international action you are looking

solidarity this week and the kind of

for.

I think that is total nonsense,

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

collaboratively and we're

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

will include in that what I hope

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

Salisbury incident, has always been

House of Commons today,

Salisbury incident, has always been

something in a committee during

passage of the bill.

Labour tried to

introduce an amendment to that

passage of the bill.

Labour tried to

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

amendment it wasn't consistent with

-- you were a minister. We have an

amendment it wasn't consistent with

understanding that we hope will be a

cross-party

understanding that we hope will be a

a clear message to the world that

understanding that we hope will be a

the House of Commons, along with

countries who have done it already,

will be aligned with the Magnitsky

proposal, which campaigners

The Magnitsky powers would allow you

to take actions against individuals

guilty of gross human rights

to take actions against individuals

violations. That doesn't allow you

to attack the money of Putin allies

to attack the money of Putin allies

unless you can find them guilty of

to attack the money of Putin allies

gross human rights violations so it

to attack the money of Putin allies

wouldn't really allow you

to attack the money of Putin allies

to this attack, would it?

Again, I'm

afraid you're totally wrong and

don't understand the wording of

afraid you're totally wrong and

bill because it is not only

afraid you're totally wrong and

human rights violations in the bill.

afraid you're totally wrong and

There are many purposes included

afraid you're totally wrong and

the list of things you can do under

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

what you have just described.

But

already on going after things like

this, like unexplained wealth

orders, have been used only once

this, like unexplained wealth

since they were introduced. There

haven't been much evidence the

Government was serious

haven't been much evidence the

corrupt money brought in through

London.

That's

corrupt money brought in through

legislation has only recently come

in and of course it's not

legislation has only recently come

politicians who

legislation has only recently come

decisions. There's a distinction

between the liberal democracy in

which we live, where judges on

between the liberal democracy in

law take their course from

law take their course from

politicians. And what we think is

law take their course from

happening in Russia, which is not a

law take their course from

real democracy, we are looking at a

pretty odd election taking place

pretty odd election taking place

today where Vladimir Putin

pretty odd election taking place

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,

have a violation of the ideological,

the sort of principled convention

that has been built up over many

decades, violated in our

that has been built up over many

country, which is why I think many

country, which is why I think many

young people are disappointed with

his response.

Ben Wallace,

young people are disappointed with

security minister,

young people are disappointed with

allowed nasty individuals to come to

the City of London and launder

allowed nasty individuals to come to

illicit money. That sounds like an

allowed nasty individuals to come to

admission that until now

allowed nasty individuals to come to

Government hasn't been doing

allowed nasty individuals to come to

to tackle corrupt money in London.

I

allowed nasty individuals to come to

think we are amassing the powers to

tackle exactly the kind of issue he

has identified, and indeed Ben

Wallace is the security

has identified, and indeed Ben

has been supporting this, pressing

has been supporting this, pressing

for it and administering it from the

Home Office point of view. We

for it and administering it from the

to make a proper distinction though

to make a proper distinction though

without compromising

to make a proper distinction though

between those who are guilty and

to make a proper distinction though

those who are not. Not every

oligarch is guilty and not every

rich Russian is necessarily a crony

of Putin and someone who

rich Russian is necessarily a crony

subject to sanctions so we need to

approach this without compromising

our values. But there is something

our values. But there is something

much more important than this, what

really matters is the world needs to

much more important than this, what

realise that if we allow chemical

weapons to slip into use any more

that's happened now, we will live in

weapons to slip into use any more

a much more dangerous world and one

weapons to slip into use any more

which is tearing up the rule

weapons to slip into use any more

throwing away the chemical weapons

Convention which has been in place

for so many decades, indeed it

Convention which has been in place

one of the

Convention which has been in place

achievements of the post war world

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

to the robust in pointing the finger

by the use of chemical weapons is

by the use of chemical weapons is

simply not acceptable.

Thank you for

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

Secretary to investigate 14 other

had Russian involvement, do you have

much evidence for that?

My concern

is that any area where there are

much evidence for that?

