12/03/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

Dramatic developments

in the Westminster bullying scandal

as allegations against

Labour's Shadow Work

and Pensions Secretary

lead her to stand aside,

and MPs call for an investigation

into John Bercow's

actions as Speaker.

As Theresa May convenes her

National Security Council,

could we be close to the government

apportioning blame to Russia

for the poisoning of a former

Russian double agent,

Sergei Skripal, and his daughter?

University lecturers

are entering their third week

of strike action over planned

changes to pensions.

We'll be on the picket

lines talking to staff

and the students affected.

Comic Relief raise millions

of pounds for charities

across the globe and in

the UK but does it harm

the image of Africa?

One MP thinks so.

He'll tell us why.

A billion people reduced to just

one prevailing image -

mothers, desperate, crying,

worried for their children.

All that in the next hour,

and with us for the whole

of the programme today

Dame Margaret Hodge,

former Labour culture minister,

and Tom Tughendhat, the chairman

of the Foreign Affairs

Select Committee.

First today, bullying allegations

hang over Westminster this morning.

In a dramatic development last

night, the Labour Party

announced that Shadow Work

and Pensions Secretary

Debbie Abrahams had stood down

from her front-bench role

while bullying allegations

against her were investigated.

She refutes the claims and hit back

at Jeremy Corbyn's office accusing

them of ten months of "aggressive"

and "intimidating" behaviour.

At the same time, some MPs

are calling for an investigation

into the Speaker John Bercow

after allegations surfaced about his

treatment of a clerk in his office.

He also strongly denies the claims.

Our political correspondent

Ben Wright can tell us more.

Ben, can we go back to the Shadow

Work and Pensions Secretary, Debbie

Abrahams, before she was either

forced to step aside or decided to

step aside herself. What is actually

going on?

Was very strange. Last

night, suddenly the Labour Party put

out a statement that Debbie Abrahams

had stepped aside while this

employment issue was investigated

and almost immediately there was a

counter statement by Debbie

Abrahams, completely taking Labour's

statement apart. She said that she

had not agreed to stand down. She

completely denied any allegations of

bullying and she accused some people

in the Labour leader's office of

aggressive, intimidating and wholly

unprofessional behaviour. She said

they had demonstrated a bully and

culture of the worst kind so she hit

back really strongly. This thing

erupted out of the blue on what had

clearly been an internal Labour

Party matter, and it has submitted a

come public in the most edifying

way.

Have they fallen out, Debbie

Abrahams on the leader's office?

I

think they clearly have, if you take

Debbie Abrahams' statement at face

value. There is a real problem here.

But she has been a member of Jeremy

Corbyn's team we think relatively

harmoniously for the last two of

three years. She has been Shadow

Work and Pensions Secretary for two

years and seen to be working well as

part of the team but something has

gone very awry in how the Labour

Party internally are handling what I

am told are more than two

independent, separate complaints

about Debbie Abrahams' behaviour.

She completely denies any allegation

at all that she has been involved in

bullion. There has been no reaction

about this. We haven't heard from

Jeremy Corbyn Debbie Abrahams but I

noticed in the last few minutes that

Andy Burnham, Labour's mayor of

greater Manchester, said that Debbie

deserve much better than this and

has been very loyal to the party

over the years, so there is some

sympathy there from a senior figure

in the party.

And a word on John

Bercow, the speaker, also facing

allegations of bullying, which he

has denied. What is the development

there?

You will remember last week

Newsnight ran a very big report on I

think three MPs, one of whom was

John Bercow, accused of bullying.

All three deny those allegations

very strongly but there is some

pressure today on John Bercow, so a

Tory MP Andrew Bridgen has put down

an early day motion, effectively a

Parliamentary petition, questioning

whether John Bercow can continue

with his job as Speaker. He has been

a very long-term critic of John

Bercow, it must be said. Separately,

the co-leader of the Green Party,

Caroline Lucas, is hoping to get an

urgent question called today because

she wants the complaints made by the

former clerks to be heard about on

the floor of the chamber discussed

and she wants clerks to be included

in the code of conduct that is being

pushed through the Commons now, in

response to what have been months

now of accusations of harassment and

bullying on the Parliamentary

estate.

Ben Wright, thank you very

much.

Well, joining me now

in the studio is Andrew Bridgen.

He's the architect of a motion

in the House of Commons which calls

for an independent inquiry

into the Speaker's actions.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. Is

this effectively a no-confidence

motion in the speaker?

