John Pienaar is joined by the Times columnist Jenni Russell and Tim Stanley from the Telegraph. They discuss universal credit, the government's flagship welfare policy.
Browse content similar to 27/10/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Hello and welcome to
the Daily Politics.
North Korea has been blamed
for the cyber attacks that hit
the NHS back in May,
but is there anything we can
actually do about it?
Pressure is continuing to mount
on the government to reduce
the length of time people have
to wait before they receive
universal credit payments.
We'll discuss whether more changes
need to be done to improve
the scheme with one
of its original architects.
The European Parliament has been
debating what can be done
to halt sexual harassment,
with many staff in Brussels saying
they have been victims themselves.
And the robots are coming,
but are we ready for them?
We'll look at what needs
to be done to prepare us
for the robotic revolution.
All that coming up.
Now I'd like to particularly welcome
rugby league fans who've just been
watching England against Australia.
You are smiling, guys, I can't think
what you are smiling about.
I can assure you politics
is just as exciting,
if a little dirtier,
and I've got two top pundits
to analyse all the tactics
and the plays, Jenni Russell
from the Times and the
Telgraph's Tim Stanley,
welcome to the programme.
First this morning, Home Office
Minister Ben Wallace has caused
a stir by pointing the finger firmly
at North Korea for the cyber attack
whch hit the NHS a few months ago.
Here's what he had to say.
Computer crime often leaves a trace
and we have capabilities
in government to track that
and I can't go any further
into our capabilities,
but there are strong signs it came
from North Korea and ourselves
and I think the United States
also believe that.
Ben Wallace speaking just a short
while ago. If you stand back a step,
you have to consider how worrying
and scary it is to see just how
vulnerable we are to attacks like
Yes, there is obviously
something that really no hospital
has ever been prepared for and the
trouble is that naturally the NHS
have an ability to withstand this
kind of thing but the individual NHS
trusts with their individual
computer systems, many of which
haven't been updated for some time
because it is not a priority, should
I have more nurses and doctors in a
Andy or should I get some cyber
security expert in for some vague
threat far off in the future?
Understandably they didn't spend a
lot of money on cyber security and
they haven't really got the budget
It was health trust is
mainly, with thousands of
appointments cancelled. It could
have been banks, businesses, any
public service. The worry, Tim, has
always been, who knows where this is
coming from? It could be a state, a
terrorist group, a spotty youth in
an attic with a malign intent.
According to Ben Wallace, it's a
rogue state who is a bit of a spotty
youth in an attic who have got it in
In which case, what is this?
An overt act of terrorism is to muck
it is hard to know how this will be
dealt with because we cannot go and
arrest Kim Jong Un. We are dealing
with a rogue state who are already
under a number of sanctions and
there are fewer and fewer levers we
have against them.
Exactly, what do
we do? Do we counter attack with
Is there like for
like, I don't know? Pressure is
being put on to China by the UN and
somewhat unfairly, it is portrayed
that Donald Trump is gearing up for
a fight with North Korea. North
Korea started this fight and global
actions have to be taken. I suspect
in the next few months that
sanctions will get tougher and China
will press its partner to clean up
The government is under pressure
from Labour and many Conservative
MPs to make further changes
to its flagship welfare policy -
On Wednesday, the Prime Minister
announced a major U-turn on housing
benefit, when she axed plans to cap
it for people in social housing.
But those Tory critics
of universal credit want more
concessions from ministers.
Let's take a look...
The aim of universal credit
is to roll six existing benefits,
like housing benefit and tax
credits, into one simpler payment.
It's paid in arrears,
like having a job, and the standard
wait for the first
payment is six weeks.
Now the government have already
made some changes...
At the start of this month,
they issued new guidance to make it
clearer that advance
payments are available.
Ministers then said the helpline,
which could cost up to 55p
per minute, would become
a freephone number.
And this week, the prime minister
said that she was axing plans
to cap housing benefit,
which includes the housing part
of universal credit,
for social tenants.
