Jo Coburn presents the latest political news with guest Alison Wolf, and including David Davis's Brexit speech in Vienna and the greatest resignations.
Browse content similar to 20/02/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Hello and welcome to
the Daily Politics.
The boss of Oxfam tells MPs he's
sorry for the damage the charity has
done to the people of Haiti
and the wider efforts
of aid workers.
Post-Brexit Britain won't be
a 'Mad Max-style world',
said David Davis, as he promises
the UK will maintain high standards
and regulations outside the EU.
Labour's deputy leader, Tom Watson,
accuses the newspapers of spreading
'propaganda' about Jeremy Corbyn's
contact with a Czech
agent in the 1980s.
It's rather like sending your
opening batsmen to the crease,
only for them to find -
the moment the first
balls are bowled -
that their bats have been broken
before the game by the team captain.
And we'll be looking back at some
of the biggest political
resignations in history.
All that in the next hour.
And with us for the whole
of the programme today,
it's the crossbench peer,
academic, and - since yesterday -
member of the Government's
new review into tuition fees
and university funding in England.
Welcome to the show.
Thank you for inviting me.
Thank you for inviting me.
First today, let's pick up on that
appearance in front of MPs
by the Chief Executive of Oxfam,
Mark Goldring, following revelations
about the sexual misconduct
of some staff in Haiti
after the 2010 earthquake.
He began by telling the
International Development Committee
he was "deeply sorry" for comments
he made last week, when he suggested
the actions of the charity were not
the equivalent of "murdering babies
in their cots".
He went on to apologise
for the damage caused by Oxfam.
I repeat Oxfam's broader apology
and my personal apology.
I am sorry, we are sorry,
for the damage that Oxfam has done,
both to the people of Haiti,
but also to wider efforts for aid
and development by possibly
undermining public support.
Mark Goldring apologising. Alison
Wolf, do you trust Oxfam to root out
the problems at the heart of this
I am sure that they will take
everything to do with sexual
harassment and this behaviour
extremely seriously, I am quite sure
they will do. I do think this
highlights in many ways the
difficulty for huge aid agencies of
knowing what on Earth is going on
among them many, many staff. One of
the rather disturbing things is the
scale of the aid industry. The
degree to which when you arrive in a
country, you will find large numbers
of competing aid industries.
Charities. The number of people
engaged in what has become a real
industry. An industry which also
lives by the media. So I guess they
should not be surprised if they
risked dying by the media as well.
Is that an implication that you
would like to see them trimmed in
some way, the charities and aid
agencies, and funding reduced?
don't want funding reduced, I am not
arguing we give too much foreign
aid, it is absolutely right we
should give a great deal and
admirable that we do so. But looking
at the way in which aid, the aid
industry operates, you do wonder if
this is the best thing to do to
empower local people, whether it
should not be scaled back, more
money going directly to people who
are themselves inhabitants of the
countries we try to help. A real
shift from this paternalistic model
with its thousands and thousands of
Let's leave it there.
Cabinet ministers have been making
a series of speeches under the title
'The Road to Brexit'.
This morning, we've been hearing
from Environment Secretary
Michael Gove on farming,
and Trade Secretary Liam Fox
is talking about trade -
First up today was the Brexit
Secretary David Davis,
who told an audience in Vienna that
after the UK leaves the EU, it
won't plunge into a "Mad Max-style
world borrowed from dystopian
fiction", and that the UK
would always maintain high standards
to ensure frictionless trade
with the EU.
So what's all the fuss about?
David Davis said that fears
of a "race to the bottom" on issues
like workers' rights
and environmental protection
were "based on nothing".
Labour - and leaders of some
of the largest trade unions -
have long claimed the Conservatives
a "bargain-basement Brexit".
That would turn the UK into a "low
wage, offshore tax haven,"
with assaults on workers' rights
and environmental protection.
That was partly prompted
by the Prime Minister's oft-repeated
assertion that "no deal is better
than a bad deal".
by Philip Hammond, saying a year ago
that the UK would "do what we have
to do" to remain competitive,
even if "forced to change
our economic model".
And the fact that
during the referendum,
the Vote Leave campaign -
led by Michael Gove
and Boris Johnson, now senior
members of the Cabinet -
had claimed EU regulations costs
UK small business over
£600 million a week.
But the Government has pointed out
that its flagship EU Withdrawal Bill
enshrines all EU protections into UK
law, so there'll be continuity
immediately after Brexit.
And just last month,
Philip Hammond said there was "no
appetite" for a major change
to the UK's economic model,
whatever people say.
And that people in the UK remain
attracted to a European-style social
economy, with strong protections
for labour, the environment,
and welfare recipients.
Well, earlier, David Davis took aim
at those who claim Brexit
will be used as an excuse
to slash regulations.
These fears about a race
to the bottom are based on nothing.
Not our history, not our intentions,
not our national interest.
Frankly, the competitive challenge
we in the UK and the European Union
will face from the rest
of the world, where 90% of growth
in markets will come from,
will not be met by a reduction
in the standards.
Well, for more, we can talk
to our chief political
correspondent, Vicki Young,
who's in Vienna.