No, I'm

hoping it is a motion that the house

can get behind, even those who are

avid fans of John Bercow. The

speaker has denied all the

allegations against him so it is an

opportunity for him to clear his

name.

Isn't this just an excuse to

get rid of him? You don't like him -

you have made that very clear.

He

doesn't like me.

That may be the

case but you are the one button your

weight behind this no-confidence

motion in him. Are you trying to get

rid of him?

We're hearing lots of

allegations around Parliament,

around harassment and bullying and

it is important, the speaker is

crucial to the culture of the House

of Commons. I don't think we have a

culture of endemic bullying and

harassment but the speaker has to be

beyond approach and an independent

investigation into these very

serious allegations against him I

think would clear the air.

Would you

support this motion?

I am very

supportive of the speaker and I

think he has done a very good job in

making sure backbenchers are heard

and I support Andrea Leadsom's work

to make sure bullying is looked into

throughout the house and died don't

think anyone is above it. I am

supporting the work that Andrea and

the cross-party commission has done

on trying to stop bullying.

You are

not going to sign this motion?

I

have a policy of not signing early

day motions at all on the basis that

they don't change anything and cost

money so I don't see the point.

Well, what is the point?

Well, 158,

I think, cross-party MPs signed my

motion about the TV licence. Were

scuppered House of Lords but we did

get it into the bill. What is the

point? I think it needs to send a

clear message from the house that it

will not be tolerated. Nobody has to

come to work to be bullied or

harassed and that goes for everyone

in Parliament, right up to Mr

Speaker, who was particularly

important.

Do you agree that any

allegations have to be investigated?

Let's look at John Bercow because he

decided over the introduction of the

code of conduct around harassment

and bullying, so I have absolutely

no doubt that if a complaint were to

be made against him he would go

through the process. A complaint,

Andrew, as I understand it, has yet

to be made, and you are well, well

known, decent man that you may be,

to be utterly hostile to Mr Speaker.

I think he's been a great Speaker.

He has modernised the house, he has

brought Parliament back to its

rightful position of hearing debate

and holding ministers to account,

and I don't think that you should be

using this to undermine a man whom

you just don't like. I don't know

why but you don't like him.

I can

accept that the speaker has many

good points and has made reforms

around the chamber and procedures

that I am supportive of.

However, he

has many negatives with him as well.

I think the Speaker has to be

impartial and I think he has lost

that impartiality. When he came out

and spoke about supporting Remain,

when he came out and said that the

President of the United States would

be welcome in Westminster Hall, he

is quite entitled to have those

views privately...

With the greatest

respect, you are just demonstrating

the motivation for writing down the

early day motion.

What has that got

to do with bullying?

This has

nothing to do with bullying and

harassment, this is to do with your

view of Mr Speaker. I have a very

different view. Has a complaint been

brought against him? No, it hasn't.

At a complaint is brought against

him, he will undergo the very

processes he himself introduced.

You

know very well that the person in

question has not made a complaint,

it is those around her. One of the

reasons for that is that

whistle-blowers are treated

tremendously that the House of

Commons, as you both well-known.

So

what is it you want investigated

exactly?

The allegations of bullying

that have been made against Mr

Speaker to be investigated

independently.

You want to look at

whether or not he has been partisan

on Europe, which in my view he

hasn't been.

What about these

allegations, though, Margaret Hodge?

Let's go through all the

allegations. The fact we are talking

about it is really good. Five years

ago, certainly when I was a

minister, we managed those

situations where there was

harassment and bullying. We managed

to them. The idea that you can now

complain and be open about them is a

force for good and there are

processes in place... I support,

actually, the demand that this

should cover clerks of the house as

well as people working for MPs.

Perfectly sensible idea and it is a

good thing we're talking about this.

What about Debbie Abrahams, Shadow

Work and Pensions Secretary? There

has been this row in the Labour

Party, saying that she has to step

aside while investigations are

carried out about bullying

allegations against her. Does she

deserve to know exactly what is

being levelled against her?

I don't

know the details so it is a slightly

uncomfortable position. Debbie

Abrahams has done a good job in

highlighting what has gone wrong,

particularly with Universal Credit.

Lethargy has helped the Government

to account on that. If there are

allegations, they should be

investigated. It is that there are

now up counter allegations from her

against the leader's office and I

have to say we were told there was

going to be a kinder, gentler

politics in the Labour Party. I am

not sure whether we are witnessing

that. All the allegations should be

properly investigated and all people

should be held to account dock

How

many people have signed the early

day motion?