But for many Tory rebels those
changes are not enough.
They want to see the standard six
week wait cut to just four weeks
and they want to see changes
to the so-called "taper rate",
which determines how much money
people can keep as they start moving
back into work.
It's yet to be seen
whether the government will make
With me now is Edward Boyd,
managing director of the Centre
for Social Justice think tank
and a former adviser
to the architect of universal
credit, Iain Duncan Smith.
Welcome to the studio. Thank you for
coming in. Let's look at whether
government is on this for now. They
are on the back foot, aren't they?
Is it because it was a bad idea?
Because it's badly managed, badly
funded or a combination of the
I think you are right. They
seem to be on the back foot and
there are broadly two reasons why.
The first is communication from the
government's side on this. You can
almost whisper it in Westminster but
if you look at the data on how this
system compares to the last one, it
is not perfect, but all of the data
shows it is better. People are more
likely to be in work, more likely to
be earning money, and that methods
needs to put out more clearly.
is a lot of pressure on the
government to ensure the payment
starts sooner. For weeks, not be six
weeks as is the system at the
moment. The idea with a job is that
you get paid at the end of the first
period. Six weeks though leaves
people out of pocket, suffering a
great deal, having to go to beat
banks and whatnot. -- food banks and
whatnot. That has got to change,
Yes, you are right. It is
not just how long you wait for your
money but what you get paid.
Whenever I get paid as a first
claimant, you get paid nothing, and
you need to pay for your housing and
food from savings. That can push
people into debt and actually making
sure people get paid from day one
instead of day seven is the big
change we are likely to see the
government made and I think they
In the coming budget it
is pretty sure as eggs is eggs that
the announcement will be made by the
Chancellor and the government has
made life tough for itself by
We very much hope that
they will be that and I think the
budget is very much the place to
look for that. We will look at
whether they get rid of the waiting
dates but also whether they get rid
of the taper rate, the amount of
money people can keep when they go
into work and earn more money. They
get to keep 37p of money they add an
extra pound he went on the Universal
Credit. That is not enough to
encourage people to go into work, is
it? Do you think they will allow
people to keep more money before
they go into work? I really hope
they will move on this because if
you invest in Universal Credit, you
invest in those struggling most on
the breadline who have not seen pay
rises for a number of years. I
deeply encourage them to do this
because that is the kind of thing
that shows the government is working
for the whole country.
Russell, you are not impressed with
how the government has handled this?
No, I wrote an article a few weeks
ago that this would be the
government's poll-tax unless they
did something about it. George
Osborne introduced the seven-day
waiting period in which people are
entitled to no money, he is the
person that you could receive after
work. He thought, welfare is an easy
target, people don't care about it.
When you look at Croydon, one of the
target -- trial areas, housing
benefit deficit went up to 40% from
10% after Universal Credit. People
are being driven into a position
where they cannot pay their bills.
It is not enough to just reduced
waiting to a month. Two fifths of
people in this country get paid
weekly or monthly -- or fortnightly.
People who are accustomed to
budgeting weekly or fortnightly
cannot be suddenly pushed to
monthly. It has to be an option that
people can be paid fortnightly if
they want to and, crucially, that if
they choose their housing benefit
payments can go directly to their
landlords which is how it worked
under the old system. What is
happening now is people are being
paid very late, they can't afford
the loan, money comes in as a large
lump sum and understandably they use
the money for rent for living,
falling to further arrears and they
get evicted. So many changes need to
be made by the government including
on day one that if they need an
advance payment, they can get one,
because up until now it has been
very clear that you can have one.