David Davis has been giving a speech
there. What did we learn from the
I think it has just been very
striking not just today but Theresa
May at the Munich Security
conference a couple of days ago, it
is all about cooperation continuing
into the future. You think about the
argument made by some of the
Conservative Party for decades, the
point of leaving the European Union
is because of red tape, bureaucracy,
stifling Nitish business. We can be
set free from that. That was not the
tone today, the tone today was more
about reassurance, saying that we
are not going to undercut those high
standards. Higher standards is what
we want and what we will try to
achieve. Speaking the Austrian
businesspeople afterwards, they
certainly felt the tone from British
ministers has changed in the last
year. They think it is about the
reality is starting to bite and that
in the end, when it comes to
manufacturing goods, the UK realises
to keep that frictionless trade we
want so much we have to keep some
kind of alignment. How we do that
has not been sorted out, and that
Cabinet ministers meeting at the
country residence Chequers in the
next couple of days, Theresa May may
have to look them in the room
overnight we have had to get a deal.
Sounds great! If there has been a
change in tone when it comes to this
idea of regulatory and alignment and
not being set free in terms of
regulation, they're not those who
voted Leave and key members of the
Cabinet who are not going to be very
Yes, this is the key thing, can that
pragmatic approach which something
David Davis has always had, will
that persuade some of the others?
Irish Thomson, for example, who make
that first speech on this road to
Brexit Dasher Horace Johnson.
Various ministers laying out their
plans. He did acknowledge there may
have to be some kind of alignment.
But I don't think we know how they
are going to do that and maybe more
crucially, what the European Union
will say about it. But today from
David Davis, it was, you can trust
us, we have been your partner for
many years, you can trust us, we can
make this work. Whether that trust
is that not is different matter.
Well, to discuss this,
we're joined by the Conservative MP
and long-time Brexit supporter
Iain Duncan Smith,
and Labour's Chuka Umunna
who supports the campaign group
Open Britain, which wants the UK
to remain in the Single Market
and Customs Union.
Welcome. Iain Duncan Smith, do you
detect a change in tone? This talk
about Britain being set free from
burdensome regulation out the
Not really, no. What he is
saying it for what the government
has said for a long time that as we
leave, we are binding in everything
into UK law, that was the bill on
which it went. In perpetuity? No,
you review it and decide the keys.
There are a lot of areas we will
want to review. When it comes to
things like workers' rights, we
already have the most flexible
workforce in Europe. There is a
reason why we would have to dump
regulations on that because it is
more flexible than Germany. That is
not an issue. But there are other
areas you look at and we will try
and change some of those
regulations. When we were in
government with the Liberal
Democrats, we used to have a very
simple rule that for every
regulation you wanted to bring in,
you had to find three to get rid of.
So which ones? Let me give you a
list I made before I came. Just a
couple to start. The clinical trials
directive is dumped, non-commercial
trials in the UK, it has been
appalling. We with the leader in
commercial trials. We will destroy a
lot of ordinary stock brokers with a
massive new amount of regulation.
And the other one is solvency two.
That damages the UK because the UK
has this equity market where people
get equity release as they get
older. That puts nearly 1%, 2% cost
on that and we want to look at that.
The labelling is huge, bigger than
You have given some
I am simply saying there
are a lot of areas we will look at.
He was not saying we will not look
to change. He was saying, we will
always look to discuss that with our
European partners in a free trade
arrangement. Explain to them why we
want to change things where it is
necessary, that is all.
What is your
evidence, Chuka Umunna? Any evidence
that the Government is planning
anything like a bonfire of the
regulations after Brexit?
just have to look at the comments of
leading members of the Cabinet.
Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, Michael
Gove have talked about further
liberalising the labour market. Part
of the problem David Davis and many
on it that side of the argument is
their record. Iain Duncan Smith's
maiden speech in May 1992 celebrated
the fact we were coming out of the
European social chapter. He gave a
speech in the same Parliament in
1996, in July.
Don't get distracted!
Let's listen. In July 1996, Iain was
celebrating the need for a more
laissez faire approach to employment
regulations. When you look at this
guy, this man voted for unfair
dismissal to be more difficult to
claim, this guy voted for
compensation for umpire -- unfair
dismissal to be reduced and
employment tribunal these which were
ruled to be unlawful by the Supreme
Court to be introduced. And now they
want you to give them the benefit of
the doubt and have you believe...
you don't stand by that?
No, I do
stand by what I said.
You do want to
strip away working regulations
question no, stop, don't make this
so simplistic that people don't get
The point is that the problem is
when you make regulations for the
entire European Union, areas of the
European Union have very different
traditions and also different
marketplaces. I gave two examples in
the financial services sector
handgun! Where they damage us. The
difference in leaving, the UK will
look to make regulations to protect
workers that are relevant to UK
working practice and not relevant to
Greek or Italian practice. That is a
big difference. By the way, we have
a very high level of worker
protection in the UK.
Thanks to the
last Labour government. You have
stripped it away.
Tribunal fees? I
can name a lot of things the Labour
government did I thought were
terrible. We do it for the UK.
specific rights to the Conservatives
go into the 2017 election promising
They did not go in
promising to scrap specific rights
in 2010, but they did so, and this
is the problem. In many respects,
you say, what is the evidence?
is the evidence?