I only laid down about

half an hour ago.

So nobody has

signed it so far?

I have signed it.

That is good to know.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

Transport for London have banned

a poster from appearing at Tube

stations because they argue it

breaches their rules on

"images or messages which relate

to matters of public

"controversy or sensitivity."

So, our question today is,

what was the poster?

Was it a job advert

for leader of Ukip?

A commercial to tempt young people

to join Conservative?

An advert for Corbyn memorabilia?

Or an attempt to entice

businesspeople to move

France following Brexit?

At the end of the show,

Tom and Margaret

will give us the correct answer.

I hope so, anyway!

The National Security Council -

that's a cabinet committee made up

of senior ministers and chaired

by Theresa May - has been meeting

this morning in Downing Street

to consider the latest information

on the poisoning of Sergei

and Yulia Skripal.

And the Prime Minister is reportedly

preparing to make a statement,

perhaps as early as this afternoon,

implicating Russia in the attack

and setting out retaliatory

measures, which could include

expelling Russian diplomats

and revoking the visas of Russians

in Britain with links

to the Kremlin, financial measures

to freeze Russian assets in the UK,

coordinating a response with allies,

particularly EU countries

and the United States,

bolstering the presence of UK troops

and other Nato forces on the Russian

border in Eastern Europe,

and refusing to send officials

and dignitaries to the World Cup

in Russia this summer.

Now, before we discuss the political

consequences let's get the latest

on the ground from Salisbury.

Leila Nathoo is there.

What has been the reaction from

members of the public in Salisbury,

who have now been asked to wash

their clothes, in guidance that has

come nearly a week after the event?

Yes, this is guidance that has been

given because traces of this deadly

nerve agent have been found in two

locations, the restaurant and pub

that the Skripal are known to have

visited before they collapsed, and

this place behind me. About 500

people who visited the Zizzi

restaurant and the Mill pub have

been asked to take the precautionary

advice and wash their clothes, wiped

down any items like phones or

glasses, and bag things that need to

be dry cleaned. This has come a week

after the incident. Officials say

there is no risk, no need to be

alarmed, it is just a precaution and

as they get new information, the

advice changes. But I think there is

some concern and anxiety among

people we have spoken to who have

been to the restaurant and the pub

that this advice has come a bit late

in the day as far as they're

concerned. They feel if there is a

risk, why weren't they told earlier

and if there is, why are they being

told to take these measures now? But

I think the investigation is

focusing really before Zizzi because

we now know that the Skripals were

contaminated when they got to that

restaurant. The table they sat at

has been destroyed, it was so

contaminated, so there are separate

decontamination operations taking

place around the city centre in

different locations to try to make

sure that is completely free of that

nerve agent but clearly, people

who've specifically gone to that

restaurant and pub will be most

concerned.

Leila Nathoo, thank you.

And Vicki Young is outside

Downing Street for us,

where the Prime Minister has

convened her National

Security Council.

So, I'll be expecting the Prime

Minister to point the finger of

blame at the Russian state?

Downing

Street are being very tight-lipped

about all of this. I think she is

determined to see clear evidence

before she does anything like that.

They've been in that for about an

hour and a half, including senior

figures like Amber Rudd, and Theresa

May has been under pressure from

some in her own party and from

people like Mr Johnson to give a

robust response. I think she wants

to make sure the police and security

services have had time to do their

job to do it properly and to come

forward with the evidence that she

needs. And pointing the finger of

blame at Russia is one thing but of

course what group would that mean?

Would it mean the Kremlin and

President Putin? It could be KGB or

former KGB agents, could be

something to do with the criminal

underworld and it is that thing she

needs to be sure of. They've

promised ministers there would be a

robust response of it is proven

Russia is behind this but to make it

meaningful, really, Britain has to

act alongside other countries, it

could be other members of the

European Union, it could be Nato. If

that is to happen, they certainly

will want to see clear evidence, so

I think that is why there has been

this cautious approach. Amber Rudd

talked about clear heads and they

want to be very sure they are sure

of the facts before they make the

announcement.

Joining us in the studio

is James Nixey, he's the head

of the Russia programme

at the foreign affairs think

tank, Chatham House.

Do you welcome a cautious approach

from the Prime Minister and Home

Secretary over this?