My concern

allegations that there may have been

either Russian involvement or

suspicious circumstances that may

either Russian involvement or

need to be investigated should be,

either Russian involvement or

because I think we have to

either Russian involvement or

full facts. There was a BuzzFeed

investigation that made allegations

about 14 cases, there are other

investigation that made allegations

concerns raised about others.

investigation that made allegations

not for me to judge the individual

circumstances, my concern is these

cases, where there have been

circumstances, my concern is these

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

circumstances, they should now be

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

2012, Surrey police says they will

able to cover new evidence?

I assume

able to cover new evidence?

I assume

the Home Office will assure there is

able to cover new evidence?

I assume

a review of all of these cases. The

Home Office Secretary will want to

a review of all of these cases. The

satisfy herself that every corner

has been looked into and

satisfy herself that every corner

been done properly and we get to the

satisfy herself that every corner

bottom of this. I do accept the

priority for them at

bottom of this. I do accept the

be this current investigation and

bottom of this. I do accept the

the current circumstances in

Salisbury and where those

investigations lead, but they will

need I think to follow up by

investigations lead, but they will

at these other cases as well.

So you

have any doubt that

at these other cases as well.

So you

Salisbury was directed by the

Russian state?

I share the

conclusions

Russian state?

I share the

and British government that it is

implausible the Russian state wasn't

and British government that it is

Jeremy Corbyn is wrong when he says

it is either the Russian state or a

chemical weapon that got

it is either the Russian state or a

control and into other people's

it is either the Russian state or a

hands?

We don't

it is either the Russian state or a

individuals caused the attack and

how the nerve agent was

individuals caused the attack and

the country, we also don't know

the country, we also don't know

which bit of the Russian state was

particularly involved, but I

which bit of the Russian state was

the clear evidence, the way in which

the Russian government has been

behaving since this happened really

is not the behaviour of a government

behaving since this happened really

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

this to the Kremlin?

This morning

John McDonnell said we should

condemn the Russian government for

the way it's behaved on this, and

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

responsible, and I agreed with him,

by pointing the finger at Putin,

something similar to what Boris

something similar to what Boris

Johnson has said, so I think there's

a recognition that even though

Johnson has said, so I think there's

don't know which individual

Johnson has said, so I think there's

delivered the nerve agent there is

responsibility here in the Russian

delivered the nerve agent there is

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

uncomfortable with Jeremy Corbyn's

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

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

also in danger of making this an

time when there is very

also in danger of making this an

international issues here that we

international issues here that we

should be focusing on and coming

together to focus on as well.

That's

should be focusing on and coming

why it becomes a domestic issue

why it becomes a domestic issue

because it's at times like this you

might expect the leader of

because it's at times like this you

opposition to back-up the Prime

Minister, you were clearly

uncomfortable with the way

Minister, you were clearly

not do that, so it has consequences

Minister, you were clearly

within the Labour Party.

As I

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

the evidence points to wash, that

and that's really

and that's really important that you

have unanimity about the actions

that need

have unanimity about the actions

for further action around the

economic sanctions. They understand

for further action around the

he wanted to wait for further

evidence before going further and

criticising the Russian government.

Obviously John McDonnell has

criticising the Russian government.

criticised the Russian government

today, but I'm not going to

criticise Jeremy for taking

today, but I'm not going to

slightly different view

today, but I'm not going to

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

are not talking about military

I hope there can be unanimity about

what

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

Shami Chakrabarti, very much in the

at odds at the beginning of the week

at odds at the beginning of the week

as saying there is nothing to see

here, is that true?

I'm not entirely

as saying there is nothing to see

convinced, I think this has opened

as saying there is nothing to see

up old wounds in the Labour Party,

the front bench has been strained by

this response, and while we were

the front bench has been strained by

talking about how some of

the front bench has been strained by

questions he has asked are valid,

tonally I think the response has

questions he has asked are valid,

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

Government have been calling for

Jeremy Corbyn called forth. Were you

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

watered down compared to what Jeremy

last election. I think there is an

agreement among the Labour Party now

last election. I think there is an

and the front bench particularly

last election. I think there is an

that the Russian state is culpable

last election. I think there is an

and that is shared across the house.