Let him respond. B
Croft review which was done during
the 2010 election made a number of
recommendations, commissioned by
David Cameron, it made a load of
recommendations and was dumped
partly, and half of it was
incremented. The other half was not
implemented because employment, EU
employment law protected British
workers and stopped them stripping
The review came in and we all
argued we did not have the need for
fermenting any of that stuff.
was commissioned in the first place?
Because he did put forward and
propose quite radical regulation.
was commissioned because he wanted
to look at whether it was feasible
to make our labour market more
feasible. The organ and I made and
continue to make, and I was in
Germany not so long ago, and they
say we admire you because you have a
more flexible set of regulations.
Hang on a second. The reality is
that we already have a much greater
and more flexible workforce. And
this is what happens when you have a
really flexible workforce. You end
up with low and employment, more
people back in work than anywhere
else in Europe.
You said we should use Brexit to
slash red tape and regulation,
Leslie burden on business and
citizens but we have heard from
Chuka Umunna that those concerned
worker protections and writes in a
broad sense. I have given you a
THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER M
and my question.
Here is the point,
I have given you a set of examples I
don't think anyone wanted but I have
given them to you, but none of them
are about workers' rights. They are
all about the marketplace being
damaged by overregulation. A lot of
that has been going on and the
problem with Chuka and his side of
the argument is they always want to
go on to take it that they are going
to damage you and virtue, no elected
British government would
deliberately come in and try to
damage people's lives. We want
businesses to generate income which
provides work and jobs for people.
That may mean deregulation.
my constituents have suffered...
won election in 2015? If so many
people were exercised about the
rights being stripped away why did
they not elect a Labour government
to protect those rights? If British
government changes the rules and
regulations in the future post
Brexit the British people can decide
to kick them out.
That is true and
you admitted one thing, Labour may
not have won but Theresa May lost
I was talking about
You said rights had been
stripped away in 2010 but anyway...
The broader point...
question is you either diverged
because you want to reduce
protections, employment, the or a
new diverged to increase protection,
name an area where you want to
I have absolutely no
plans and the government has no
plans to lessen workers' rights. But
here is one thing... Whilst you were
in government it was my government,
and it was my idea that has pushed
the minimum wage up to £9 per hour,
Labour never did that, they never
got above £6 per hour. The reality
is it is that which does more to
protect workers in work. I am sorry,
this lovely chest beating idea the
Labour Party has that only they
protect people who go to work, the
least protected person is the person
out of work and you had terrible
levels of unemployment. We have high
Let Chuka Umunna answer.
will not go back in history 3
million unemployed under Margaret to
Thatcher but you look again and you
will see the arguing against the
minimum wage. I am pleased has been
an about turn, do not let people
believe you are a champion of the
National minimum wage, you did not
want it raised in the first place.
THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER Do not
talk over each other, Iain Duncan
Smith, Boris Johnson said that the
weight of employment regulation is
no backbreaking, the collective
redundancies directive, the working
Time directive, and a thousand more,
do you agree these are the things
which have been backbreaking for the
It's important to look at
all regulations which came in from
the European Union and decide if
they work well in the UK. I give you
a list... The point I want to make
is there are a whole list of things
which we think do not fit the UK's
way of working. We want to preserve
the good bits and make sure the
other bits are either changed
the country have to offer post
Brexit unless it is a low tax
What we will not have is a
massive level of cost of money we
have 2 cents to the European Union.
We will not have to impose many
damaging regulations which despite
Britain's businesses... Deregulation
is not always just about people's
workers' rights. It's about rules
and regulations on reporting in
business which cost massive amounts
of money which make business less
effective and less competitive.
Removing those will help improve
What do you think listening
I was struck by the remark
that you can diverged by increasing
regulation as well as decreasing
regulation and my sense is that post
Brexit what will happen is over time
there will be increasing divergences
and probably some of it half the
country will welcome and the other
half will not and vice versa. But I
think what we have to except and
that is clearly what the government
is accepting is that we live in
increasingly regulated Globe and it
does impose costs but it's the
reality and you cannot trade unless
your goods and services are
recognised as acceptable by the
country you are exporting to. We
will regulate and regulate and
regulate well beyond my death and
that will be true whether or not we
crash out or get a good deal.
you both very much. You will have to
crash out of the studio for now.
The Deputy Leader of
the Labour Party, Tom Watson,
has this morning challenged
continuing claims by a number
of newspapers about contact
Jeremy Corbyn is alleged to have had
with a Czechoslovakian
diplomat and agent in
London during the 1980s.
The story, first reported
by the Sun last week,
is based on claims that a Czech
intelligence officer met and tried
to recruit Mr Corbyn
during the Cold War.
This morning's Daily Mail
is still carrying the story
on its front page.
It says, 'Time to be
open, Comrade Corbyn'.
While the Daily Telegraph
says 'Corbyn is urged
to reveal his Stasi file'.
The Labour leader's office has said
from the start that 'the claim that
Jeremy Corbyn was an agent,
asset, or informer for any
intelligence agency is entirely
false and a ridiculous smear'.