Caution is

prudent. You don't want to

miscalculated and have a cataclysmic

response by Russia. At the same

time, what has been proven is that

the successive policies towards

Russia, what we have seen

consistently, is protection of

well-managed, Kremlin linked

interest to have links to UK

solicitors, lawyers, bankers,

accountants etc. I think now is the

time to begin to exterminate these

in order to protect ourselves. This

is a chemical weapons attack, an act

of terrorism and need to -- needs to

be called out as such.

Do you agree

with that?

I think it is a terrorist

attack, similar in kind as well as a

nature to other terrorist attacks

we've had. The fact there is a

British policeman in hospital, there

are two attempted victims in

hospital and many hundreds of people

are having to take precautions for

fear of getting further harm, we can

see this is a very, very mass

attack, a group of people who did

this had no care at all for the

safety of British people.

Do you

expect the Prime Minister to point

the finger of blame at Russia and

Vladimir Oudin?

I am for the simple

reason this is a nerve agent. They

are difficult to make and very

difficult to store and they are even

more difficult to transport so the

idea anybody except eight state

actor had control of this and access

to it and would have been authorised

to deploy it is laughable.

Do you

agree with that?

Absolutely. Nerve

agents state property under state

control.

So what about retaliatory

measures? You've made criticism of

government is protecting well

moneyed Russians here. So, hit them

where it hurts? In the pocket?

Absolutely because those people have

links back to Vladimir Putin. The

squeeze has repercussions. One can

have a much more coordinated cyber

response, European response, Nato

response even. It can even be

brought up at the UN Security

Council. In the realms of cyber,

military sphere and diplomatic

sphere, of course, we don't want to

cease diplomatic relations.

So, you

wouldn't send them all home?

I

wouldn't but I'd send those home

with proven links to other

affiliations other there -- other

than their designated affiliations.

Would that have other repercussions?

I completely concur with what has

been said so far but I think we have

to go deeper. It has now become the

jurisdiction of choice for dirty

money. Associated with organised

crime, criminals, all those sorts of

people. I think there is a not we

could do pretty quickly to try and

make us less likely to have...

For

example? There are 85,000 properties

in the UK today that are owned by

shell companies, mainly located in

tax havens.

Many of those Russian

health. If we had the public of

beneficial ownership of properties

which Cameron and Osborne promised

in which this government is delaying

until 2021, that would be one thing.

Two, we are very lax in how we allow

companies to be incorporated in the

UK. I know this is going on a bit

but it is important. Many companies

choose Britain. If we look at the

Scottish limited partnership, this

is a structure that was set up to

help farmers in Scotland in vest in

their land. There is an analysis

been done which shows that people of

importance, whatever it is called,

in the analysis done, only 4% of

them were British people and the

actual people who incorporated those

companies would Russians, Ukrainians

and people from Belarus. These

structures being used by people in

Russia and elsewhere to hide dirty

money and we should go...

Has the

government failed in terms of making

get too comfortable for wealthy

Russians to choose London as a place

to settle?

I agree with Margaret, I

don't think we've gone far enough. I

think dirty money not only allows

others from, frankly, questionable

jurisdictions to hide their ill

gotten gains here but it also

corrupts the system were trying to

protect and what we've got to do is

demonstrate the city is absolutely

the heart of the international

financial system and in order to do

that we've got to show we are clean,

honourable and law-abiding. 99% of

business is so what we are talking

about is sorting out a very small

amount of all the people who invest

in London. We need to do with

trusted people.

Should money donated

from wealthy Russians, unless the

Conservative party can prove the

source of that funding, should it be

returned?

If they are British

citizens and it is donated by

British citizens, I'm not a believer

that you should search for prior

affiliations. Refugees come from

around the world and become British

citizens if it is lawful British

citizens. If it is however

associated to an oligarch who is

still a Russian citizen and it is

done through a front, absolutely

not.

The Prime Minister said she was

going to suck from a long spoon.

Wouldn't it be business as usual?

It

shouldn't be. I'm afraid I'm not

involved in raising money.

We can go

tougher on political donations. I

think the extent of the exposure in

the Sunday Times yesterday, over

£800,000 going to the Conservative

party, suggest we should look again

at individual donations to limit the

influence that people will think

that buys.

Will that work? Is there

a risk that actually there are

people here, like Roman Debrunner

Fitch, people who would be put off

to invest if we make it too

difficult?