You are still couple books under the

chemicals weapons Convention if

You are still couple books under the

lose control of the nerve agent,

which is what

lose control of the nerve agent,

Conservative government is serious

lose control of the nerve agent,

about financial powers in order to

lose control of the nerve agent,

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

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

case as I understand it. I want to

the Labour Party is singing as one,

I don't pick that

the Labour Party is singing as one,

rhetoric. I felt Yvette Cooper was

extraordinarily diplomatic, but

rhetoric. I felt Yvette Cooper was

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

intelligence on it.

It is not the

way the intelligence has been

interpreted by

way the intelligence has been

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

as Lucy's story showed this week,

of the Opposition and chief of staff

everything. It is the same as Iraq

in a sense. It is not the

everything. It is the same as Iraq

intelligence itself necessarily, it

everything. It is the same as Iraq

is how the Government uses the

intelligence, and that's when it

comes back to the nerve agent being

intelligence, and that's when it

of a type developed by Russia.

OK, talking of cracks in the Labour

OK, talking of cracks in the Labour

Party we have another

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

she wants to make political history.

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

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

decides and the best candidates will

an issue. I think it's being made

decides and the best candidates will

issue by some people that are more

anti-transgender, but local people

issue by some people that are more

don't seem

onto all women's short lists

but that policy has recently

come under attack.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

debated, discussed and answered.

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

pick about bout the Labour Party and

the Government's

pick about bout the Labour Party and

transgender rights, let me start

transgender rights, let me start

with you, Matt -- two significant

transgender rights, let me start

issues. The government is

transgender rights, let me start

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

been disbarred from being on a

selection. The consultation was, as

I understand it, coming up with a

selection. The consultation was, as

form of words...

Clarifying the

position that trans-women are

elaborate rules to be on all women

short lists, it

elaborate rules to be on all women

around the party with two prominent

elaborate rules to be on all women

members threatening to resign if

elaborate rules to be on all women

that warning is put in, that

elaborate rules to be on all women

party has been bucking the

elaborate rules to be on all women

and kicking it into

elaborate rules to be on all women

The conversations I have had with

the leader's of this suggest

The conversations I have had with

not the case, they are

The conversations I have had with

consulting on it and exactly what

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

no actual plan as far as I'm aware

and being on a women's short list.

Can I ask how many trans-women are

and being on a women's short list.

applying to be on all women short

lists?

I'm not sure.

I suspect it is

zero.

Heather Peto is one of them in

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

Not from any disparaging how

situation. There would

Not from any disparaging how

way of resolving the switch would

Not from any disparaging how

not to have all women short lists

Not from any disparaging how

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

can stand as women's officers in

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

full rights. I think it is quite

Politics is the art of persuasion

and there was no real attempt

Politics is the art of persuasion

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

party who will take more than a bit

accustomed to the idea

party who will take more than a bit

who were born men should be

party who will take more than a bit

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

asking for an opportunity to be

is quite welcome there will be a

consultation.

It's not just

is quite welcome there will be a

kicked on this issue

is quite welcome there will be a

know what happened to the

Government's consultation

or woman. That's going to be a

difficult one for the government.

Remember the

difficult one for the government.

toy party that David Cameron fought

difficult one for the government.

over gay marriage.

Absolutely and

this is even much

over gay marriage.

Absolutely and

and a sensitive issue.

over gay marriage.

Absolutely and

and I've been guilty of it myself to

and I've been guilty of it myself to

get the language are wrong on this,

to upset people, and I can

get the language are wrong on this,

imagine the Prime Minister's qualms

about opening this can of worms

about opening this can of worms

within her own party, where there

will be people who

within her own party, where there

off message about it. It seems they

are pushing agendas are long

off message about it. It seems they

and there are bigger issues to worry

off message about it. It seems they

about.

You are talking about 2000 or

3000 people in a party of 650,000.

It is a rounding error.

In the

3000 people in a party of 650,000.

Labour Party, you're talking about?

3000 people in a party of 650,000.

It is not splitting the party, it is

3000 people in a party of 650,000.

a small minority of women who don't

3000 people in a party of 650,000.

believe in trans-rights, that's it.

