0:00:38 > 0:00:43Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
0:00:43 > 0:00:46The boss of Oxfam tells MPs he's sorry for the damage the charity has
0:00:46 > 0:00:48done to the people of Haiti and the wider efforts
0:00:48 > 0:00:51of aid workers.
0:00:51 > 0:00:52Post-Brexit Britain won't be a 'Mad Max-style world',
0:00:52 > 0:00:55said David Davis, as he promises the UK will maintain high standards
0:00:55 > 0:01:03and regulations outside the EU.
0:01:03 > 0:01:06Labour's deputy leader, Tom Watson, accuses the newspapers of spreading
0:01:06 > 0:01:08'propaganda' about Jeremy Corbyn's contact with a Czech
0:01:08 > 0:01:14agent in the 1980s.
0:01:14 > 0:01:16It's rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease,
0:01:16 > 0:01:18only for them to find - the moment the first
0:01:18 > 0:01:22balls are bowled - that their bats have been broken
0:01:22 > 0:01:23before the game by the team captain.
0:01:23 > 0:01:26LAUGHTER
0:01:26 > 0:01:29And we'll be looking back at some of the biggest political
0:01:29 > 0:01:36resignations in history.
0:01:36 > 0:01:38All that in the next hour.
0:01:38 > 0:01:41And with us for the whole of the programme today,
0:01:41 > 0:01:43it's the crossbench peer, academic, and - since yesterday -
0:01:43 > 0:01:45member of the Government's new review into tuition fees
0:01:45 > 0:01:48and university funding in England.
0:01:48 > 0:01:49Alison Wolf.
0:01:49 > 0:01:50Alison Wolf.
0:01:50 > 0:01:53Welcome to the show.
0:01:53 > 0:01:54Thank you for inviting me.
0:01:54 > 0:01:55Thank you for inviting me.
0:01:55 > 0:01:58First today, let's pick up on that appearance in front of MPs
0:01:58 > 0:02:00by the Chief Executive of Oxfam, Mark Goldring, following revelations
0:02:00 > 0:02:03about the sexual misconduct of some staff in Haiti
0:02:03 > 0:02:09after the 2010 earthquake.
0:02:09 > 0:02:10He began by telling the International Development Committee
0:02:10 > 0:02:14he was "deeply sorry" for comments he made last week, when he suggested
0:02:14 > 0:02:16the actions of the charity were not the equivalent of "murdering babies
0:02:16 > 0:02:17in their cots".
0:02:17 > 0:02:23He went on to apologise for the damage caused by Oxfam.
0:02:23 > 0:02:25I repeat Oxfam's broader apology and my personal apology.
0:02:25 > 0:02:28I am sorry, we are sorry, for the damage that Oxfam has done,
0:02:28 > 0:02:31both to the people of Haiti, but also to wider efforts for aid
0:02:31 > 0:02:39and development by possibly undermining public support.
0:02:42 > 0:02:49Mark Goldring apologising. Alison Wolf, do you trust Oxfam to root out
0:02:49 > 0:02:50the problems at the heart of this scandal?
0:02:50 > 0:02:55I am sure that they will take everything to do with sexual
0:02:55 > 0:02:58harassment and this behaviour extremely seriously, I am quite sure
0:02:58 > 0:03:05they will do. I do think this highlights in many ways the
0:03:05 > 0:03:09difficulty for huge aid agencies of knowing what on Earth is going on
0:03:09 > 0:03:14among them many, many staff. One of the rather disturbing things is the
0:03:14 > 0:03:19scale of the aid industry. The degree to which when you arrive in a
0:03:19 > 0:03:26country, you will find large numbers of competing aid industries.
0:03:26 > 0:03:30Charities. The number of people engaged in what has become a real
0:03:30 > 0:03:36industry. An industry which also lives by the media. So I guess they
0:03:36 > 0:03:41should not be surprised if they risked dying by the media as well.
0:03:41 > 0:03:45Is that an implication that you would like to see them trimmed in
0:03:45 > 0:03:50some way, the charities and aid agencies, and funding reduced?I
0:03:50 > 0:03:54don't want funding reduced, I am not arguing we give too much foreign
0:03:54 > 0:03:57aid, it is absolutely right we should give a great deal and
0:03:57 > 0:04:05admirable that we do so. But looking at the way in which aid, the aid
0:04:05 > 0:04:08industry operates, you do wonder if this is the best thing to do to
0:04:08 > 0:04:12empower local people, whether it should not be scaled back, more
0:04:12 > 0:04:17money going directly to people who are themselves inhabitants of the
0:04:17 > 0:04:22countries we try to help. A real shift from this paternalistic model
0:04:22 > 0:04:23with its thousands and thousands of employees.
0:04:23 > 0:04:28Let's leave it there.
0:04:28 > 0:04:31Cabinet ministers have been making a series of speeches under the title
0:04:31 > 0:04:32'The Road to Brexit'.
0:04:32 > 0:04:34This morning, we've been hearing from Environment Secretary
0:04:34 > 0:04:36Michael Gove on farming, and Trade Secretary Liam Fox
0:04:36 > 0:04:42is talking about trade - unsurprisingly.
0:04:42 > 0:04:44First up today was the Brexit Secretary David Davis,
0:04:44 > 0:04:47who told an audience in Vienna that after the UK leaves the EU, it
0:04:47 > 0:04:52won't plunge into a "Mad Max-style world borrowed from dystopian
0:04:52 > 0:04:55fiction", and that the UK would always maintain high standards
0:04:55 > 0:04:56to ensure frictionless trade with the EU.
0:04:56 > 0:04:58So what's all the fuss about?
0:04:58 > 0:05:02David Davis said that fears of a "race to the bottom" on issues
0:05:02 > 0:05:03like workers' rights and environmental protection
0:05:03 > 0:05:10were "based on nothing".
0:05:10 > 0:05:13Labour - and leaders of some of the largest trade unions -
0:05:13 > 0:05:15have long claimed the Conservatives are pursuing
0:05:15 > 0:05:17a "bargain-basement Brexit".
0:05:17 > 0:05:19That would turn the UK into a "low wage, offshore tax haven,"
0:05:19 > 0:05:22with assaults on workers' rights and environmental protection.
0:05:22 > 0:05:24That was partly prompted by the Prime Minister's oft-repeated
0:05:24 > 0:05:32assertion that "no deal is better than a bad deal".
0:05:36 > 0:05:39by Philip Hammond, saying a year ago that the UK would "do what we have
0:05:39 > 0:05:42to do" to remain competitive, even if "forced to change
0:05:42 > 0:05:43our economic model".
0:05:43 > 0:05:44And the fact that during the referendum,
0:05:44 > 0:05:47the Vote Leave campaign - led by Michael Gove
0:05:47 > 0:05:51and Boris Johnson, now senior members of the Cabinet -
0:05:51 > 0:05:53had claimed EU regulations costs UK small business over
0:05:53 > 0:05:54£600 million a week.
0:05:54 > 0:05:57But the Government has pointed out that its flagship EU Withdrawal Bill
0:05:57 > 0:06:00enshrines all EU protections into UK law, so there'll be continuity
0:06:00 > 0:06:03immediately after Brexit.
0:06:03 > 0:06:06And just last month, Philip Hammond said there was "no
0:06:06 > 0:06:08appetite" for a major change to the UK's economic model,
0:06:08 > 0:06:09whatever people say.
0:06:09 > 0:06:13And that people in the UK remain attracted to a European-style social
0:06:13 > 0:06:14economy, with strong protections for labour, the environment,
0:06:14 > 0:06:16and welfare recipients.
0:06:16 > 0:06:19Well, earlier, David Davis took aim at those who claim Brexit
0:06:19 > 0:06:23will be used as an excuse to slash regulations.
0:06:23 > 0:06:26These fears about a race to the bottom are based on nothing.
0:06:26 > 0:06:29Not our history, not our intentions, not our national interest.
0:06:29 > 0:06:31Frankly, the competitive challenge we in the UK and the European Union
0:06:31 > 0:06:34will face from the rest of the world, where 90% of growth
0:06:34 > 0:06:38in markets will come from, will not be met by a reduction
0:06:38 > 0:06:45in the standards.
0:06:47 > 0:06:48David Davis.
0:06:48 > 0:06:49David Davis.
0:06:49 > 0:06:51Well, for more, we can talk to our chief political
0:06:51 > 0:06:54correspondent, Vicki Young, who's in Vienna.