And this morning, Tom Watson has
used an article for the Independent
website to accuse "right-wing"
newspapers of spreading
propaganda about Mr Corbyn.
in this country abuse
their power," he writes.
"It's a unique kind of self-harm
for a newspaper to print a story
they know is poorly-sourced,
decide to run it regardless
because it suits their political
agenda, and pass it off as news."
Well, the Prime Minister was asked
about this story yesterday.
Here's what she had to say.
Well, first of all, I think it's
for individual Members of Parliament
to be accountable for their actions
in the past.
But also, I think that where there
are allegations of this sort,
that Members of Parliament should be
prepared to be open and transparent.
So that's what Mrs May had to say,
but what does Mr Corbyn have
to come clean about?
Yesterday, the BBC spoke
to the Director of the Czech
Security Services Archive.
Here's what she had to say.
Mr Corbyn was not
a secret collaborator working
for the Czechoslovakian intelligence
The files we have on him are kept
in a folder that starts
with the identification number one.
Secret collaborators were allocated
numbers that started
with the number four.
If he had been successfully
recruited as an informer,
then his person-of-interest file
would have been closed and a new one
would have been opened,
and that would have started
with a four.
That was the response
from the Director of the Czech
Security Services Archive yesterday.
And one of the Conservative Party's
deputy chairmen, the MP Ben Bradley,
last night deleted a tweet
which claimed Mr Corbyn "sold
British secrets to Communist spies",
following the threat of legal action
from the Labour leader's office.
So are these claims,
as Tom Watson says, "propaganda,
not journalism' and 'not worth
the paper they are written on'?
Well, Trevor Kavanagh
is from the Sun, which first
carried the story.
And Alex Nunns has written
a biography of Jeremy Corbyn and is
a supporter of the Labour leader.
Welcome to both of you. Trevor
Kavanagh, the files show he was a
person of interest but not a secret
collaborator or informer, this is a
This is a typical shoot
the messenger tactic. It is richly
sourced in the sense we have spoken
to and have documentary evidence
that Jeremy Corbyn was seen at least
as an asset and had a codename and
that is documentary evidence. The
idea that it's not sourced is
absurd. There is more to this than
just the fact he was seen at least
by the Czechoslovakian regime as an
asset and that includes him taking a
tour of East Germany on a motorbike
back in the 70s.
That is very
different, being seen as a person of
interest is nowhere near the same as
being an informant or a spy and
therefore that has led to claims
you're running a smear campaign.
have never said Jeremy Corbyn is a
spy, that he took money, we are
reporting the view that he met him
at least four times, more than the
one-time Jeremy Corbyn admitted to.
Is he credible or eight fantasist?
Your mac he has evidence.
There is documentary evidence that
Jeremy Corbyn was seen as an acid
and had a codename on the files.
Alex Nunns, at best you could say
Jeremy Corbyn was naive, he said he
met a Czechoslovakian diplomat and
other dealings he had in the 1980s,
is it in the public interest for
newspapers to scrutinise his
Of course but here we
have a credible source on one side
and the person on the other side,
the former spy who says he organised
live aid. The other day he said he
organised that. This guy has no
credibility. He also says John
McDonnell was passing secrets to
Russia when John McDonnell was
working her Camden Borough Council.
His credibility is shredded and he
is a fantasist. For newspapers to
report it, OK it is legitimate, but
for the continuous front-page Farage
we've seen over the last half a week
there is no justification.
Kavanagh, what information would a
Labour backbencher on the periphery
of a party be able to give the
Czechoslovakian Secret Service?
is impossible to know.
Let me finish. Spies don't
just met somebody haul in a net,
they add information together piece
by piece until it forms a line. You
don't know what you're giving the
people you're talking to,
inadvertently perhaps, but you don't
know what you are providing to them
and it's best not to get involved.
Several formal meetings which were
annotated at the time by a man who
was clearly a spy for the
Czechoslovakian regime and a member
Do you think Jeremy
Corbyn should be more open about his
past meetings and dealings in the
way Theresa May has asked him to be
because at the best it doesn't look
good if there have been meetings
with people from the opposite side
during the Cold War?
I'm not sure
that is true. We are talking about
1986, the time when the Soviet Union
and the Eastern Bloc were opening up
and trying to make connections. We
are talking about a period when
three years earlier in 1983 the
world had been on the brink of
nuclear war with mistakes on both
sides. Surely having all those kind
of conversations across borders is
important? We also don't know why
Jeremy Corbyn met this diplomat, but
at the time I understand he was in
touch with Czechoslovakian
dissidents, he might have been
meeting them to lobby on their
Tom Watson has strongly
criticised your newspaper and others
over this, saying newspaper
proprietors abused their power. You
have run a story with evidence which
is being conflicted here.
None of it
is... None of the evidence we have
published has been contradicted.
you contradict the evidence?
lady we heard from earlier
contradicts the spy. So we have a
conviction in sources.
say maybe, so do you accept it and
abuse of power to put this story on
the front page, make it sent on news
day after day after day?
not and I'm sure you don't either.
What I think is irrelevant.
course it is. What is much more
important than this which was a
fishing expedition is much less
important, please do not shut me
down... Jeremy Corbyn and I'm a
motorcycle ride around East Germany
in the 70s. I have travelled widely
in Communist China and Soviet Russia
since the 70s, you did not go into
those countries without good reason
on behalf of the people who are
posting new and they watched you and
monitored you every step of the way
from the moment you got up until you
went to bed.