Lots of people don't know about it
and lots of people never learn about
Jenni is absolutely right. It
was in some ways undermined by the
Treasury. They saw welfare reform as
a way of saving money. Some of the
stuff that has gone wrong with it is
stuff that wouldn't have happened if
the government had the -- Sibley
spoken to benefit claimants, those
affected. It's appalling that people
were used for using -- were charged
for using a helpline. It is
inconceivable that someone called a
helpline because they have no money
and get charged for it. It makes me
a little ashamed to be British. That
is confusing strong leadership with
pig-headedness and I hope the
government changes their mind on
Are you feeling the government
will dig itself at least part of the
way out of this whole, Ed?
we will see improvements but what we
have to remember is, you look at the
old system, the new system is not
perfect, no system will be, but this
is an improvement, the data is
showing that. This has to be about
changing lives, it has to be about
reversing some of those reductions
that came in as other guests have
said in order to ensure it always
pays to be in work and they have got
a great opportunity to make sure
that's the case in the next budget.
Thank you very much for joining us
Make no mistake the robots
are coming, it's how we prepare
for them that's the issue.
It could be a huge opportunity,
the government estimates that
by 2035 artificial intelligence
could add around 630 billion
pounds to the UK economy.
The challenge however
is that experts predict
hundreds of thousands of us
could find our jobs disappearing
as the robots take over.
This technological revolution
is the subject of a new study
by the think-tank Future Advocacy
which looks at which parts
of the country are likely to be hit
first and hardest by the rise
of the machines.
Elizabeth Glinka reports.
The robots are coming.
Or as experts in this exhibition
at the Manchester Museum of Science
and Industry will tell you,
they have been here for a while.
Robots have been around for hundreds
of years and have a hand in almost
every activity that we do
and that is only going to continue
on into the future.
They are like any other technology.
Should you be afraid of smartphones?
Should you be afraid of cars?
Should you be afraid
of anything that has
changed our lives significantly?
The answer is no.
You need to embrace
that change and look
at the opportunities
that it presents.
But with opportunity comes
a very real human cost.
Not to be too apocalyptic about it
but it is estimated that
by the early 2030s,
between 20 and 40% of the jobs
which are currently done by us
will be done by them.
Ollie Bastin whose research breaks
down the potential job losses
by constituency says
we're massively underprepared.
It's an extraordinary
level of change.
We're talking about the equivalent
of the jobs that were lost
in the mining industry over decades
happening over a much shorter time
frame and we know that story
didn't end well at all.
There were terrible consequences
for individuals, for families,
for communities, and so we have got
to do much better this time.
And the sorts of jobs
which are most likely to be
replaced might surprise you.
It's not just drivers
and data inputers.
We're also talking about welders,
legal secretaries, butchers
and even manicurists.
Home to Heathrow airport,
it's the Shadow Chancellor
John McDonald's seat,
Hayes and Harlington,
that researchers think
will be hardest hit.
But across the country, it's
the former industrial heartlands,
places which have already weathered
the decline in heavy industry,
which will fare worse.
The former coalfields
of North Warwickshire
are in the top five.
I think initially it did come
as a bit of a surprise
but when you look at the types
of businesses we have
in the constituency,
things like manufacturing,
then you can see these are the types
of businesses that are most likely
to be impacted by automotive agent.
It's important that government
and local authorities
play their part in making sure that
it's not as destructive
as it may be.
An all-party group on artificial
intelligence was set up in January
this year and AI is at least
mentioned in the
strategy but the changes
are happening fast.
It's a huge economic opportunity
for our country but there are real
risks and one of the risks is that
that incredible wealth isn't
going to be shared very fairly
and particularly that some people
are going to lose out when it comes
to unemployment and their jobs.
We have a duty to protect them
and help them and make sure
that everyone benefits.
The latest polling shows
that our views on artificial
intelligence differ widely depending
on what it's being asked to do.
But with the prospect
of hundreds of thousands of job
losses just 15 years away,
it's an issue our politicians
are going to have to get a grip on.