0:06:54 > 0:06:57David Davis has been giving a speech there. What did we learn from the
0:06:57 > 0:07:03Brexit Secretary? I think it has just been very
0:07:03 > 0:07:07striking not just today but Theresa May at the Munich Security
0:07:07 > 0:07:11conference a couple of days ago, it is all about cooperation continuing
0:07:11 > 0:07:15into the future. You think about the argument made by some of the
0:07:15 > 0:07:19Conservative Party for decades, the point of leaving the European Union
0:07:19 > 0:07:24is because of red tape, bureaucracy, stifling Nitish business. We can be
0:07:24 > 0:07:28set free from that. That was not the tone today, the tone today was more
0:07:28 > 0:07:33about reassurance, saying that we are not going to undercut those high
0:07:33 > 0:07:37standards. Higher standards is what we want and what we will try to
0:07:37 > 0:07:40achieve. Speaking the Austrian businesspeople afterwards, they
0:07:40 > 0:07:43certainly felt the tone from British ministers has changed in the last
0:07:43 > 0:07:48year. They think it is about the reality is starting to bite and that
0:07:48 > 0:07:53in the end, when it comes to manufacturing goods, the UK realises
0:07:53 > 0:07:56to keep that frictionless trade we want so much we have to keep some
0:07:56 > 0:08:01kind of alignment. How we do that has not been sorted out, and that
0:08:01 > 0:08:06Cabinet ministers meeting at the country residence Chequers in the
0:08:06 > 0:08:09next couple of days, Theresa May may have to look them in the room
0:08:09 > 0:08:13overnight we have had to get a deal. Sounds great! If there has been a
0:08:13 > 0:08:18change in tone when it comes to this idea of regulatory and alignment and
0:08:18 > 0:08:24not being set free in terms of regulation, they're not those who
0:08:24 > 0:08:28voted Leave and key members of the Cabinet who are not going to be very
0:08:28 > 0:08:33disappointed? Yes, this is the key thing, can that
0:08:33 > 0:08:37pragmatic approach which something David Davis has always had, will
0:08:37 > 0:08:42that persuade some of the others? Irish Thomson, for example, who make
0:08:42 > 0:08:47that first speech on this road to Brexit Dasher Horace Johnson.
0:08:47 > 0:08:51Various ministers laying out their plans. He did acknowledge there may
0:08:51 > 0:08:55have to be some kind of alignment. But I don't think we know how they
0:08:55 > 0:09:00are going to do that and maybe more crucially, what the European Union
0:09:00 > 0:09:05will say about it. But today from David Davis, it was, you can trust
0:09:05 > 0:09:09us, we have been your partner for many years, you can trust us, we can
0:09:09 > 0:09:12make this work. Whether that trust is that not is different matter.
0:09:12 > 0:09:14Thank you.
0:09:14 > 0:09:16Well, to discuss this, we're joined by the Conservative MP
0:09:16 > 0:09:18and long-time Brexit supporter Iain Duncan Smith,
0:09:18 > 0:09:20and Labour's Chuka Umunna who supports the campaign group
0:09:20 > 0:09:23Open Britain, which wants the UK to remain in the Single Market
0:09:23 > 0:09:26and Customs Union.
0:09:26 > 0:09:30Welcome. Iain Duncan Smith, do you detect a change in tone? This talk
0:09:30 > 0:09:34about Britain being set free from burdensome regulation out the
0:09:34 > 0:09:38window?Not really, no. What he is saying it for what the government
0:09:38 > 0:09:42has said for a long time that as we leave, we are binding in everything
0:09:42 > 0:09:51into UK law, that was the bill on which it went. In perpetuity? No,
0:09:51 > 0:09:55you review it and decide the keys. There are a lot of areas we will
0:09:55 > 0:10:00want to review. When it comes to things like workers' rights, we
0:10:00 > 0:10:03already have the most flexible workforce in Europe. There is a
0:10:03 > 0:10:07reason why we would have to dump regulations on that because it is
0:10:07 > 0:10:11more flexible than Germany. That is not an issue. But there are other
0:10:11 > 0:10:16areas you look at and we will try and change some of those
0:10:16 > 0:10:18regulations. When we were in government with the Liberal
0:10:18 > 0:10:21Democrats, we used to have a very simple rule that for every
0:10:21 > 0:10:26regulation you wanted to bring in, you had to find three to get rid of.
0:10:26 > 0:10:30So which ones? Let me give you a list I made before I came. Just a
0:10:30 > 0:10:37couple to start. The clinical trials directive is dumped, non-commercial
0:10:37 > 0:10:40trials in the UK, it has been appalling. We with the leader in
0:10:40 > 0:10:47commercial trials. We will destroy a lot of ordinary stock brokers with a
0:10:47 > 0:10:52massive new amount of regulation. And the other one is solvency two.
0:10:52 > 0:10:57That damages the UK because the UK has this equity market where people
0:10:57 > 0:11:01get equity release as they get older. That puts nearly 1%, 2% cost
0:11:01 > 0:11:07on that and we want to look at that. The labelling is huge, bigger than
0:11:07 > 0:11:12the packages.You have given some examples.I am simply saying there
0:11:12 > 0:11:16are a lot of areas we will look at. He was not saying we will not look
0:11:16 > 0:11:20to change. He was saying, we will always look to discuss that with our
0:11:20 > 0:11:24European partners in a free trade arrangement. Explain to them why we
0:11:24 > 0:11:31want to change things where it is necessary, that is all.What is your
0:11:31 > 0:11:33evidence, Chuka Umunna? Any evidence that the Government is planning
0:11:33 > 0:11:38anything like a bonfire of the regulations after Brexit?Well, you
0:11:38 > 0:11:42just have to look at the comments of leading members of the Cabinet.
0:11:42 > 0:11:46Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, Michael Gove have talked about further
0:11:46 > 0:11:51liberalising the labour market. Part of the problem David Davis and many
0:11:51 > 0:11:56on it that side of the argument is their record. Iain Duncan Smith's
0:11:56 > 0:12:01maiden speech in May 1992 celebrated the fact we were coming out of the
0:12:01 > 0:12:05European social chapter. He gave a speech in the same Parliament in
0:12:05 > 0:12:151996, in July.Don't get distracted! Let's listen. In July 1996, Iain was
0:12:15 > 0:12:19celebrating the need for a more laissez faire approach to employment
0:12:19 > 0:12:23regulations. When you look at this guy, this man voted for unfair
0:12:23 > 0:12:27dismissal to be more difficult to claim, this guy voted for
0:12:27 > 0:12:31compensation for umpire -- unfair dismissal to be reduced and
0:12:31 > 0:12:36employment tribunal these which were ruled to be unlawful by the Supreme
0:12:36 > 0:12:39Court to be introduced. And now they want you to give them the benefit of
0:12:39 > 0:12:46the doubt and have you believe...So you don't stand by that?No, I do
0:12:46 > 0:12:53stand by what I said.You do want to strip away working regulations
0:12:53 > 0:12:56question no, stop, don't make this so simplistic that people don't get
0:12:56 > 0:13:01it.The point is that the problem is when you make regulations for the
0:13:01 > 0:13:05entire European Union, areas of the European Union have very different
0:13:05 > 0:13:09traditions and also different marketplaces. I gave two examples in
0:13:09 > 0:13:14the financial services sector handgun! Where they damage us. The
0:13:14 > 0:13:19difference in leaving, the UK will look to make regulations to protect
0:13:19 > 0:13:22workers that are relevant to UK working practice and not relevant to
0:13:22 > 0:13:27Greek or Italian practice. That is a big difference. By the way, we have
0:13:27 > 0:13:33a very high level of worker protection in the UK.Thanks to the
0:13:33 > 0:13:37last Labour government. You have stripped it away.Tribunal fees? I
0:13:37 > 0:13:41can name a lot of things the Labour government did I thought were
0:13:41 > 0:13:48terrible. We do it for the UK.What specific rights to the Conservatives
0:13:48 > 0:13:52go into the 2017 election promising to scrap?They did not go in
0:13:52 > 0:13:58promising to scrap specific rights in 2010, but they did so, and this
0:13:58 > 0:14:03is the problem. In many respects, you say, what is the evidence?What
0:14:03 > 0:14:12is the evidence?Let him respond. B Croft review which was done during
0:14:12 > 0:14:18the 2010 election made a number of recommendations, commissioned by
0:14:18 > 0:14:22David Cameron, it made a load of recommendations and was dumped
0:14:22 > 0:14:27partly, and half of it was incremented. The other half was not
0:14:27 > 0:14:30implemented because employment, EU employment law protected British
0:14:30 > 0:14:37workers and stopped them stripping it.The review came in and we all
0:14:37 > 0:14:41argued we did not have the need for fermenting any of that stuff.Why
0:14:41 > 0:14:46was commissioned in the first place? Because he did put forward and
0:14:46 > 0:14:50propose quite radical regulation.It was commissioned because he wanted
0:14:50 > 0:14:54to look at whether it was feasible to make our labour market more
0:14:54 > 0:14:58feasible. The organ and I made and continue to make, and I was in
0:14:58 > 0:15:03Germany not so long ago, and they say we admire you because you have a
0:15:03 > 0:15:08more flexible set of regulations. Hang on a second. The reality is
0:15:08 > 0:15:11that we already have a much greater and more flexible workforce. And
0:15:11 > 0:15:15this is what happens when you have a really flexible workforce. You end
0:15:15 > 0:15:17up with low and employment, more people back in work than anywhere
0:15:17 > 0:15:21else in Europe.