What do you say?
went on holiday with Diane Abbott.
We are just combining desperate
random things from his past and
trying to put them into this
ridiculous story that Jeremy Corbyn
was a paid informant which is what
has been reported without any
evidence of that.
Is this a
reasonable line of scrutiny?
it's reasonable for newspapers to
print a great deal of material, on
that I think it's important that we
have a free press and they will
often print stories which are then
shown to be inaccurate in some way
are exaggerated and the result of
that is people who follow them end
up with the correct conclusion. So I
am strongly against the idea that
you should not publish material
within the bounds of the law. In
this particular case I don't have a
clue but I suspect a week from now
anyone who is following it in detail
will be in a position to form some
more informed view of what is going
on so I think the basic principle
that the press should publish is
absolutely of central importance. To
make a different point, this strange
way, whether or not this strengthens
the position of Jeremy Corbyn or has
the opposite effect, I do feel a
slight sense of, I don't know about
relief but slight surprise that the
issues to do with the Cold War are
suddenly on the front pages again.
One of the things which strikes me
as a university teacher is the
perhaps inevitable but terrifying
extent to which people have
forgotten any history that they only
learned as history and I do think
that the period of the Cold War was
relevant, is relevant, to where we
are today. That it hasn't gone away
so this is completely separate from
whether or not this story turns out
to be extremely well founded or
extremely ill founded. I think it's
a good idea that the country is
being reminded of recent history.
is and thank you for coming in.
The collapse of several rape trials
over problems relating to disclosure
of evidence at the end of last year
led to calls to look again
at the way those accused of sexual
offences are treated by the courts.
One student - who spent two years
on bail before the rape case
against him collapsed -
called for those in his position
to be granted anonymity.
So should the law be changed, again?
Anonymity in rape cases was given
to both complainants
and defendants for the first time
by the Sexual Offences Act of 1976.
But just 12 years later, in 1988,
the Act's provisions on defendant
anonymity were repealed
by Margaret Thatcher's government.
During the passage of the 2003
Sexual Offences Act,
the Home Affairs Committee called
for limited anonymity to be restored
to cover suspects who had not yet
been charged with a sexual offence.
In May 2010, the coalition
government published plans
to "extend anonymity in rape cases
to defendants", but it dropped
the idea later that year -
on the grounds that there wasn't
enough evidence to
support the policy.
In 2015, the Home Affairs Select
Committee again recommended
anonymity for those suspected
of a sex offence, unless and
until they're charged.
Joining me now is the campaigner
and spokesperson for
Women Against Rape, Lisa Longstaff.
Welcome to the Daily Politics. Why
do you think we keep coming back to
this issue, is it a sign the current
law is not working?
Now I think that
there are scandalous cases which are
largely, often, the result of
inadequate and negligent
investigations. Which get in the
public eye. And because a
hullabaloo. And it is often driven
by people accused who are
celebrities or in positions of
But not always, is it
justifiable if there are cases which
are rightly exposed for the evidence
not being properly collected?
but there are also quite a lot of
cases where a man ends up being
convicted and turns out to have been
a very prolific and serial offender.
And just like every other person who
is accused, they say, no, I did not
do it when first approached.
the reason you think it is important
that complainants in rape cases get
grunted bowl anonymity?
granted full anonymity because they
are vilified in the press. Exposed
and basically it puts people off
reporting. That is why victims were
granted anonymity in 1976, at the
same time as people accused. But
granting it the people accused of
rape now would separate it from
every other kind of crime. That is
one of the arguments that goes
against it. Why should rapists, all
men accused of rape be given
another cases do not have anonymity
and rape is different. It has become
even more so with the advent of
social media. I am strongly in
favour of anonymity for people who
are suspected, at least until they
are charged. The reality is that if
you are accused of rape, the mud
sticks forever. It is absolutely
horrendous the stories you get from
people. I argued once and a TV
programme in favour of anonymity for
defendants. I got these horrendous
stories not from celebrities, we
will come to that in a moment, but
from perfectly ordinary people who
because they had been accused of
rape, there were exposed on social
media, on Google forever. Their name
is out in the public domain, as in
the cases of these people we have
described. If it is a special crime
and it is a special crime which is
why we have anonymity for
complainants, it is a special crime
for people who have not yet been
proven guilty and may not have even
Do you accept that,
that you say there is a danger of
the complainant being vilified and
also a danger and quite often it
happens for defendants to be equally
vilified and they may be wrongly
I think that what this relies on
partly is the myth that a lot of
women wrongly accused man of rape
and they are lying, and that is very
distorted. Blown out of all
proportion compared to the number of
real wrong accusations. Secondly, I
think that what is really important
about why we need people to be named
is that if it were imposed that they
would get anonymity until charged, a
lot of people would not come
forward. A lot of the victims,
because it is such a shame making
crime and because people are so
damaged, and often it is the most
abominable people who are attacked
in this way, including children, but
not only, it is a big deterrent
coming for the -- it is the most
vulnerable people. A lot of people
do not come forward about the most
prolific serial attackers.
know how much of that's true, we
have no evidence and rightly not
because everybody is anonymous on
the complainant side. I come back to
watch a fundamental principle of
British justice, it you are innocent
until proven guilty and you do not
get your case to court unless is the
But you are still innocent
until proven guilty, this is about
In reality, you are not
commit you are vilified. People say,
no smoke without fire, your life is
put on hold, you are sacked from
your job and thrown out from your
university, your name is all over
the press. And then you save that of
few cases, we don't know how many
cases there are! We do! Know, we do
not know how many cases that are
where people are convicted wrongly.