Interesting to hear Theresa

believe in trans-rights, that's it.

talking about the Government's

consultation. That was a clear

statement she made

consultation. That was a clear

conference saying she wanted

consultation. That was a clear

streamline this and trans-wasn't a

mental health issue, she made a

streamline this and trans-wasn't a

strong commitment

streamline this and trans-wasn't a

and she didn't have to do that.

She

and she didn't have to do that.

She

didn't at all and

and she didn't have to do that.

She

she went as far as that. It is not

unprecedented. Ireland, Argentina,

she went as far as that. It is not

Colombia and Malta have changed

their processes to deep apologise it

Colombia and Malta have changed

so it is merely a legal process and

that is what the

so it is merely a legal process and

getting at. My understanding is for

a person to legally change their

getting at. My understanding is for

gender they have to live as their

desired gender for two years and

they have to have psychiatric

they have to have

evaluations and medical opinions

they have to have

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

traumatising. It can be made legal

will carry

traumatising. It can be made legal

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.

I see this role is

-- welcome to Sunday Politics.

Coming up. The first Welsh taxes for

800 years will kick in next month.

Are we ready? And could last

vehicles be an alternative to the

Swansea Bay metal? First, Alex

Kearns has been well secretary for

two years, with Brexit and other

opportunities crossing his desk. I

asked him how he thought things had

been going when I met him.

Well, it has been a fantastic

privilege in the first instance. I

wanted to play my part in bringing a

much warmer relationship, more

constructive relationship, between

the Welsh and UK Government. Funding

was a key issue. People in Wales

have rightly been complaining for

some time there needed to be in new

funding settlement, and I think that

is one of the most significant

outcomes. Overall, it is about

getting people to understand that

there are two governmentus in Wales,

one that act in the devolved area,

the Welsh Government, and then in

reserve spaces there is the UK

government, which is also relevant

to people working in Wales.

This

time last year, the big

accomplishments were Wales Act,

physical framework, mobile coverage

and business support. In the year

since then, what would you say are

the big things you have achieved?

It

is a central part around Brexit. The

referendum, are outcome of that, was

a surprise to many. We have an

obligation to act on that

instruction, because Wales voted to

leave. It has made the role of the

Secretary of State for Wales much

more exciting and central to the

thinking of government process.

There are several Brexit committees.

I specialise in the one in trade and

the one in domestic preparations, as

well as economic affairs. That has

enabled me to ensure that the UK

government represents every part of

the United Kingdom. Wales is my

interest, as it moves forward in

preparations to leave the EU.

It is

interesting that you say the

relationships between the two

governments have been a step

forward, Brexit, because you could

argue... With the repeal Bill and

so-called power grab from the UK

Government, as the Welsh Government

would call it, that actually

relations have been under a lot of

pressure between the two.

Let's go

back to the Wills bill, Wales act.

There were many journalists, maybe

you included, who suggested that I

would never get agreement between

the UK Government and Welsh

Government. It was only by hard work

and determination that we succeeded.

In relation to the European Union

withdrawal bill, and it does --

equally optimistic.

The

electrification of the line from

London to Cardiff has happened over

the last year, but it has been

cancelled to Swansea. Over the last

year or two, does that have to count

as a failure?

No, I think that is

the right decision. It is taxpayers'

money. It is the same train, which

will take this amount of time...

But

when it was going to Swansea, you

were in favour of that, saying it

needed to happen. Now it is not, you

say it is still the right decision.

It has to be either order.

No, it is

the same train that the excessive

amount of time, and spending

potentially £700 million on

electrifying a railway when the

train was by model and would not

have got any quicker, it did not

make in a sense.

Another issue that

your detractors would be very

unhappy with is your continued

reluctance, refusal, to devolve air

passenger duty to the Welsh

Government, citing, as the UK

Government has, that it would be too

damaging to Bristol airport. You are

not fully there are standing up for

Wales strongly enough, is that fair?

I do not accept that. First of all,

the commission did not come up with

an agreement on this issue. The

First Minister was calling for air

passenger duty to be devolved, but

that is pretty anti-competitive...

So does the labour of the

conservative and Wales is not the

leader of the Conservatives.

Only UK

bases, the most important market...

You should be looking at Wills, not

the UK.