0:15:21 > 0:15:28You said we should use Brexit to slash red tape and regulation,
0:15:28 > 0:15:32Leslie burden on business and citizens but we have heard from
0:15:32 > 0:15:36Chuka Umunna that those concerned worker protections and writes in a
0:15:36 > 0:15:43broad sense. I have given you a list.THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER M
0:15:43 > 0:15:48and my question.Here is the point, I have given you a set of examples I
0:15:48 > 0:15:52don't think anyone wanted but I have given them to you, but none of them
0:15:52 > 0:15:57are about workers' rights. They are all about the marketplace being
0:15:57 > 0:15:59damaged by overregulation. A lot of that has been going on and the
0:15:59 > 0:16:04problem with Chuka and his side of the argument is they always want to
0:16:04 > 0:16:10go on to take it that they are going to damage you and virtue, no elected
0:16:10 > 0:16:12British government would deliberately come in and try to
0:16:12 > 0:16:17damage people's lives. We want businesses to generate income which
0:16:17 > 0:16:22provides work and jobs for people. That may mean deregulation.Many of
0:16:22 > 0:16:30my constituents have suffered...Who won election in 2015? If so many
0:16:30 > 0:16:33people were exercised about the rights being stripped away why did
0:16:33 > 0:16:37they not elect a Labour government to protect those rights? If British
0:16:37 > 0:16:40government changes the rules and regulations in the future post
0:16:40 > 0:16:45Brexit the British people can decide to kick them out.That is true and
0:16:45 > 0:16:49you admitted one thing, Labour may not have won but Theresa May lost
0:16:49 > 0:16:55the majority.I was talking about 2015.You said rights had been
0:16:55 > 0:17:04stripped away in 2010 but anyway... The broader point...The important
0:17:04 > 0:17:06question is you either diverged because you want to reduce
0:17:06 > 0:17:17protections, employment, the or a new diverged to increase protection,
0:17:17 > 0:17:22name an area where you want to improve things?I have absolutely no
0:17:22 > 0:17:25plans and the government has no plans to lessen workers' rights. But
0:17:25 > 0:17:30here is one thing... Whilst you were in government it was my government,
0:17:30 > 0:17:36and it was my idea that has pushed the minimum wage up to £9 per hour,
0:17:36 > 0:17:40Labour never did that, they never got above £6 per hour. The reality
0:17:40 > 0:17:46is it is that which does more to protect workers in work. I am sorry,
0:17:46 > 0:17:50this lovely chest beating idea the Labour Party has that only they
0:17:50 > 0:17:54protect people who go to work, the least protected person is the person
0:17:54 > 0:17:58out of work and you had terrible levels of unemployment. We have high
0:17:58 > 0:18:04ones.Let Chuka Umunna answer.I will not go back in history 3
0:18:04 > 0:18:09million unemployed under Margaret to Thatcher but you look again and you
0:18:09 > 0:18:16will see the arguing against the minimum wage. I am pleased has been
0:18:16 > 0:18:21an about turn, do not let people believe you are a champion of the
0:18:21 > 0:18:24National minimum wage, you did not want it raised in the first place.
0:18:24 > 0:18:31THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER Do not talk over each other, Iain Duncan
0:18:31 > 0:18:36Smith, Boris Johnson said that the weight of employment regulation is
0:18:36 > 0:18:39no backbreaking, the collective redundancies directive, the working
0:18:39 > 0:18:44Time directive, and a thousand more, do you agree these are the things
0:18:44 > 0:18:49which have been backbreaking for the workforce?It's important to look at
0:18:49 > 0:18:51all regulations which came in from the European Union and decide if
0:18:51 > 0:18:56they work well in the UK. I give you a list... The point I want to make
0:18:56 > 0:19:02is there are a whole list of things which we think do not fit the UK's
0:19:02 > 0:19:05way of working. We want to preserve the good bits and make sure the
0:19:05 > 0:19:13other bits are either changed unmodified...
0:19:13 > 0:19:18unmodified..."Changed".What will the country have to offer post
0:19:18 > 0:19:24Brexit unless it is a low tax economy?What we will not have is a
0:19:24 > 0:19:28massive level of cost of money we have 2 cents to the European Union.
0:19:28 > 0:19:31We will not have to impose many damaging regulations which despite
0:19:31 > 0:19:38Britain's businesses... Deregulation is not always just about people's
0:19:38 > 0:19:43workers' rights. It's about rules and regulations on reporting in
0:19:43 > 0:19:48business which cost massive amounts of money which make business less
0:19:48 > 0:19:50effective and less competitive. Removing those will help improve
0:19:50 > 0:19:57things.What do you think listening to that?I was struck by the remark
0:19:57 > 0:20:00that you can diverged by increasing regulation as well as decreasing
0:20:00 > 0:20:06regulation and my sense is that post Brexit what will happen is over time
0:20:06 > 0:20:09there will be increasing divergences and probably some of it half the
0:20:09 > 0:20:15country will welcome and the other half will not and vice versa. But I
0:20:15 > 0:20:19think what we have to except and that is clearly what the government
0:20:19 > 0:20:24is accepting is that we live in increasingly regulated Globe and it
0:20:24 > 0:20:28does impose costs but it's the reality and you cannot trade unless
0:20:28 > 0:20:32your goods and services are recognised as acceptable by the
0:20:32 > 0:20:37country you are exporting to. We will regulate and regulate and
0:20:37 > 0:20:42regulate well beyond my death and that will be true whether or not we
0:20:42 > 0:20:47crash out or get a good deal.Thank you both very much. You will have to
0:20:47 > 0:20:51crash out of the studio for now.
0:20:51 > 0:20:53The Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Tom Watson,
0:20:53 > 0:20:55has this morning challenged continuing claims by a number
0:20:55 > 0:20:58of newspapers about contact Jeremy Corbyn is alleged to have had
0:20:58 > 0:20:59with a Czechoslovakian diplomat and agent in
0:20:59 > 0:21:03London during the 1980s.
0:21:03 > 0:21:05The story, first reported by the Sun last week,
0:21:05 > 0:21:08is based on claims that a Czech intelligence officer met and tried
0:21:08 > 0:21:11to recruit Mr Corbyn during the Cold War.
0:21:11 > 0:21:13This morning's Daily Mail is still carrying the story
0:21:13 > 0:21:15on its front page.
0:21:15 > 0:21:18It says, 'Time to be open, Comrade Corbyn'.
0:21:18 > 0:21:20While the Daily Telegraph says 'Corbyn is urged
0:21:20 > 0:21:24to reveal his Stasi file'.
0:21:24 > 0:21:27The Labour leader's office has said from the start that 'the claim that
0:21:27 > 0:21:29Jeremy Corbyn was an agent, asset, or informer for any
0:21:29 > 0:21:37intelligence agency is entirely false and a ridiculous smear'.
0:21:37 > 0:21:40And this morning, Tom Watson has used an article for the Independent
0:21:40 > 0:21:42website to accuse "right-wing" newspapers of spreading
0:21:42 > 0:21:45propaganda about Mr Corbyn.