That is why we have to be so
Do you accept that people's
reputations ruined even if they
found innocent and even if it is
small number of cases? That for the
people who are suspected of rape,
that it does stick forever?
don't accept is that this is a
uniquely stigmatising crime. If you
are accused of murder or terrorism,
you do not get anonymity.
So why not
get anonymity for all crimes?
don't get anonymity as a complainant
in terrorism cases on Mr is a
special case and the prosecution and
police can give it to you. I come
back to the fundamental principle of
the British legal system and the
freedom of our country, you don't
take a case to court unless you can
make that case stick. If you don't
have a case for which you have
adequate care evidence, you don't
take it court. You seem to be
saying, let's get lots of to come
forward and even if the first case
has not got adequate evidence, it
seems all right. Because there will
be so many people. We don't do that
with the cases, you don't come into
court to be tried of all sorts.
that is not what I am saying. There
have been a lot of high-profile
cases in the most recent years where
people have been getting away with
raping lots of people. You have to
acknowledge that, that is a fact.
Barry Bennell was just convicted,
Jimmy Sample, dozens in between, not
only celebrities, but others who do
not get in the public eye because
they are not in the public eye --
Jimmy Sample. If they had not been
named early on, many victims would
not have come forward and they would
not have had enough evidence and it
would not have gone to court. The
reality is only 6% of recorded rapes
and is in conflict fishing. Not
because 94% of women lying. -- in
conviction. Women still get grills,
cases are not all handled properly.
Any woman who makes a complaint is
telling the 100% truth, you make
that assumption. Rape is a very
difficult crime because in many
cases, two people have very
different memories of that. That is
why it has always been a very
difficult crime, the most difficult
crime and time and again, it has
been felt it has to be treated
differently. People have different
memories and people have false
memories. People construct memories
and people also lie to themselves.
I don't agree, sorry. Of course
some rapists have been let off. To
make it is much more important a
number of innocent people do not go
to jail and we do not imprison the
innocent, and we risk some guilty
people walking away.
the innocent putting imprison,
including us, but it is very
important if people are having their
lives ruined by violence, they have
the right to see justice and have
their attacker prosecuted.
It is a
class issue, I think. On that, thank
you very much.
This year marks the 60th
anniversary of the Campaign
for Nuclear Disarmament -
and that means it's also
the anniversary of one
of the world's most recognised
adopted by the CND ahead
of an anti-nuclear weapons march
to Aldermaston in 1958.
Ellie Price has been taking a look.
For millions around the world,
it's simply the peace sign.
But its origins are home-grown.
Designed by a British artist called
Gerald Holtom ahead of a march
he himself was going on.
And the design is surprisingly
It's the maritime signal, for N.
Gerald Holtom first showed this
sketch of the image to a few members
of the organising committee of that
protest march to Aldermaston
in February 1958.
Michael Randle was one
of four people in the room.
Well, I was a little bit unsure.
I didn't immediately say, oh, yeah,
that's great, we must do that.
But some of these other
pictures helped to enthuse,
I think, all of us.
He showed a big streamer
banner which would stretch
right across the road,
with the symbol on it,
it would be spectacular.
So he had thought about
what the march would look
like with this symbol on.
And really, he sold it
to us on that basis.
The march took place over Easter,
just a few weeks later.
So you were on this march?
Gerald Holtom's daughter,
Anna, was 15 at the time.
She'd helped make some
of the placards -
I think I was really a bit annoyed
with their plans to go
to Aldermaston because I probably
had some boyfriend
that I wanted to see.
I wasn't too sure.
It was a very cold day, I believe.
Going to Aldermaston,
on a long walk, with not
the right clothes, was not
something I looked forward to.
He loved the idea of the lollipop
placard because they are easy
to hold, and he was
thrilled with that circle.
And we were all in the workshop
working away, printing them
and sticking them on.
Sometimes getting splinters
in our hands because the wood
was not very nice wood.
The march was a success.
So much so that it was
repeated for several years.
And there at the beginning
was an American peace and civil
rights campaigner called
Bayard Rustin, who was so impressed
with the protest, and the symbol,
that he took it to the US and helped
organise the 1963
March on Washington.
From then, the CND symbol
would become known more
broadly as the peace sign.
So it was just as well that
Gerald Holtom hadn't copyrighted it.
I think that's what's
made it successful.
Because, you know, people
could reproduce it in whatever form
format seemed right to them,
in whatever context and to take
on whatever meaning
they wanted it to take on.
It's as modern today
as it was in the 1960s and '50s.
And six decades on, the CND don't
mind sharing their logo either.