Fascinating report, in a scary kind
Joining me from Newcastle
is the shadow minister
for science and innovation,
Do you think that we should be
excited or scared to death?
should be excited, and we should
also recognise that this is a
decision point, a choice, it is not
that we should be afraid, but we
need to make changes, we have
choices to be made, so, this report
says that over half of humans
working activities can be automated,
can be robot aside, but only 5% of
actual jobs might disappear, because
that is the difference, only one,
very few jobs go entire leak, if we
can bring new skills and abilities
to them. And there is the
possibility, in particular areas,
which are low skill, that there
would be huge transformation and
loss of jobs. -- roboticised. If
government gets a grip now, and
looks at investing in skills and
regulating these new opportunities,
so that we have a greater range of
wealth distribution as a consequence
of it and using the opportunities to
new jobs being created, people make
work for people. The industrial
Revolution created many more jobs
than it is destroyed but it took
decades for the benefits to be
shared. We need to take the positive
decisions now, investing in skills
and job opportunities, to make sure
that those opportunities are shared.
What is politics rising to the
challenge, you are describing an
enormous challenge. Basically, 5% of
jobs would be at risk of
Many more beyond that
could be transformed, do you think
that policymakers across the
political divide realise the scale
of what is coming?
Tech often scares
people, right now, the government is
August on Brexit, and backstabbing,
if I might say so, so I don't think
the challenges and opportunities are
understood. As a matter of urgency,
if we in invest in skills, right
now, in this country, above the age
of 24, free education is over, you
cannot re-skill yourself unless you
take out huge loans, if you are
eligible, or your company invests in
you. We need to offer retraining,
reskilling. Robots can be
reprogrammed at zero cost, humans,
does not require too much, but we
are so much more versatile than
robots. There are still many things,
not just talking about writing bad
poetry(!) or betting, there are many
things that robots cannot do...
Writing a column for The Times
newspaper, for instance. LAUGHTER
We need to have more jobs that have
the skills that humans are unique
at, more jobs with those things,
that is what people value, and the
robots can do the work we do not
value. I like to talk about existing
intelligence, and assisting
intelligence, robots helping people
to be more productive and helping
the economy to prosper, because that
is the opportunity, if we get it
right. But it is true that these
decisions have been taken out,
invest in skills, national education
service, lifelong learning, and
giving people more empowerment, so
they are more productive, and the
robots do the boring work.
that be lovely. Chi
robots do the boring work.
that be lovely. Chi, thank you for
Now it's time for our regular look
at what's been going on in European
politics, and for the next half hour
we'll be examining how our future
with the EU might look,
sexual harassment allegations
in the European Parliament,
and plans for tighter
European border controls.
First though here's our 60 second
of all the top stories from Brussels
and Strasbourg this week.
Actually, I think we have lost the
report, so instead, let's talk about
Europe, much going on in Europe in
many different ways, we have
mentioned the headlines, and in a
short while we will be talking about
Catalonia, the big headline, I
think, this morning. Sexual
harassment, that was up at the
European Parliament, that is being
discussed here at Westminster, I
think that is going to develop over
the weekend, it has a feel of a
story, it is building. And
Catalonia, what do you make of where
we are going with that? The Spanish
leader, now calling on the Senate,
to get on and get ready to deal with
Catalonia, by taking away their
effective autonomy. This one will
build and build and get rougher and
You always think that
leaders today are not going to
insist upon replicating the mistakes
made in the past, but it is
completely free is that you have a
weak Spain unable to retreat from
his position that they cannot
secede, and I Catalonia leader who,
reading between the lines, would
like not to have been forced into
glaring independence at this point,
and yet he has pressures within
Catalonia to push him to take a hard
line, they are two trains heading
towards one another, they are going
to smash, it is insane. Catalonia
declares independence, nobody will
recognise it. Companies are fleeing,
Spanish will create enormous hatred
if they dissolve parliament and take
over some powers. We think, you have
got to talk, what on earth are you
doing... I will punch you, if you
punch me, I am harder than you
already had the potential to
be a bitter confrontation, the
violence that we saw surrounding the
It will get
worse. That set a black backdrop.
This is a clash of two different
kinds of nationalism, the
nationalism of an emerging state,
Catalonia, which wants to be free,
but the nationalism of Spain, which
says, if you go, we cannot survive.