0:21:45 > 0:21:46Newspaper proprietors in this country abuse
0:21:46 > 0:21:48their power," he writes.
0:21:48 > 0:21:51"It's a unique kind of self-harm for a newspaper to print a story
0:21:51 > 0:21:54they know is poorly-sourced, decide to run it regardless
0:21:54 > 0:21:58because it suits their political agenda, and pass it off as news."
0:21:58 > 0:22:00Well, the Prime Minister was asked about this story yesterday.
0:22:00 > 0:22:03Here's what she had to say.
0:22:03 > 0:22:06Well, first of all, I think it's for individual Members of Parliament
0:22:06 > 0:22:09to be accountable for their actions in the past.
0:22:09 > 0:22:12But also, I think that where there are allegations of this sort,
0:22:12 > 0:22:18that Members of Parliament should be prepared to be open and transparent.
0:22:18 > 0:22:21So that's what Mrs May had to say, but what does Mr Corbyn have
0:22:21 > 0:22:22to come clean about?
0:22:22 > 0:22:25Yesterday, the BBC spoke to the Director of the Czech
0:22:25 > 0:22:26Security Services Archive.
0:22:26 > 0:22:32Here's what she had to say.
0:22:32 > 0:22:35TRANSLATION:Mr Corbyn was not a secret collaborator working
0:22:35 > 0:22:42for the Czechoslovakian intelligence service.
0:22:42 > 0:22:46The files we have on him are kept in a folder that starts
0:22:46 > 0:22:49with the identification number one.
0:22:49 > 0:22:50Secret collaborators were allocated numbers that started
0:22:50 > 0:22:53with the number four.
0:22:53 > 0:22:56If he had been successfully recruited as an informer,
0:22:56 > 0:22:59then his person-of-interest file would have been closed and a new one
0:22:59 > 0:23:01would have been opened, and that would have started
0:23:01 > 0:23:06with a four.
0:23:06 > 0:23:08That was the response from the Director of the Czech
0:23:08 > 0:23:12Security Services Archive yesterday.
0:23:12 > 0:23:16And one of the Conservative Party's deputy chairmen, the MP Ben Bradley,
0:23:16 > 0:23:17last night deleted a tweet which claimed Mr Corbyn "sold
0:23:17 > 0:23:20British secrets to Communist spies", following the threat of legal action
0:23:20 > 0:23:24from the Labour leader's office.
0:23:24 > 0:23:27So are these claims, as Tom Watson says, "propaganda,
0:23:27 > 0:23:30not journalism' and 'not worth the paper they are written on'?
0:23:30 > 0:23:32Well, Trevor Kavanagh is from the Sun, which first
0:23:32 > 0:23:33carried the story.
0:23:33 > 0:23:36And Alex Nunns has written a biography of Jeremy Corbyn and is
0:23:36 > 0:23:40a supporter of the Labour leader.
0:23:40 > 0:23:44Welcome to both of you. Trevor Kavanagh, the files show he was a
0:23:44 > 0:23:50person of interest but not a secret collaborator or informer, this is a
0:23:50 > 0:23:54witchhunt.This is a typical shoot the messenger tactic. It is richly
0:23:54 > 0:23:58sourced in the sense we have spoken to and have documentary evidence
0:23:58 > 0:24:04that Jeremy Corbyn was seen at least as an asset and had a codename and
0:24:04 > 0:24:09that is documentary evidence. The idea that it's not sourced is
0:24:09 > 0:24:14absurd. There is more to this than just the fact he was seen at least
0:24:14 > 0:24:19by the Czechoslovakian regime as an asset and that includes him taking a
0:24:19 > 0:24:24tour of East Germany on a motorbike back in the 70s.That is very
0:24:24 > 0:24:27different, being seen as a person of interest is nowhere near the same as
0:24:27 > 0:24:31being an informant or a spy and therefore that has led to claims
0:24:31 > 0:24:37you're running a smear campaign.We have never said Jeremy Corbyn is a
0:24:37 > 0:24:47spy, that he took money, we are reporting the view that he met him
0:24:47 > 0:24:50at least four times, more than the one-time Jeremy Corbyn admitted to.
0:24:50 > 0:24:56Is he credible or eight fantasist? Your mac he has evidence.
0:25:01 > 0:25:04There is documentary evidence that Jeremy Corbyn was seen as an acid
0:25:04 > 0:25:10and had a codename on the files. Alex Nunns, at best you could say
0:25:10 > 0:25:14Jeremy Corbyn was naive, he said he met a Czechoslovakian diplomat and
0:25:14 > 0:25:19other dealings he had in the 1980s, is it in the public interest for
0:25:19 > 0:25:24newspapers to scrutinise his background?Of course but here we
0:25:24 > 0:25:29have a credible source on one side and the person on the other side,
0:25:29 > 0:25:34the former spy who says he organised live aid. The other day he said he
0:25:34 > 0:25:39organised that. This guy has no credibility. He also says John
0:25:39 > 0:25:42McDonnell was passing secrets to Russia when John McDonnell was
0:25:42 > 0:25:46working her Camden Borough Council. His credibility is shredded and he
0:25:46 > 0:25:53is a fantasist. For newspapers to report it, OK it is legitimate, but
0:25:53 > 0:25:58for the continuous front-page Farage we've seen over the last half a week
0:25:58 > 0:26:03there is no justification.Trevor Kavanagh, what information would a
0:26:03 > 0:26:07Labour backbencher on the periphery of a party be able to give the
0:26:07 > 0:26:12Czechoslovakian Secret Service?It is impossible to know.He didn't
0:26:12 > 0:26:20have any.Let me finish. Spies don't just met somebody haul in a net,
0:26:20 > 0:26:23they add information together piece by piece until it forms a line. You
0:26:23 > 0:26:26don't know what you're giving the people you're talking to,
0:26:26 > 0:26:29inadvertently perhaps, but you don't know what you are providing to them
0:26:29 > 0:26:38and it's best not to get involved. Several formal meetings which were
0:26:38 > 0:26:41annotated at the time by a man who was clearly a spy for the
0:26:41 > 0:26:45Czechoslovakian regime and a member of Parliament.Do you think Jeremy
0:26:45 > 0:26:48Corbyn should be more open about his past meetings and dealings in the
0:26:48 > 0:26:52way Theresa May has asked him to be because at the best it doesn't look
0:26:52 > 0:26:54good if there have been meetings with people from the opposite side
0:26:54 > 0:27:03during the Cold War?I'm not sure that is true. We are talking about
0:27:03 > 0:27:061986, the time when the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc were opening up
0:27:06 > 0:27:11and trying to make connections. We are talking about a period when
0:27:11 > 0:27:14three years earlier in 1983 the world had been on the brink of
0:27:14 > 0:27:19nuclear war with mistakes on both sides. Surely having all those kind
0:27:19 > 0:27:24of conversations across borders is important? We also don't know why
0:27:24 > 0:27:29Jeremy Corbyn met this diplomat, but at the time I understand he was in
0:27:29 > 0:27:32touch with Czechoslovakian dissidents, he might have been
0:27:32 > 0:27:37meeting them to lobby on their behalf.Tom Watson has strongly
0:27:37 > 0:27:42criticised your newspaper and others over this, saying newspaper
0:27:42 > 0:27:46proprietors abused their power. You have run a story with evidence which
0:27:46 > 0:27:52is being conflicted here.None of it is... None of the evidence we have
0:27:52 > 0:27:58published has been contradicted.Do you contradict the evidence?The
0:27:58 > 0:28:06lady we heard from earlier contradicts the spy. So we have a
0:28:06 > 0:28:14conviction in sources.Maybe.You say maybe, so do you accept it and
0:28:14 > 0:28:18abuse of power to put this story on the front page, make it sent on news
0:28:18 > 0:28:23day after day after day?Of course not and I'm sure you don't either.