That is correct and it

will have a negative effect on us.

It will affect the balance of

payments. We are not over exposed to

the Russian economy but in order to

protect our national security, we

will have to incur some smaller

sacrifices. It will hurt them more

but it will hurt us as well.

She

will never get economic sustainable

growth and prosperity on the back of

dirty money so while there might be

a short-term instant impact, in the

long-term the integrity of our legal

and financial systems is far more

important.

What about Russia today?

Should any moves be made about that?

It is extraordinary that information

warfare by a hostile state and an

organisation that has breached its

broadcasting licence on numerous

occasions still has not... Still is

able to broadcast free. That is a

matter for Ofcom. I hope they are

looking at it very carefully because

this is running, and isn't just

Russia today but it is also another

company in Edinburgh.

Do you think

we can achieve up anything with crop

money?

You can do a lot more. You

can do an affectation of the

Americans act, which deals with

Kremlin Russians. Unexplained wealth

orders, money laundering orders.

The

Labour Party said they tried to

amend the sanctions on intime

money-laundering to add a close and

led to this act only for it to be

blocked by your party.

There are

many people on my side, including

Andrew Mitchell and me who have been

pushing for these orders. I'm not

going to go through the details of

the wet amendments and political

chicanery goes through the Commons

but what I will say is there are

many of us that have often pushed

for this and are still pushing for

this this is not a party matter.

Margaret and I agree on this that we

need to be much clearer on this and

what we need to do is do as James is

saying. We need to be hard line in

making sure London isn't a

playground for wealthy oligarchs who

are the aristocrats of a new tourist

regime.

Let's look at the reports

that's

that's been published today in which

the term global Britain cannot just

be a slogan. What do you mean by

that?

What I meant by it, or what

the group meant by it, is that we

need to do more than simply have a

slogan. We need to have the detail

of the resources behind what it

means. For example, one of the

things we have seen since the Brexit

vote is that we need to reinvest in

bilateral relations in Europe. That

is absolutely right but I don't

think what anybody expected was that

assets that come from China in order

to be invested in the European 27,

it doesn't strike us as global

Britain so what does global Britain

need? Can you put meat on the bone

so that we understand what you are

aiming at. I use selecting rules

-based institutions like the Asian

infrastructure investment bank? Are

you selecting individual bilateral

relations and where is the resource

coming from?

You seem to blame the

foreign office who you say has lost

its way and there is problems with

leadership at the top.

One of the

things we've noticed is we haven't

had the clarity we require from this

and I think it is up to leaders to

provide clarity so I am hoping we

will get that.

Do you have faith in

Boris Johnson to deliver that?

Boris

Johnson is an amazing campaigner and

has an amazing voice so I hope he

uses to what is at the moment are

refused -- a confusing situation.

Thank you.

Now, it's already been a busy week

and its only Monday lunchtime.

Let's take a look at what else

is happening this week.

As we've just been discussing,

Caroline Lucas from the Greens hopes

to be granted an Urgent Question

on allegations of bullying

in the Commons, while Tory MP

Andrew Bridgen is calling

for an independent inquiry

into allegations made

against the Speaker John Bercow.

Tomorrow, the Chancellor

presents his Spring Statement.

There'll be no Red Box,

or rabbits out of hats we're told,

but we'll be watching closely,

live here on the Daily Politics.

On Wednesday, it's the weekly

showdown between Theresa May

and Jeremy Corbyn at

Prime Minister's Questions.

The PM is then set for more tough

talk with the first ministers

of Scotland and Wales,

over the EU Withdrawal Bill.

On Friday, the Conservative

Party's Spring Forum gets

under way in London.

And, at the weekend,

Russia goes to the polls

to elect a new President.

The results are expected Sunday

evening, but there are few prizes

for guessing who'll win that one.

We're joined now by Kate McCann

from the Telegraph and Steve

Hawkes from the Sun.

Welcome to both of you. How much

pressure is the speaker under?

I

think John Bercow is under a

significant amount of pressure this

morning. As you mentioned earlier

there is an urgent question down but

officer he gets to decide whether it

is heard about his behaviour and the

behaviour of a couple of other MPs

highlighted in the Newsnight

investigation. It's worth looking at

what is going on behind the scenes

because John Bercow originally said

he'd stop being the speaker in June

of this year when he had served

almost two full terms. After that,

he quietly said he'd like to carry

on for longer which annoyed quite a

lot of MPs, both on the Labour side

and the conservative side who feel

he should give up his seat and let

somebody else have a turn. There is

a lot of that rumbling along

underneath all this talk about

bullying and what he has or hasn't

done in his office as speaker.