The most important market to

Wales as the UK market, because 80%

of output from Wills goes to the

rest of the UK, and, therefore, the

vibrancy of the Welsh economy is

dependent on the strength of the UK

economy, and the UK economy is

dependent on the strength of the

Welsh economy.

One of the success you have always

cited as the server until being

abolished. We see in the media that

the Newport area is being seen as an

area where people are trying houses,

the Bristol posts saying there is

going to be a mass exodus to Wales,

were historically ones are cheaper.

-- the Severn Toll. As the

consequence of abolishing the tolls

would be an influx of a lot of south

eastern English people did wheels,

would that be regrettable?

So, are

are you asking if I should keep that

all 30 TV barrier?

Every action has

a consequence, what consequence

could be from migration to South

East Wills.

You have a toll across

the whole of the border to stop

that?

This is removing that.

We

don't worry about that cross-border

issue in north-east Wales. Airbus is

there. 40% of the employees of

Airbus come from the English side of

the border. That is good for the

economy. It shows a greater dynamic

of movement between those places.

Therefore, on that basis, by

removing the tollus on the Severn

Bridge, it has created excitement in

the business community, because the

biggest prospect...

But there are

cultural aspects. The economic

reasons behind it are well-known.

Less discussed the possible

population changes which could

result from them, and I am not

really getting a sense from you as

to whether or not you think that

would be good or bad.

There are

going to be challenges along the

way, without question. If there are

more people working in an area,

there is greater demand for housing.

On that basis, there is going to be

a social policy, because that has to

be resolved in terms of extra

housing. There is going to be

greater need for development for

business property. The biggest

property deal last year in Wales

took place after the Severn Tollus,

and the agent said it was because

they were being abolished. This goes

to show that there is an excitement

amongst the business community. This

is about, look, politics is about

improving people's lives. It is

about creating more wealth, sharing

wealth on a better basis. We can

always be poor by keeping a barrier

between us and other economies, or

more dynamic economies. That is

quite easily done. And then you can

defend it by saying we need those

tollus in order to maintain that

barrier. That is not the right thing

to do. I want the greatest movement,

the greatest dynamism in the

economy. I want to go -- the

critical mass that we create between

Bristol and Cardiff to start

campaigning with London and the

south east.

Welsh liver's election for a dip

into leader is still going on. A few

weeks ago, you will remember Julie

Morgan, one of the candidates, what

you're making her pitch. But what of

her opponent, Carolyn Harris? A

short while ago, I began by asking

her why she wanted the job.

I see this role as being

about campaigning, motivating

and enthusing people.

I've been an MP since 2015

and every campaign I have

taken on, I think I have

delivered the goods on.

I've led the way on 1950s women,

I've managed to get children's

funerals free in Wales

and I'm very,

very close to getting them

in the rest of the UK.

Fixed-odd betting

terminals - dreadful,

dreadful machines -

were somewhere on the horizon,

but they are now at

the top of the political agenda

and I'm hopeful that we're going

to get something on that very soon.

So, I think I've proved

myself to be the kind of person

who can work with people,

talk to people, listen to people.

I home in on the issues and I love

getting my sleeves rolled up

and getting the job done.

What kind of campaigns do

you think are needed

as deputy leader of

Welsh Labour, then?

Well, we don't really

know yet, do we?

We don't know until

we get out there and

actually speak to people.

I think we need to do

more work within the party

about supporting people

who want to become members,

who want to become part

of the Labour family,

especially for women and minority

groups who have access problems,

or even childcare problems,

and if you put yourself up

as a candidate, it's extremely

emotionally draining

and financially draining,

so I would like to see us doing

more on that in terms

of working with people

and training people

and giving them an idea of

what they're getting themselves

into, but it is not just

about the membership, is it?

It is about talking to people

in our communities.

This 3 million people in Wales.

They need us, they need us to listen

to them, and I see this role

as about working with not just

membership but working with

everybody in Wales to find

out what we can do to

make their life easier.

As a member of Parliament,

I just wonder, if you are

the deputy leader of Welsh

Labour, who then, ultimately,

do you think is your boss?

Is it Carwyn Jones or

is it Jeremy Corbyn?