0:28:23 > 0:28:30What I think is irrelevant.Of course it is. What is much more
0:28:30 > 0:28:36important than this which was a fishing expedition is much less
0:28:36 > 0:28:44important, please do not shut me down... Jeremy Corbyn and I'm a
0:28:44 > 0:28:49motorcycle ride around East Germany in the 70s. I have travelled widely
0:28:49 > 0:28:53in Communist China and Soviet Russia since the 70s, you did not go into
0:28:53 > 0:28:59those countries without good reason on behalf of the people who are
0:28:59 > 0:29:02posting new and they watched you and monitored you every step of the way
0:29:02 > 0:29:08from the moment you got up until you went to bed.What do you say?He
0:29:08 > 0:29:13went on holiday with Diane Abbott. We are just combining desperate
0:29:13 > 0:29:17random things from his past and trying to put them into this
0:29:17 > 0:29:20ridiculous story that Jeremy Corbyn was a paid informant which is what
0:29:20 > 0:29:24has been reported without any evidence of that.Is this a
0:29:24 > 0:29:29reasonable line of scrutiny?I think it's reasonable for newspapers to
0:29:29 > 0:29:37print a great deal of material, on that I think it's important that we
0:29:37 > 0:29:39have a free press and they will often print stories which are then
0:29:39 > 0:29:44shown to be inaccurate in some way are exaggerated and the result of
0:29:44 > 0:29:49that is people who follow them end up with the correct conclusion. So I
0:29:49 > 0:29:53am strongly against the idea that you should not publish material
0:29:53 > 0:29:58within the bounds of the law. In this particular case I don't have a
0:29:58 > 0:30:02clue but I suspect a week from now anyone who is following it in detail
0:30:02 > 0:30:08will be in a position to form some more informed view of what is going
0:30:08 > 0:30:13on so I think the basic principle that the press should publish is
0:30:13 > 0:30:17absolutely of central importance. To make a different point, this strange
0:30:17 > 0:30:21way, whether or not this strengthens the position of Jeremy Corbyn or has
0:30:21 > 0:30:28the opposite effect, I do feel a slight sense of, I don't know about
0:30:28 > 0:30:34relief but slight surprise that the issues to do with the Cold War are
0:30:34 > 0:30:37suddenly on the front pages again. One of the things which strikes me
0:30:37 > 0:30:42as a university teacher is the perhaps inevitable but terrifying
0:30:42 > 0:30:46extent to which people have forgotten any history that they only
0:30:46 > 0:30:53learned as history and I do think that the period of the Cold War was
0:30:53 > 0:30:57relevant, is relevant, to where we are today. That it hasn't gone away
0:30:57 > 0:31:01so this is completely separate from whether or not this story turns out
0:31:01 > 0:31:04to be extremely well founded or extremely ill founded. I think it's
0:31:04 > 0:31:09a good idea that the country is being reminded of recent history.It
0:31:09 > 0:31:11is and thank you for coming in.
0:31:13 > 0:31:16The collapse of several rape trials over problems relating to disclosure
0:31:16 > 0:31:19of evidence at the end of last year led to calls to look again
0:31:19 > 0:31:22at the way those accused of sexual offences are treated by the courts.
0:31:22 > 0:31:25One student - who spent two years on bail before the rape case
0:31:25 > 0:31:28against him collapsed - called for those in his position
0:31:28 > 0:31:30to be granted anonymity.
0:31:30 > 0:31:33So should the law be changed, again?
0:31:33 > 0:31:37Anonymity in rape cases was given to both complainants
0:31:37 > 0:31:42and defendants for the first time by the Sexual Offences Act of 1976.
0:31:42 > 0:31:45But just 12 years later, in 1988, the Act's provisions on defendant
0:31:45 > 0:31:53anonymity were repealed by Margaret Thatcher's government.
0:31:53 > 0:31:57During the passage of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act,
0:31:57 > 0:32:00the Home Affairs Committee called for limited anonymity to be restored
0:32:00 > 0:32:04to cover suspects who had not yet been charged with a sexual offence.
0:32:04 > 0:32:07In May 2010, the coalition government published plans
0:32:07 > 0:32:09to "extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants", but it dropped
0:32:09 > 0:32:12the idea later that year - on the grounds that there wasn't
0:32:12 > 0:32:15enough evidence to support the policy.
0:32:15 > 0:32:17In 2015, the Home Affairs Select Committee again recommended
0:32:17 > 0:32:20anonymity for those suspected of a sex offence, unless and
0:32:20 > 0:32:24until they're charged.
0:32:24 > 0:32:26Joining me now is the campaigner and spokesperson for
0:32:26 > 0:32:33Women Against Rape, Lisa Longstaff.
0:32:33 > 0:32:37Welcome to the Daily Politics. Why do you think we keep coming back to
0:32:37 > 0:32:41this issue, is it a sign the current law is not working?Now I think that
0:32:41 > 0:32:48there are scandalous cases which are largely, often, the result of
0:32:48 > 0:32:52inadequate and negligent investigations. Which get in the
0:32:52 > 0:33:01public eye. And because a hullabaloo. And it is often driven
0:33:01 > 0:33:03by people accused who are celebrities or in positions of
0:33:03 > 0:33:08power.But not always, is it justifiable if there are cases which
0:33:08 > 0:33:13are rightly exposed for the evidence not being properly collected?Yes,
0:33:13 > 0:33:19but there are also quite a lot of cases where a man ends up being
0:33:19 > 0:33:23convicted and turns out to have been a very prolific and serial offender.
0:33:23 > 0:33:29And just like every other person who is accused, they say, no, I did not
0:33:29 > 0:33:34do it when first approached.Is that the reason you think it is important
0:33:34 > 0:33:39that complainants in rape cases get grunted bowl anonymity?They are
0:33:39 > 0:33:46granted full anonymity because they are vilified in the press. Exposed
0:33:46 > 0:33:50and basically it puts people off reporting. That is why victims were
0:33:50 > 0:33:56granted anonymity in 1976, at the same time as people accused. But
0:33:56 > 0:34:00granting it the people accused of rape now would separate it from
0:34:00 > 0:34:03every other kind of crime. That is one of the arguments that goes
0:34:03 > 0:34:08against it. Why should rapists, all men accused of rape be given
0:34:08 > 0:34:14different standards?Complainants another cases do not have anonymity
0:34:14 > 0:34:19and rape is different. It has become even more so with the advent of
0:34:19 > 0:34:23social media. I am strongly in favour of anonymity for people who
0:34:23 > 0:34:28are suspected, at least until they are charged. The reality is that if
0:34:28 > 0:34:34you are accused of rape, the mud sticks forever. It is absolutely
0:34:34 > 0:34:39horrendous the stories you get from people. I argued once and a TV
0:34:39 > 0:34:44programme in favour of anonymity for defendants. I got these horrendous
0:34:44 > 0:34:48stories not from celebrities, we will come to that in a moment, but
0:34:48 > 0:34:53from perfectly ordinary people who because they had been accused of
0:34:53 > 0:34:58rape, there were exposed on social media, on Google forever. Their name
0:34:58 > 0:35:02is out in the public domain, as in the cases of these people we have
0:35:02 > 0:35:06described. If it is a special crime and it is a special crime which is
0:35:06 > 0:35:10why we have anonymity for complainants, it is a special crime
0:35:10 > 0:35:12for people who have not yet been proven guilty and may not have even
0:35:12 > 0:35:18been charged.Do you accept that, that you say there is a danger of
0:35:18 > 0:35:22the complainant being vilified and also a danger and quite often it
0:35:22 > 0:35:25happens for defendants to be equally vilified and they may be wrongly
0:35:25 > 0:35:29accused? I think that what this relies on
0:35:29 > 0:35:34partly is the myth that a lot of women wrongly accused man of rape
0:35:34 > 0:35:38and they are lying, and that is very distorted. Blown out of all
0:35:38 > 0:35:44proportion compared to the number of real wrong accusations. Secondly, I
0:35:44 > 0:35:50think that what is really important about why we need people to be named
0:35:50 > 0:35:58is that if it were imposed that they would get anonymity until charged, a
0:35:58 > 0:36:02lot of people would not come forward. A lot of the victims,
0:36:02 > 0:36:08because it is such a shame making crime and because people are so
0:36:08 > 0:36:12damaged, and often it is the most abominable people who are attacked
0:36:12 > 0:36:17in this way, including children, but not only, it is a big deterrent
0:36:17 > 0:36:22coming for the -- it is the most vulnerable people. A lot of people
0:36:22 > 0:36:28do not come forward about the most prolific serial attackers.We don't
0:36:28 > 0:36:31know how much of that's true, we have no evidence and rightly not
0:36:31 > 0:36:36because everybody is anonymous on the complainant side. I come back to
0:36:36 > 0:36:41watch a fundamental principle of British justice, it you are innocent
0:36:41 > 0:36:46until proven guilty and you do not get your case to court unless is the
0:36:46 > 0:36:51evidence.But you are still innocent until proven guilty, this is about
0:36:51 > 0:36:56being named.In reality, you are not commit you are vilified. People say,
0:36:56 > 0:37:00no smoke without fire, your life is put on hold, you are sacked from
0:37:00 > 0:37:03your job and thrown out from your university, your name is all over
0:37:03 > 0:37:08the press. And then you save that of few cases, we don't know how many
0:37:08 > 0:37:14cases there are! We do! Know, we do not know how many cases that are
0:37:14 > 0:37:17where people are convicted wrongly. That is why we have to be so
0:37:17 > 0:37:23careful.Do you accept that people's reputations ruined even if they
0:37:23 > 0:37:29found innocent and even if it is small number of cases? That for the
0:37:29 > 0:37:33people who are suspected of rape, that it does stick forever?What I
0:37:33 > 0:37:38don't accept is that this is a uniquely stigmatising crime. If you
0:37:38 > 0:37:45are accused of murder or terrorism, you do not get anonymity.So why not
0:37:45 > 0:37:49get anonymity for all crimes?You don't get anonymity as a complainant
0:37:49 > 0:37:53in terrorism cases on Mr is a special case and the prosecution and
0:37:53 > 0:37:56police can give it to you. I come back to the fundamental principle of
0:37:56 > 0:38:01the British legal system and the freedom of our country, you don't
0:38:01 > 0:38:05take a case to court unless you can make that case stick. If you don't
0:38:05 > 0:38:09have a case for which you have adequate care evidence, you don't
0:38:09 > 0:38:13take it court. You seem to be saying, let's get lots of to come
0:38:13 > 0:38:17forward and even if the first case has not got adequate evidence, it
0:38:17 > 0:38:21seems all right. Because there will be so many people. We don't do that
0:38:21 > 0:38:26with the cases, you don't come into court to be tried of all sorts.No,
0:38:26 > 0:38:30that is not what I am saying. There have been a lot of high-profile
0:38:30 > 0:38:34cases in the most recent years where people have been getting away with
0:38:34 > 0:38:39raping lots of people. You have to acknowledge that, that is a fact.