I think having this symbol,
which embraces all these aspects
of the peace movement, has great
resonance with young people
as well as across the generations.
I think that's very, very powerful.
I think it's helped the cause
of peace to be as significant
as it is in Britain today.
We're joined now by
the designer Stephen Bayley.
Why is it such a great design?
that our tests of good design and I
think endurance is one of them and
it has lasted 60 years. Another
thing is adaptability and it works
and a T-shirt and surfer you's
camper van, it works on banners. And
it is a logo, a graphic device which
has created a brand and sense of
awareness. It was a great film and I
suspect that is retrospective
rationalisation about the semaphore.
I don't know, no one knows. But I
suspect it. I suspect he was playing
around with a Christian cross and it
went one way. But a great logo
But it really was an axe,
not some great motivation?
Coca-Cola had to be the signature of
the company's book-keeper, the
famous FedEx logo, the graphic
designer was mucking about with
eight typeface and suddenly a narrow
appeared. He did not intend that. I
think that happened here. But
endurance and adaptability, it was
well after the Charlie had the
atrocity in Paris, it became an
Eiffel Tower and that is another
sign of excellence and design,
something that stays the same.
It transcends countries and
Yes, I love the
discipline in trying to design a
little graphic thing, a little
visual pun which can last and endure
and carry meaning.
I don't think the
designer would have thought it would
be so successful?
book-keeper of Coca-Cola did not
think it would become a recognisable
logo when he was just doing a
And it has gone beyond its
original meaning as it is now a
symbol for peace.
It was very much
about the CND campaign. The other
thing was even people like me could
draw it, anyone could.
simplicity of it in terms of its
reproduction at various levels on
placards and T-shirts.
There is a
rule in all communication, simplify
then exaggerate. That is what has
happened here. This simplicity is
very hard won, it's not a silly
doodle, it might have been created
by unpredictable processes but this
guy thought long and hard and worked
and worked and worked on it and that
is why it's the 10,000 hour thing, I
don't know how long he spent on it
but it's the end of a very
Can you think of
any other symbols that have, you
mentioned some of the other logos, I
am trying to think of political
symbols which have been as
prominent? And you're done the same
What interests me about the CND
logo, and I think it's important to
distinguish between a logo and the
brand, logo is a graphic device and
if it works well it creates more
diffuse brand values. What
fascinates me further is the way
brands operate like religions do.
That applies here and two other
great brands like Apple. Steve Jobs
appearances in San Francisco is like
the second coming and designed to be
so. All great brands model on
religion, you have a congregation,
you have an icon, literally an icon
and a belief system.
It has not been
copyrighted. That might have helped.
It is interesting point about
religion because I think there have
been times when it might have been
writ misrepresented if it was seen
as a Christian or anti-Christian, do
you think it ever gave a sense of
It gives a
sense of not being specifically
religious. There is talk about its
origin, there was a sign on a
gravestone somewhere in Brittany a
stone carving which was almost
identical to this and that probably
had some esoteric religious
significance so I think what is
clever about trying to deconstruct
this is it is nonspecific but it has
the power and suggestiveness of a
And it has endured
this discussion, thank you very much
As we reported on yesterday's
programme, Theresa May has launched
a review into tuition fees.
It's going to last a year,
and the Prime Minister acknowledged
that students in England face "one
of the most expensive systems
of university tuition in the world".
But she said the review
won't look at scrapping fees,
which would push up taxes and mean
limiting the number
of university places.
Let's have a look.
The review will now look
at the whole question of how
students and graduates contribute
to the cost of their studies,
including the level terms
and duration of their contribution.
Our goal is a funding system
which provides value for money
for graduates and taxpayers,
so the principle that students,
as well as taxpayers,
should contribute to the cost
of their studies
is an important one.
I believe - as do most people,
including students -
that those who benefit directly
from higher education
should contribute directly
towards the cost of it.
That's only fair.
And our guest of the day,
Alison Wolf, is one of the people
appointed to this review
into post-18 education.
Obviously only in the last 24-48
tuition fees be part of the remit?
Can I say this is not just about
university tuition fees, it is as it
has always meant to be before the
campaign and the Labour position, it
has always been about funding in
general for tertiary students,
people older than 18 which is
different from those in compulsory
education and that is what the view
is about. Some of those people don't
pay fees at all because if you are
over 18 and do certain courses in
which you have an entitlement you do
not pay fees.
Yes but it has been
slightly overshadowed, overtaken by
this idea of tuition fees and that's
because the government has placed it
The media has placed it
It was Theresa May who said
we have one of the most expensive
systems in the world...
In the part
you chose to play she talked about
what we have is an extraordinarily
unfair bifurcated system where huge
amounts of money going to higher
education and universities and
students are racking up vast numbers
of debts and are technical and
vocational sector which has been
starved of funds where a number of
students who can find courses to go
on has been declining at a
terrifying rate. That is actually
clearly when you look at the terms
of reference the core part of this
review, to bring those bits
Is it not slightly strange
to have focused on the idea of
making vocational education the
central part, if it is, without
putting more funds behind it?
have not said they will not put more
funds buying that.
Do they need to?