You are the richest region within
this country. All of this is taking
part in the context of a
constitution which sides with the
Spanish, but if you test it too far,
push it too far, it will prompt the
central government into doing
something so terrible that it means
anybody who it is done to, they have
a moral right to walk away. You see
two kinds of nationalism content
here. The EU does not know what to
My heart bleeds for it. The EU
has kept clear of it, it's instinct
is not to get involved in an
think that the EU would like the
Europe to be a Europe of regions,
conspiratorially trying to divide up
Britain, hats have a separate Spain,
a separate Northern Ireland. But as
Jean-Claude Juncker said recently, a
Europe of regions would be far
harder to govern, it is in the best
interests of the EU to have a strong
Spain. The EU normally supports
emerging nations right to exist,
regional identity, that is what it
is about, but it is backing Madrid.
We will be following the storage in
the day, but we have to move on with
that for the moment, but we will get
successive news bulletins, rolling
news through the day, this is a
The key point about talks on trade
between Britain and the EU
is they're not happening,
at least not yet.
And they won't start until Britain
comes up with a more generous
EU divorce settlement.
The EU side has started to talk
among themselves about trade
with Britain, though.
And they're also looking down under
to forge closer ties
with Australia and New Zealand.
EU Commission President
Jean Claude Juncker has said an EU
trade deal with New Zealand
and Australia will be in place
by the end of his term in 2019.
And this week, the EU side said
talks are ready to move
onto the next stage.
The UK won't be able to open
talks with Australia or New Zealand
until it leaves the EU in March 2019
but Theresa May remains optimistic
about reaching a deal
because these counties are part
of the Commonwealth,
and have historic ties to Britain.
The final EU trade deal with
Australia and New Zealand
will be carefully scrutinised
by UK representatives
because it could be viewed
as a "litmus test" for the type
of deal the EU could
eventually sign with Britain.
But, such comparisons
are perhaps unwise,
as Theresa May has always maintained
she is looking for a "bespoke" trade
deal and not an off-the-shelf model.
With me now is the Conservative MEP
and International Trade Spokesman,
David Campbell Bannerman.
Morning to you, thank you for coming
in. A bit of context about the
importance of all of this,
Australia, in the league table of
countries which are an important
trading partner, somewhere below
It is about 19th, it depends
upon how you measure it, New Zealand
is slightly smaller. These are
important markets, we should have
done these traits deals weight
before this. Yesterday, we had a
vote in the European Parliament, we
agreed negotiating guidelines of the
Council, the negotiation will be the
next stage. I am off to New Zealand
tonight, long flight, we are moving
ahead. As we rightly say, the New
Zealand deal, 80% of it is based on
Canada, the Ceta deal, relevant to
the "Brexit" talks.
Canada has done
its deal, seven years to get that
done. Not necessarily giving
encouragement to those that say they
can do the deal in the blink of an
eye, but the Canada deal does
nothing for trading services is the
yellow very little.
The British economy depends upon
services. They are not necessarily
the pot of gold at the end of the
important, New Zealand lamb is
subject to quotas, we import a lot,
after quota comes to Britain, these
things are relevant, we sell a lot
of Land Rovers and mechanical goods
to New Zealand and Australia. It is
worth getting rid of the tariffs,
and that is key, they are still
operating under World Trade
Organisation rules, heavy tariffs in
certain areas, so that is worth
having. Services has to be a big
bolt on. It is important to New
Zealand as well, not just
agriculture, a lot of it is
services, that is very relevant to
the UK. And the City of London. That
is all doable, and I think the super
Canada deal, taking the Ceta deal by
bolting on a lot more in services.
Mentioning lamb, you are an East of
England MEP, a lot of farmers on
your patch. How do they feel about
the idea of agricultural produce,
including lamb, flooding into the
British lamb producers have
shown concern about the New Zealand
deal in particular.
said it would be the end of farming
It depends upon what the
Regina is going to be post "Brexit",
we signed up to the same regime, the
same single farm payments, and I
think we can look after our farmers,
but open up the markets. The quotas
are pretty restrictive New Zealand
lamb, for example, and I think...
