20/02/2018 Daily Politics

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.

LAUGHTER

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.

Alison Wolf.

Alison Wolf.

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

scandal?

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?

I

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

employees.

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 -

unsurprisingly.

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

are pursuing

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.

David Davis.

David Davis.

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

Brexit Secretary?

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

disappointed?

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.

Thank you.

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

window?

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

the packages.

You have given some

examples.

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?

Well, you

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...

So

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

it.

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.

What

specific rights to the Conservatives

go into the 2017 election promising

to scrap?

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?

What

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

it.

The review came in and we all

argued we did not have the need for

fermenting any of that stuff.

Why

was commissioned in the first place?

Because he did put forward and

propose quite radical regulation.

It

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

list.

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.

Many of

my constituents have suffered...

Who

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

the majority.

I was talking about

2015.

You said rights had been

stripped away in 2010 but anyway...

The broader point...

The important

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

improve things?

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

ones.

Let Chuka Umunna answer.

I

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

workforce?

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

unmodified...

unmodified...

"Changed".

What will

the country have to offer post

Brexit unless it is a low tax

economy?

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

things.

What do you think listening

to that?

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.

Thank

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.

Newspaper proprietors

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.

TRANSLATION:

Mr Corbyn was not

a secret collaborator working

for the Czechoslovakian intelligence

service.

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

witchhunt.

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.

We

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

background?

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.

Trevor

Kavanagh, what information would a

Labour backbencher on the periphery

of a party be able to give the

Czechoslovakian Secret Service?

It

is impossible to know.

He didn't

have any.

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

of Parliament.

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

behalf.

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.

Do

you contradict the evidence?

The

lady we heard from earlier

contradicts the spy. So we have a

conviction in sources.

Maybe.

You

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?

Of course

not and I'm sure you don't either.

What I think is irrelevant.

Of

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?

He

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?

I think

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.

It

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

power.

But not always, is it

justifiable if there are cases which

are rightly exposed for the evidence

not being properly collected?

Yes,

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.

Is that

the reason you think it is important

that complainants in rape cases get

grunted bowl anonymity?

They are

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

different standards?

Complainants

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

been charged.

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

accused?

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.

We don't

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

evidence.

But you are still innocent

until proven guilty, this is about

being named.

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

careful.

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?

What I

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?

You

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.

No,

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.

No.

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.

Nobody wants

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

political symbols,

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

straightforward.

It's the maritime signal, for N.

And D.

Nuclear.

Disarmament.

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?

Yes.

Gerald Holtom's daughter,

Anna, was 15 at the time.

She'd helped make some

of the placards -

albeit begrudgingly.

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?

Well,

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

often...

But it really was an axe,

not some great motivation?

Just like

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

movements?

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?

Yes, the

book-keeper of Coca-Cola did not

think it would become a recognisable

logo when he was just doing a

scribble.

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.

So the

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

thoughtful process.

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

way?

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

being anti-religious?

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

religious symbol.

And it has endured

this discussion, thank you very much

Stephen Bayley.

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

hours.

Exactly!

Should scrapping

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

there.

The media has placed it

there.

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

together.

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?

We

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...

How

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.

I am

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

of it?

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.

Good luck

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

images.

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.

Farmers

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

principle.

I cannot support a war

without international agreement or

domestic support.

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

cricket.

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.

LAUGHTER

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

for fraud.

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

best.

How did you choose them, did

you find there was just too much

information?

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.

So

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

character.

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

pictures.

There is a difference

between scandal and trying to bring

down a leader or resigning over

policy. Which way does the balance

tip?

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

comeback.

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.