My sense is that any government that
is serious about getting a
functioning post-18 system will over
the next few decades have to shift
it puts its funding more towards
technical and vocational courses
than it does at the moment. I don't
have a clue if they will do it and
it's not about closing down
universities tomorrow which again,
clearly, the review, even if we
recommended that they would not do
it. But I do think it's important to
understand this review is about all
post-18 funding, it's not just about
should there be lower fees...
much freedom have you been given?
Quite a lot but it's not an
independent review, we and an expert
panel which makes recommendations.
But there is no force behind them,
it is the government to decide if
they take any of our advice.
taking a point it's not just about
university and tuition fees but do
you think the option of scrapping
tuition fees should have been part
I don't see how it could be
because we cannot begin to afford to
scrap all tuition fees and it was
never likely it would ask us to look
at that possibility because it's
been quite clear that actually
nobody in this government really
thinks it is financial feasible. The
Labour Party does but I think if
they had done that it would have
been a terrible distortion because
then everyone would have gone on
about that to the extinction of any
other sensible discussion.
with the review.
Resignations are a fact of political
life, whether they're
of the long-drawn out variety -
in which the minister hangs
on by his or her fingernails -
or the sudden departure as part
of a plot to bring down a leader.
Well a new book looks at some
of the most sensational resignations
over the past century -
we'll speak to the author
in a moment, but first
let's have a look at some
of the most famous.
This report does contain flashing
At five, it we now carry a rising
Tory star with a reputation for
straight talking like during the
1988 salmonella scare.
Most of the
egg production in this country is
infected with salmonella.
were outraged and she had to go.
Robin Cook served Tony Blair loyally
but this speech ahead of the
invasion of Iraq was a masterclass
in how to resign on a matter of
I cannot support a war
without international agreement or
Geoffrey Howe was
Margaret Thatcher's first Chancellor
but after 11 years he lost his
patience, particularly over Europe
and his weapon of choice was
It's rather like sending your
opening batsmen to the crease,
only for them to find -
the moment the first
balls are bowled -
that their bats have been broken
before the game by the team captain.
Margaret Thatcher was gone within a
month. The ultimate political
scandal of the 19 affair, the
Secretary of State for War having an
affair with the model Christine
Keeler who was to timing him with a
Russian spy. The kind of had to go.
In 1970 the Labour frontbencher John
Stonehouse was so overwhelmed by
personal and money problems he quit,
by leaving his clothes and passport
on a Miami Beach and faking his own
death. Papers speculated he had been
eaten by sharks but he was found in
Australia. He tried to enter front
line politics but ended up in prison
I became more and more of
a sham and I did not realise until
the very recent past when it hit me
like a thunderbolt.
And the author of Fighters
and Quitters: Great Parliamentary
Resignations is Theo Barclay,
he joins us now.
This is the book, I thought it might
have been even bigger!
Yes, quite a
few to get in so I chose 25 of the
How did you choose them, did
you find there was just too much
I applied a cut-off at
1938 because one of my favourites is
the Duchess of Atholl who resigned
in 1938 in protest against the
appeasement of Hitler. She was
proved right in the end, she staged
a by-election on that single issue a
bit like David Davis did a few years
ago. She failed but she has gone
down in history as being proved
right in the end. I started with
horror and then the 25 following
that, some everyone will know and
others hopefully not so familiar.
there might be some we have never
heard of? What was your favourite.
John Stonehouse is probably the best
story because it has so many
elements. He was a paid-up spy for
many years and then he had an fair,
he left his wife had faked his own
death because he was in money
troubles and he was discovered
bizarrely a few months later in
Australia because the police thought
he was Lord Lucan who had also gone
missing around that time. On
discovering he was not Lord Lucan
they shipped him back to Britain and
he had a trial where he represented
himself and eat it out for months
and months to the extent that the
whole grim justice system had to be
reformed to stop you wasting time in
that way. He has gone down as quick
Any memorable ones for
you, not you personally?
The one the
film brought back to me was it we
now carry and the eggs, there was a
second story for her later and her
affair with John Major -- was it we
now carry and the eggs. This
wonderful book is that it brings
back all these things about the feel
of politics at the time that
somebody resigned and how different
some of it is when you see those
There is a difference
between scandal and trying to bring
down a leader or resigning over
policy. Which way does the balance
I have identified three types
and you have covered them, the
principled stand which is when
someone cannot go along with
something the government is doing
and I think Robin Cook is the best
example of that as you saw in the
film. Then you have political
assassination which you saw with
Geoffrey Howe. And more recently I
suppose the resignation of 92 Jeremy
Corbyn's front bench could be in
that category but that did not work.
But the final one which is the most
fun and frequent is the slow death
where a minister falls under Myers
of scandal and cannot stay afloat.
Briefly, Lord Bates resigned
recently, were you there when that
happens? And then he came back.
Resigning once and then people do
come back and revise their history.
Lord Bates did not manage to resign,
the Prime Minister thought he'd gone
that far. But people do get second
chance, Peter Mandelson and David
Blunkett came back. It looked to me
from the radio this morning that
Damian Green might be looking for a
On that note we will end
the programme! Thank you very much
for coming and, the one o'clock News
is on BBC One now, for all of us,
thank you and goodbye.