What about the consumer, we have to
look after the British consumer, we
can drive down food prices by being
outside the customs union.
You are a
great Brexiteer, you believe
passionately in your calls, there is
a fair chance you will either have
to deal with angry farmers, I don't
know if they will be burning tyres
on the M25 not, and you may be
dealing with consumers looking at
prices in the supermarket is up. --
Look at the whole area, driving
up quality in the shops, in the
supermarkets, opening up markets for
our farmers as well as New Zealand
and Australian farmers. I don't
think it is a zero sum game and we
should not look at it like that.
mean, you can up set everyone at the
same time(!) LAUGHTER
The EU is very resistant to certain
things, French producers already are
saying they will exclude sensitive
products from Australia and New
Zealand in that trade deal but the
British trades deal which followed
Brexit may not do so. We will look
after farmers, absolutely.
listen to the debate that has been
going on this week on the subject of
trade policy, European Union,
getting to "Brexit" Day, March 2019,
with a trade deal done and dusted,
everything else done and dusted, not
just in March 2019 but months before
that, how much are you convinced by
This is like being asked to clap
your hands if you believe in
fairies, I cannot cut my hands, we
know perfectly well that we are not
going to get any kind of trade deal.
She does believe in fairies.
The relatively simple Canada deal
should have taken seven years, it is
still not resolved, we cannot get
these details traits deals, they
will not happen, even if they were
to happen they would not be to our
advantage. At the moment, research
has shown that we will lose one
quarter of the value of our trade
and services, and one fifth of our
trade in goods with the European
Union if we leave, if we make
fantastic trade deals with the ten
other biggest economies in the world
including the US and India, we will
make up one tenth of the value of
what we are going to lose. The other
point is, that will take years. At
the moment we are entirely ignoring
the other thing, whether we stick to
EU regulations, at the moment, the
Canada deal has nothing to say to
that, if we try to export irons to
France in the future, and we are not
sticking to EU regulations on Irons,
the French. Goods the border and
search them, that is why customs
will not be able to keep up with the
Tim, can you explain to Jenni why
she is wrong, why there are visiting
I am open-minded. I think
Brexit has been spoken about in this
way too much, people punishing each
other, Britain has done a silly
thing and they will get punished for
it. But business does not work like
that. Business people and voters
want trade because trade in riches
everyone. That is what the next age
will be. Once we leave the EU, what
is exciting is we will be able to
make money with other people and one
of the great things we have working
to our advantage of EU regulatory
compliance. We have exactly the same
regulations as the EU so whenever
the EU does something -- does a deal
with someone, we only have to come
up behind ago, are next.
Yes, but if
they change, we would have to change
with them or lose the market.
would be in charge of our own
regulations. When it is outside of
the EU, it has exactly that
flexibility to adapt to markets.
would just say that Canada only took
three years to negotiate and we
don't have 16,500 goods tariffs, we
have no quotas, and all our years
are going to be taken in, hence the
And what we are going
to do on leaving the EU is diverged
on everything and the minute we
diverged on a single regulation,
they are going to have to check the
import of everything in practice in
case we are not sticking to their
It is all agreeable.
No, it isn't. You can't have it both
80% of our trade is within the
UK. 20% is international and 90% of
that growth will come from outside
Not on the latest
David, your confidence is
Let's come back in two
years to see.
As we heard earlier,
the most powerful debate
in the European Parliament this week
was about sexual harassment
and whether the European Union
should do more to combat it.
However during the discussion
the focus also shifted
onto the Parliament itself with many
stories emerging of staff being
the victims of harassment and abuse.
Here's what EU Commissioner Cecilia
Malmstrom had to say
when she opened the debate.
Women that have been
in some form or another
harassed by their boss,
by their colleague,
by their teacher, their neighbour
or a stranger on the street.
These stories shout to us.
It's a feminist outcry
from all across the world
from women who said enough.
This is enough.