0:38:39 > 0:38:44Barry Bennell was just convicted, Jimmy Sample, dozens in between, not
0:38:44 > 0:38:47only celebrities, but others who do not get in the public eye because
0:38:47 > 0:38:52they are not in the public eye -- Jimmy Sample. If they had not been
0:38:52 > 0:38:57named early on, many victims would not have come forward and they would
0:38:57 > 0:39:02not have had enough evidence and it would not have gone to court. The
0:39:02 > 0:39:07reality is only 6% of recorded rapes and is in conflict fishing. Not
0:39:07 > 0:39:15because 94% of women lying. -- in conviction. Women still get grills,
0:39:15 > 0:39:20cases are not all handled properly. Any woman who makes a complaint is
0:39:20 > 0:39:28telling the 100% truth, you make that assumption. Rape is a very
0:39:28 > 0:39:31difficult crime because in many cases, two people have very
0:39:31 > 0:39:35different memories of that. That is why it has always been a very
0:39:35 > 0:39:38difficult crime, the most difficult crime and time and again, it has
0:39:38 > 0:39:42been felt it has to be treated differently. People have different
0:39:42 > 0:39:45memories and people have false memories. People construct memories
0:39:45 > 0:39:54and people also lie to themselves. No.I don't agree, sorry. Of course
0:39:54 > 0:39:59some rapists have been let off. To make it is much more important a
0:39:59 > 0:40:04number of innocent people do not go to jail and we do not imprison the
0:40:04 > 0:40:09innocent, and we risk some guilty people walking away.Nobody wants
0:40:09 > 0:40:12the innocent putting imprison, including us, but it is very
0:40:12 > 0:40:19important if people are having their lives ruined by violence, they have
0:40:19 > 0:40:24the right to see justice and have their attacker prosecuted.It is a
0:40:24 > 0:40:29class issue, I think. On that, thank you very much.
0:40:29 > 0:40:31This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Campaign
0:40:31 > 0:40:34for Nuclear Disarmament - and that means it's also
0:40:34 > 0:40:36the anniversary of one of the world's most recognised
0:40:36 > 0:40:37political symbols, adopted by the CND ahead
0:40:37 > 0:40:40of an anti-nuclear weapons march to Aldermaston in 1958.
0:40:40 > 0:40:48Ellie Price has been taking a look.
0:40:50 > 0:40:52For millions around the world, it's simply the peace sign.
0:40:52 > 0:41:00But its origins are home-grown.
0:41:01 > 0:41:04Designed by a British artist called Gerald Holtom ahead of a march
0:41:04 > 0:41:05he himself was going on.
0:41:05 > 0:41:13And the design is surprisingly straightforward.
0:41:19 > 0:41:21It's the maritime signal, for N.
0:41:21 > 0:41:22And D.
0:41:22 > 0:41:23Nuclear.
0:41:23 > 0:41:24Disarmament.
0:41:24 > 0:41:27Gerald Holtom first showed this sketch of the image to a few members
0:41:27 > 0:41:30of the organising committee of that protest march to Aldermaston
0:41:30 > 0:41:31in February 1958.
0:41:31 > 0:41:33Michael Randle was one of four people in the room.
0:41:33 > 0:41:35Well, I was a little bit unsure.
0:41:35 > 0:41:41I didn't immediately say, oh, yeah, that's great, we must do that.
0:41:41 > 0:41:43But some of these other pictures helped to enthuse,
0:41:43 > 0:41:44I think, all of us.
0:41:44 > 0:41:47He showed a big streamer banner which would stretch
0:41:47 > 0:41:49right across the road, with the symbol on it,
0:41:49 > 0:41:50it would be spectacular.
0:41:50 > 0:41:52So he had thought about what the march would look
0:41:52 > 0:41:53like with this symbol on.
0:41:53 > 0:41:56And really, he sold it to us on that basis.
0:41:56 > 0:41:59The march took place over Easter, just a few weeks later.
0:41:59 > 0:42:00So you were on this march?
0:42:00 > 0:42:05Yes.
0:42:05 > 0:42:07Gerald Holtom's daughter, Anna, was 15 at the time.
0:42:07 > 0:42:09She'd helped make some of the placards -
0:42:09 > 0:42:10albeit begrudgingly.
0:42:10 > 0:42:13I think I was really a bit annoyed with their plans to go
0:42:13 > 0:42:15to Aldermaston because I probably had some boyfriend
0:42:15 > 0:42:21that I wanted to see.
0:42:21 > 0:42:24I wasn't too sure.
0:42:24 > 0:42:31It was a very cold day, I believe.
0:42:31 > 0:42:34Going to Aldermaston, on a long walk, with not
0:42:34 > 0:42:37the right clothes, was not something I looked forward to.
0:42:37 > 0:42:40He loved the idea of the lollipop placard because they are easy
0:42:40 > 0:42:42to hold, and he was thrilled with that circle.
0:42:42 > 0:42:44And we were all in the workshop working away, printing them
0:42:44 > 0:42:48and sticking them on.
0:42:48 > 0:42:50Sometimes getting splinters in our hands because the wood
0:42:50 > 0:42:54was not very nice wood.
0:42:54 > 0:42:59The march was a success.
0:42:59 > 0:43:03So much so that it was repeated for several years.
0:43:03 > 0:43:05And there at the beginning was an American peace and civil
0:43:05 > 0:43:08rights campaigner called Bayard Rustin, who was so impressed
0:43:08 > 0:43:11with the protest, and the symbol, that he took it to the US and helped
0:43:11 > 0:43:14organise the 1963 March on Washington.
0:43:14 > 0:43:16From then, the CND symbol would become known more
0:43:16 > 0:43:17broadly as the peace sign.
0:43:17 > 0:43:24So it was just as well that Gerald Holtom hadn't copyrighted it.
0:43:24 > 0:43:25I think that's what's made it successful.
0:43:25 > 0:43:31Because, you know, people could reproduce it in whatever form
0:43:31 > 0:43:34format seemed right to them, in whatever context and to take
0:43:34 > 0:43:37on whatever meaning they wanted it to take on.
0:43:37 > 0:43:40It's as modern today as it was in the 1960s and '50s.
0:43:40 > 0:43:43And six decades on, the CND don't mind sharing their logo either.