Who do you have to

listen to if there is

a disagreement between

the two leaders?

Well, if there was a disagreement

to the detriment of Wales,

then obviously Welsh Labour wins

hands down, because I am

a Welsh politician, a Welsh MP,

I have to put my constituency

and Wales first.

But I can't ever imagine

there would be a time when the two

did not agree on something, because,

in all fairness to Jeremy, he does

leave devolution to sort itself out

and does not interfere in Welsh

politics.

If it did arise, I will take your

point that it may well not,

but you would defy the party whip

in Parliament

and vote against it on that basis?

Well, I have defied

the party whip before.

I defied the party whip

on welfare reform.

I was actually in the lobby

with Jeremy Corbyn.

There was only 47 of us,

but I was there then.

It's not something I would be afraid

to do,

because I have done it

before.

One of the big issues I am sure

you will be aware of

is one member,

one vote and whether or not

it should be used or should not be

to elect the next

Labour leader in Wales.

What are your views on that?

In terms of the college, I am very

much in favour of the unions

having a say.

People need to remember

that the unions did not

join the Labour Party,

they created the Labour Party.

Yes, I support that

part of the college.

What I would say is

that some people, who

we say are on the left, people

like Diane Abbott, Clive Lewis, have

actually come out in support of me

because they work with me,

they know me, they understand me,

they know my motives,

they know my motivation.

And for those to get personally

criticised for supporting

me because I am not

supporting OMOV...

Sure, but would you be happy

if you got the support of

the unions but not

of the membership?

Would that still be, in your view,

a strong enough victory?

I like to think that the membership

will see past the process

and will actually,

like my colleagues who

supported me, agree that...

The process is decided.

We've got to move on now.

We can't talk, 25,000 of us

talking to each other,

we need to talk to the 3 million

people out there who need us.

Yes, I've had a union

support, so has Julie, but,

yes, I have got membership support

because not everybody is obsessed

with OMOV, if I'm honest.

Most people can see

past that and see

that they need the best person

for the job

and that we need to look

beyond the process.

As a female politician,

how safe a place do you think

politics is for women in Wales

specifically, and what will your

role be in trying to prove that?

I personally, myself,

have come under

some really nasty personal attacks,

so I understand it is

very uncomfortable.

It is uncomfortable for men,

it's not just women

who are vulnerable to this.

But I think that we need

to be supporting women

to understand how they

can best tackle it.

Some people say grow a second skin,

it's not always possible to

grow a second skin when

people are being really

personal about you,

so

I think we do need to be better

at nurturing and supporting

on all aspects of

involvement with the party.

I am really happy...

I am a good listener.

I am a good talker but I am

a good listener, and I've

got a big heart and a big

mouth, so I can actually be

what I need to be

for everyone.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

In just a couple of weeks, Wales

will be collecting its first taxes

in its own right as a country ever,

or at least since the days of the

13th century, so are we ready, and

how big is steak is this? We have

been looking through the history

books.

A new page of Welsh history

is set to be written.

On the 1st of April 2018,

Wales will once again take

charge of some of its taxes.

The last time any kind

of taxes were collected

by Welsh authorities

was nearly 800 years ago.

Since Tyler's church,

now rebuilt here,

dates from that time.

As you'd expect, back then,

Wales was a very different place.

When we think about Wales

in the Middle Ages, we think

about it a four different

independent countries.

Gwynedd, Powys and then

what is now Ceredigion.

Those three, together with one that

disappeared just after the

Normans turned up, pulled

and tugged against each other

for the whole of the Middle Ages.

There never really was a single,

you know, country,

as we would think.

They were all taxed differently.

In terms of all of what we know

was Wales being taxed in

a uniform fashion, this

is the first time in history.

So, what taxes are on

the cards for April?

The land transaction tax,

which replaces the old stamp duty on

property, and the landfill disposal

tax, which replaces Westminster's

landfill tax.

These will be collected

by the Welsh Revenue Authority,

from their new base.

We are a small but highly

specialised organisation.

So, we are going to be about

70 people, and yet we are

going to have to be able to offer

the same sort of suite of services

that you would expect from HMRC.

The biggest change, anyway,

is that these new taxes we pay