We refuse to be silent,
we refuse to accept.
We have set aside 6 million euros
last year and 12.7 for this year,
million, and projects across the EU
have been a lifeline for many
organisations who otherwise
would not be able to do their work.
Joining me now is the Labour MEP
Neena Gill who's been
following the debate closely.
Hello. Just give us a bit of
background. We know the problem.
What can the European Union do about
Well, firstly we have to put our
own house in order and that's what
we've been trying to do. I mean,
clearly we need to make sure that
there is a safe place for victims to
be able to come through and raise
these issues but beyond that we are
looking at having a committee where
MEPs, who like many people in this
situation have disproportionate
power against very many, let's say
young women, because it is
disproportionately women who are
affected, so what we are doing is
asking the bureau of the parliament
to make sure they take action.
will talk about the European
Parliament in a second, Neena, but
as an institution, the union,
Brussels, what can they do about
this across Europe?
I think we need
to make sure that it is actually,
you know, it is already illegal but
that all the member states are
implementing the laws properly, that
there is a legal let's say
punishment or procedure in countries
in member states.
Is that not up to
Yes, but the EU can
pass regulation to that effect and
we need to also propose that there
is a new regulation about violence
against women. So, you know, there
is something the EU can do. The UN
is talking about it. It is not just
a problem facing Europe, it is a
global problem and the UN, the
European Union and other regional
bodies that we are working with, we
could make it unacceptable, that it
is not OK. A bit like we have made
smoking in this country, it is not
acceptable to trivialise sexual
Smoking and sexual
harassment are a little different,
but we take your point. You mention
Parliament itself and what seems to
have been going on, what is said to
have been going on that by way of
women not being safe inside the
Parliament of the European Union.
What sort of examples are we talking
Well, we have the
majority of people in power still
are men both in terms of the
officials and parliamentarians. You
have very many young women who come
to work in Parliament or come for
work experience and of course you
have this imbalance of power and
often somehow there is a feeling a
bit like in the film industry and in
politics here as well that it's OK,
young women are expected to do more
than the job they are there to do.
Someone was saying there is a
culture of silence around the
Parliament, people felt unable to
raise concerns they had all tell
stories of what they had been
Exactly. This is the same
scenario elsewhere. Whether you are
in Westminster, a big corporation,
you know that your job is at risk
and that is the problem. That is the
reason there is silence, because
most people are too afraid and they
don't know the mechanisms. Now, two
years ago Parliament did set up a
body to say, we know some of this
harassment exist and we want to set
up an organisation where the
assistance can go to but really it's
not that well-known and it hasn't
operated as well as it should have
been. But now with a Brussels-based
paper sort of setting up a
confidential forum, more people have
come out and more women have come
out and made these allegations and I
think it's totally unacceptable.
Jenni, what do you think? Is there a
role for politics at a European
level to make a difference here?
think the problem is that as
somebody who's lived through 30
years of all of this as everything a
woman I know has done, the sheer
practicality of it. I know a young
woman at a moment working in an
organisation with absolutely
fabulous liberal policies. Her
married male bosses are not
answering her professional queries
during the day but hitting on her
every single night with text
messages telling her how much they
want to go to bed with her, what
they'd like to do in bed with her.
What is she to do in that situation?
If she reports them, they are not
going to lose their jobs but they
are going to hate her and she will
get a reputation as a troublemaker
and her career in the industry where
she is just starting out may well
never go anywhere because other
employees particular -- other
employers particularly men would
think, I don't want her in my
office. It's down to the power
imbalance. It doesn't matter how
many confidential lines you have, if
that woman reports babies, they know
who has reported it.
We have to move
on. Thank you. -- if that woman
reports the abuse.
Who's coming in and who's going out?
This week MEPs voted to introduce
new entry and exit checks for people
visiting the borderless Schengen
area from outside of Europe.
It's designed to plug a gap
in the EU's border security,
while Europol will use
the new database to identify
terrorists and track
Adam Fleming reports
Comings and goings
at the parliament.