0:43:43 > 0:43:48I think having this symbol, which embraces all these aspects
0:43:48 > 0:43:52of the peace movement, has great resonance with young people
0:43:52 > 0:43:53as well as across the generations.
0:43:53 > 0:43:58I think that's very, very powerful.
0:43:58 > 0:44:01I think it's helped the cause of peace to be as significant
0:44:01 > 0:44:02as it is in Britain today.
0:44:02 > 0:44:06We're joined now by the designer Stephen Bayley.
0:44:06 > 0:44:12Why is it such a great design?Well, that our tests of good design and I
0:44:12 > 0:44:16think endurance is one of them and it has lasted 60 years. Another
0:44:16 > 0:44:21thing is adaptability and it works and a T-shirt and surfer you's
0:44:21 > 0:44:26camper van, it works on banners. And it is a logo, a graphic device which
0:44:26 > 0:44:31has created a brand and sense of awareness. It was a great film and I
0:44:31 > 0:44:36suspect that is retrospective rationalisation about the semaphore.
0:44:36 > 0:44:42I don't know, no one knows. But I suspect it. I suspect he was playing
0:44:42 > 0:44:46around with a Christian cross and it went one way. But a great logo
0:44:46 > 0:44:54often...But it really was an axe, not some great motivation?Just like
0:44:54 > 0:44:56Coca-Cola had to be the signature of the company's book-keeper, the
0:44:56 > 0:45:02famous FedEx logo, the graphic designer was mucking about with
0:45:02 > 0:45:07eight typeface and suddenly a narrow appeared. He did not intend that. I
0:45:07 > 0:45:13think that happened here. But endurance and adaptability, it was
0:45:13 > 0:45:17well after the Charlie had the atrocity in Paris, it became an
0:45:17 > 0:45:20Eiffel Tower and that is another sign of excellence and design,
0:45:20 > 0:45:25something that stays the same.
0:45:25 > 0:45:30It transcends countries and movements?Yes, I love the
0:45:30 > 0:45:34discipline in trying to design a little graphic thing, a little
0:45:34 > 0:45:40visual pun which can last and endure and carry meaning.I don't think the
0:45:40 > 0:45:46designer would have thought it would be so successful?Yes, the
0:45:46 > 0:45:49book-keeper of Coca-Cola did not think it would become a recognisable
0:45:49 > 0:45:53logo when he was just doing a scribble.And it has gone beyond its
0:45:53 > 0:45:58original meaning as it is now a symbol for peace.It was very much
0:45:58 > 0:46:02about the CND campaign. The other thing was even people like me could
0:46:02 > 0:46:07draw it, anyone could.So the simplicity of it in terms of its
0:46:07 > 0:46:11reproduction at various levels on placards and T-shirts.There is a
0:46:11 > 0:46:18rule in all communication, simplify then exaggerate. That is what has
0:46:18 > 0:46:23happened here. This simplicity is very hard won, it's not a silly
0:46:23 > 0:46:29doodle, it might have been created by unpredictable processes but this
0:46:29 > 0:46:34guy thought long and hard and worked and worked and worked on it and that
0:46:34 > 0:46:37is why it's the 10,000 hour thing, I don't know how long he spent on it
0:46:37 > 0:46:42but it's the end of a very thoughtful process.Can you think of
0:46:42 > 0:46:46any other symbols that have, you mentioned some of the other logos, I
0:46:46 > 0:46:49am trying to think of political symbols which have been as
0:46:49 > 0:46:55prominent? And you're done the same way?What interests me about the CND
0:46:55 > 0:46:59logo, and I think it's important to distinguish between a logo and the
0:46:59 > 0:47:04brand, logo is a graphic device and if it works well it creates more
0:47:04 > 0:47:07diffuse brand values. What fascinates me further is the way
0:47:07 > 0:47:11brands operate like religions do. That applies here and two other
0:47:11 > 0:47:18great brands like Apple. Steve Jobs appearances in San Francisco is like
0:47:18 > 0:47:26the second coming and designed to be so. All great brands model on
0:47:26 > 0:47:29religion, you have a congregation, you have an icon, literally an icon
0:47:29 > 0:47:37and a belief system.It has not been copyrighted. That might have helped.
0:47:37 > 0:47:39It is interesting point about religion because I think there have
0:47:39 > 0:47:46been times when it might have been writ misrepresented if it was seen
0:47:46 > 0:47:51as a Christian or anti-Christian, do you think it ever gave a sense of
0:47:51 > 0:47:55being anti-religious?It gives a sense of not being specifically
0:47:55 > 0:48:02religious. There is talk about its origin, there was a sign on a
0:48:02 > 0:48:07gravestone somewhere in Brittany a stone carving which was almost
0:48:07 > 0:48:11identical to this and that probably had some esoteric religious
0:48:11 > 0:48:14significance so I think what is clever about trying to deconstruct
0:48:14 > 0:48:20this is it is nonspecific but it has the power and suggestiveness of a
0:48:20 > 0:48:25religious symbol.And it has endured this discussion, thank you very much
0:48:25 > 0:48:29Stephen Bayley.
0:48:29 > 0:48:31As we reported on yesterday's programme, Theresa May has launched
0:48:31 > 0:48:33a review into tuition fees.
0:48:33 > 0:48:35It's going to last a year, and the Prime Minister acknowledged
0:48:35 > 0:48:38that students in England face "one of the most expensive systems
0:48:38 > 0:48:39of university tuition in the world".
0:48:39 > 0:48:42But she said the review won't look at scrapping fees,
0:48:42 > 0:48:44which would push up taxes and mean limiting the number
0:48:44 > 0:48:45of university places.
0:48:45 > 0:48:46Let's have a look.
0:48:46 > 0:48:49The review will now look at the whole question of how
0:48:49 > 0:48:52students and graduates contribute to the cost of their studies,
0:48:52 > 0:48:56including the level terms and duration of their contribution.
0:48:56 > 0:48:58Our goal is a funding system which provides value for money
0:48:58 > 0:49:01for graduates and taxpayers, so the principle that students,
0:49:01 > 0:49:05as well as taxpayers, should contribute to the cost
0:49:05 > 0:49:09of their studies is an important one.
0:49:09 > 0:49:13I believe - as do most people, including students -
0:49:13 > 0:49:15that those who benefit directly from higher education
0:49:15 > 0:49:18should contribute directly towards the cost of it.
0:49:18 > 0:49:20That's only fair.
0:49:20 > 0:49:24And our guest of the day, Alison Wolf, is one of the people
0:49:24 > 0:49:29appointed to this review into post-18 education.
0:49:29 > 0:49:34Obviously only in the last 24-48 hours.Exactly!Should scrapping
0:49:34 > 0:49:42tuition fees be part of the remit? Can I say this is not just about
0:49:42 > 0:49:50university tuition fees, it is as it has always meant to be before the
0:49:50 > 0:49:56campaign and the Labour position, it has always been about funding in
0:49:56 > 0:50:00general for tertiary students, people older than 18 which is
0:50:00 > 0:50:02different from those in compulsory education and that is what the view
0:50:02 > 0:50:09is about. Some of those people don't pay fees at all because if you are
0:50:09 > 0:50:15over 18 and do certain courses in which you have an entitlement you do
0:50:15 > 0:50:19not pay fees.Yes but it has been slightly overshadowed, overtaken by
0:50:19 > 0:50:23this idea of tuition fees and that's because the government has placed it
0:50:23 > 0:50:27there.The media has placed it there.It was Theresa May who said
0:50:27 > 0:50:32we have one of the most expensive systems in the world...In the part
0:50:32 > 0:50:36you chose to play she talked about what we have is an extraordinarily
0:50:36 > 0:50:43unfair bifurcated system where huge amounts of money going to higher
0:50:43 > 0:50:46education and universities and students are racking up vast numbers
0:50:46 > 0:50:49of debts and are technical and vocational sector which has been
0:50:49 > 0:50:54starved of funds where a number of students who can find courses to go
0:50:54 > 0:51:00on has been declining at a terrifying rate. That is actually
0:51:00 > 0:51:05clearly when you look at the terms of reference the core part of this
0:51:05 > 0:51:09review, to bring those bits together.Is it not slightly strange
0:51:09 > 0:51:13to have focused on the idea of making vocational education the
0:51:13 > 0:51:18central part, if it is, without putting more funds behind it?We
0:51:18 > 0:51:25have not said they will not put more funds buying that.Do they need to?