This is all about entry and exit
to the EU by nationals
from non-EU countries.
In the analogue era,
all you needed was a passport
with a visa and some stamps in it.
Under the digital entry
and exit system, there
will be a joint database
of biometric information
which will tell border guards that
somebody has stayed in the EU
for longer than the 90 days
that they are allowed.
It is essential that we effectively
manage, protect and secure
our external borders, that we have
full knowledge of who comes in.
It is in this spirit that we have
proposed the entry exit system.
It's designed to help stop
terrorists, like the perpetrator
of the Berlin attack last Christmas.
He travelled using 15
But some MEPs have been torn
between security and human rights.
It is a balance compromise.
In the first place,
I was against these smart borders
but the latest developments show us
Europeans are concerned
and security is a problem.
We have to strengthen our borders.
But on the other hand,
it has to go hand-in-hand
with fundamental rights.
The time that personal data would be
held has been a big deal.
It has been reduced during
the passage of the legislation
but it is still too long for some.
My main concern is that
here there is a huge
collection of travellers' data
from all travellers coming
to the European Union
and going outside and retention
for up to three years of this data,
no matter if that person
is suspicious or risky.
And that is something which I think
We need to focus on those persons
who are risky and suspicious
and collect more data on those
rather than having a general
suspicion towards all travellers.
And trust Ukip's Gerard Batten
to find a Brexit angle.
He's even written a book about it.
We will be affected
after we leave the European Union
because we will be a third country,
so our biometric data will be shared
with all of the countries
of the European Union.
It's not unreasonable for European
countries to want a system.
The USA have a system,
the UK has the system,
they need their own system.
My concern is that we are sharing
information across the board
with the EU and this will be
shared with countries
that we cannot trust,
they are deeply corrupted,
Another country that
comes up is Canada.
Yes, I know it's not in the EU
but it has signed a deal
with the EU to share
airline passenger data,
a deal that's been held
up because of a ruling
by the European Court of Justice.
Some MEPs think the same thing
could happen with this legislation.
If it did, that might mean the entry
exit legislation isn't ready
to go in 2020 as planned.
Adam Fleming with that report. Tim
Stanley, we are back again right in
the middle of the argument of the
balance between security and
privacy. Has that balance shifted?
It is perfectly reasonable for the
EU to say it wants to better monitor
who is coming in and out. After all,
the context of this is that huge
march of refugees across the
continent, the context of national
countries having to set up borders
again within Schengen, which they
don't want to do, and the context is
terrorism. So it's perfectly
reasonable they should police their
borders. Gerard Batten is right. I
would say it's perfectly reasonable
for the UK to say hey, we don't want
you holding alloy that is in state
for three years. So what was once an
internal UK -- EU discussion is now
a discussion between the EU and a
nation state. Let the UK make a case
for its citizens privacy.
in the report that the very real
concern about data being held but
when you look at the threat across
the world including countries in
Europe, can we simply not be too
squeamish about this stuff now?
think you have to keep wondering
about what powers governments have
because none of us want to end up in
a situation where some right-wing
government or some very left-wing
government then starts misusing data
in a way that we don't anticipate,
so I think it's very important that
we keep worrying about what they do.
Tim is absolutely right. The world's
preoccupations have shifted. We
don't know, for example, who other
members of Isis or Al-Qaeda among
the million refugees who came into
Europe last year and is absolutely
right and citizens would demand that
the EU should be intelligent about
There's also an element
of hypocrisy that on the one hand
the UK once open -- the EU wants
It's a trade-off,
isn't it? That is all for now.
Thanks to all my guest
and particularly Tim
and Jenni for joining me throughout
the programme, goodbye.
John Pienaar is joined by the Times columnist Jenni Russell and Tim Stanley from the Telegraph. They discuss the latest on the government's flagship welfare policy universal credit, which has been debated in Parliament once again.
Plus, as the Brexit negotiations continue, a look at what is happening in the European Parliament in Politics Europe.