0:51:25 > 0:51:29My sense is that any government that is serious about getting a
0:51:29 > 0:51:36functioning post-18 system will over the next few decades have to shift
0:51:36 > 0:51:38it puts its funding more towards technical and vocational courses
0:51:38 > 0:51:42than it does at the moment. I don't have a clue if they will do it and
0:51:42 > 0:51:47it's not about closing down universities tomorrow which again,
0:51:47 > 0:51:50clearly, the review, even if we recommended that they would not do
0:51:50 > 0:51:57it. But I do think it's important to understand this review is about all
0:51:57 > 0:52:04post-18 funding, it's not just about should there be lower fees...How
0:52:04 > 0:52:09much freedom have you been given? Quite a lot but it's not an
0:52:09 > 0:52:13independent review, we and an expert panel which makes recommendations.
0:52:13 > 0:52:18But there is no force behind them, it is the government to decide if
0:52:18 > 0:52:22they take any of our advice.I am taking a point it's not just about
0:52:22 > 0:52:26university and tuition fees but do you think the option of scrapping
0:52:26 > 0:52:30tuition fees should have been part of it?I don't see how it could be
0:52:30 > 0:52:39because we cannot begin to afford to scrap all tuition fees and it was
0:52:39 > 0:52:42never likely it would ask us to look at that possibility because it's
0:52:42 > 0:52:47been quite clear that actually nobody in this government really
0:52:47 > 0:52:55thinks it is financial feasible. The Labour Party does but I think if
0:52:55 > 0:52:59they had done that it would have been a terrible distortion because
0:52:59 > 0:53:03then everyone would have gone on about that to the extinction of any
0:53:03 > 0:53:08other sensible discussion.Good luck with the review.
0:53:08 > 0:53:10Resignations are a fact of political life, whether they're
0:53:10 > 0:53:12of the long-drawn out variety - in which the minister hangs
0:53:12 > 0:53:16on by his or her fingernails - or the sudden departure as part
0:53:16 > 0:53:17of a plot to bring down a leader.
0:53:17 > 0:53:20Well a new book looks at some of the most sensational resignations
0:53:20 > 0:53:23over the past century - we'll speak to the author
0:53:23 > 0:53:25in a moment, but first let's have a look at some
0:53:25 > 0:53:29of the most famous.
0:53:29 > 0:53:32This report does contain flashing images.
0:53:36 > 0:53:40At five, it we now carry a rising Tory star with a reputation for
0:53:40 > 0:53:47straight talking like during the 1988 salmonella scare.Most of the
0:53:47 > 0:53:51egg production in this country is infected with salmonella.Farmers
0:53:51 > 0:53:58were outraged and she had to go. Robin Cook served Tony Blair loyally
0:53:58 > 0:54:00but this speech ahead of the invasion of Iraq was a masterclass
0:54:00 > 0:54:05in how to resign on a matter of principle.I cannot support a war
0:54:05 > 0:54:11without international agreement or domestic support.Geoffrey Howe was
0:54:11 > 0:54:15Margaret Thatcher's first Chancellor but after 11 years he lost his
0:54:15 > 0:54:18patience, particularly over Europe and his weapon of choice was
0:54:18 > 0:54:18cricket.
0:54:18 > 0:54:20It's rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease,
0:54:20 > 0:54:23only for them to find - the moment the first
0:54:23 > 0:54:25balls are bowled - that their bats have been broken
0:54:25 > 0:54:27before the game by the team captain.
0:54:27 > 0:54:31LAUGHTER
0:54:31 > 0:54:36Margaret Thatcher was gone within a month. The ultimate political
0:54:36 > 0:54:43scandal of the 19 affair, the Secretary of State for War having an
0:54:43 > 0:54:47affair with the model Christine Keeler who was to timing him with a
0:54:47 > 0:54:54Russian spy. The kind of had to go. In 1970 the Labour frontbencher John
0:54:54 > 0:54:57Stonehouse was so overwhelmed by personal and money problems he quit,
0:54:57 > 0:55:01by leaving his clothes and passport on a Miami Beach and faking his own
0:55:01 > 0:55:08death. Papers speculated he had been eaten by sharks but he was found in
0:55:08 > 0:55:12Australia. He tried to enter front line politics but ended up in prison
0:55:12 > 0:55:20for fraud.I became more and more of a sham and I did not realise until
0:55:20 > 0:55:27the very recent past when it hit me like a thunderbolt.
0:55:27 > 0:55:29And the author of Fighters and Quitters: Great Parliamentary
0:55:29 > 0:55:34Resignations is Theo Barclay, he joins us now.
0:55:34 > 0:55:39This is the book, I thought it might have been even bigger!Yes, quite a
0:55:39 > 0:55:44few to get in so I chose 25 of the best.How did you choose them, did
0:55:44 > 0:55:50you find there was just too much information?I applied a cut-off at
0:55:50 > 0:55:561938 because one of my favourites is the Duchess of Atholl who resigned
0:55:56 > 0:56:00in 1938 in protest against the appeasement of Hitler. She was
0:56:00 > 0:56:05proved right in the end, she staged a by-election on that single issue a
0:56:05 > 0:56:09bit like David Davis did a few years ago. She failed but she has gone
0:56:09 > 0:56:12down in history as being proved right in the end. I started with
0:56:12 > 0:56:16horror and then the 25 following that, some everyone will know and
0:56:16 > 0:56:20others hopefully not so familiar.So there might be some we have never
0:56:20 > 0:56:27heard of? What was your favourite. John Stonehouse is probably the best
0:56:27 > 0:56:32story because it has so many elements. He was a paid-up spy for
0:56:32 > 0:56:37many years and then he had an fair, he left his wife had faked his own
0:56:37 > 0:56:41death because he was in money troubles and he was discovered
0:56:41 > 0:56:45bizarrely a few months later in Australia because the police thought
0:56:45 > 0:56:49he was Lord Lucan who had also gone missing around that time. On
0:56:49 > 0:56:53discovering he was not Lord Lucan they shipped him back to Britain and
0:56:53 > 0:56:57he had a trial where he represented himself and eat it out for months
0:56:57 > 0:57:01and months to the extent that the whole grim justice system had to be
0:57:01 > 0:57:06reformed to stop you wasting time in that way. He has gone down as quick
0:57:06 > 0:57:13character.Any memorable ones for you, not you personally?The one the
0:57:13 > 0:57:17film brought back to me was it we now carry and the eggs, there was a
0:57:17 > 0:57:21second story for her later and her affair with John Major -- was it we
0:57:21 > 0:57:26now carry and the eggs. This wonderful book is that it brings
0:57:26 > 0:57:30back all these things about the feel of politics at the time that
0:57:30 > 0:57:33somebody resigned and how different some of it is when you see those
0:57:33 > 0:57:40pictures.There is a difference between scandal and trying to bring
0:57:40 > 0:57:43down a leader or resigning over policy. Which way does the balance
0:57:43 > 0:57:50tip?I have identified three types and you have covered them, the
0:57:50 > 0:57:53principled stand which is when someone cannot go along with
0:57:53 > 0:57:57something the government is doing and I think Robin Cook is the best
0:57:57 > 0:58:01example of that as you saw in the film. Then you have political
0:58:01 > 0:58:06assassination which you saw with Geoffrey Howe. And more recently I
0:58:06 > 0:58:09suppose the resignation of 92 Jeremy Corbyn's front bench could be in
0:58:09 > 0:58:15that category but that did not work. But the final one which is the most
0:58:15 > 0:58:22fun and frequent is the slow death where a minister falls under Myers
0:58:22 > 0:58:25of scandal and cannot stay afloat. Briefly, Lord Bates resigned
0:58:25 > 0:58:31recently, were you there when that happens? And then he came back.
0:58:31 > 0:58:35Resigning once and then people do come back and revise their history.
0:58:35 > 0:58:40Lord Bates did not manage to resign, the Prime Minister thought he'd gone
0:58:40 > 0:58:44that far. But people do get second chance, Peter Mandelson and David
0:58:44 > 0:58:49Blunkett came back. It looked to me from the radio this morning that
0:58:49 > 0:58:53Damian Green might be looking for a comeback.On that note we will end
0:58:53 > 0:58:58the programme! Thank you very much for coming and, the one o'clock News
0:58:58 > 0:59:00is on BBC One now, for all of us, thank you and goodbye.