Steve, Russia, how big test of

Theresa May's leadership will be the

response of the government to what

has happened in Salisbury?

Very big.

If you see the Evening Standard,

Amber Rudd is talking about a

powerful response to Russia, and the

Kremlin, so it is all building up to

quite a big showdown in the Commons,

if this statement does,. There was a

Security Council meeting at 11am,

and it is about the proof, how

decisive it as it was a Russian wet

job, as they call it, and how far

you can go into expelling people,

sanctions or diplomatic sanctions.

And also Jeremy Corbyn's response.

Last week he was act by the

commonest party so his response will

be fascinating.

Let's talk about the

spring statement because this will

be a pared down event. Because it is

new and the big showpiece will be

later on in the year in the autumn.

What are we going to expect from the

Chancellor?

Not very much. We were

talking about what we might be

highlighting this week and we almost

forgot the spring statement entirely

because it is probably going to be

boring.

Don't say that! We have a

special programme on it tomorrow.

Don't hold out too much hope! Philip

Hammond is not called Spreadsheet

fill for nothing. We're not

expecting any particularly big

announcements at although we may see

things like consultations about

plastics and whether he may or may

not banned chewing gum or try to tax

chewing gum. But we're not expecting

anything big, we're not expecting

Philip Hammond to rock the boat and

he has robbed himself and the

Government of the ability to change

the narrative of where the

Government is going. He could have

done something really big and

exciting and set Theresa May on a

path which took a back to her Number

Ten speech when she said it was all

about the just about managing people

but he has decided not to do that

and we are going to have to wait

until the autumn to hear big news

from the Chancellor.

Is that a

mistake? I know it is a relatively

low-key event enters a big

announcements but he could have set

something out about the narrative on

austerity or not austerity.

For all

the talk, there will be a few people

talking about it tomorrow. There

will be more about Brexit

contingency spending, a bit more

about the national living wage,

which will go up in April but I

think this will be more one for the

geeks. Most of the play tomorrow

will be a forecast from the OBR. We

expect borrowing to be about 8

billion lower this fiscal year and 4

billion lower next fiscal year,

which gives him a bit more with

room. That is what the economists

are looking for, the borrowing, and

how low that goes on whether the

Chancellor will get edged back

toward the surplus. In November they

wrote off the chances of that until

2025 so the detail is going to be

quite interesting.

I will be

standing up for all the geeks, then!

Thank you both for joining us today.

Now, lecturers at universities

across the UK are entering

their third week of strike action

in a dispute over changes

to their pension plans.

Staff say they will be almost

£10,000 worse off per year

if the changes come into force

but university management say

the pension scheme has a £6 billion

deficit which can't be ignored.

Ellie has been out on the picket

lines taking the temperature.

Nice weather for ducks this morning.

And, it would seem,

striking lecturers.

We are outside Senate House

at the University of London,

and I've got my own striking

lecturer.

Why are you striking this morning?

We are striking to defend

the pensions that people

who work in universities -

lecturers, librarians,

others who work with them -

have felt were guaranteed for years

and are now being threat

and with a cut of up to 50%.

But what you're being changed

from is a guaranteed benefit

when you get your pension

to a guaranteed contribution system,

which is what most of the private

sector is on, and the universities

say that because there is a big,

black hole, in essence,

they can't afford your pensions,

so it needs to change.

There is no black hole.

The Vice Chancellors know this.

They themselves have

complained about the way

the calculations have been done.

There is plenty of money

to guarantee the pensions that

people felt they were entitled

to when they started

in the profession,

sometimes decades ago.

We've seen a number

of these strikes already.

What's going to happen

if there is no resolution?

We hope there will be

a resolution this week.

There are talks at Acas.

If not, we will still strike

to the end of the week, and, then,

if there is no resolution

beyond that, more strikes

will happen in the summer.

They will happen when students

are taking their exams.

And it may be that some people

will end up without the degree.

Some students may not graduate

if the employers don't come around

to do what's reasonable

and to deliver what

they've promised.

Greg, thank you very much.

Well, it's quite serious stuff.

I think we can move around now

and find, sorry to interrupt,

the pet student here.

Now, Nisha, you're supporting

the lecturers here, even though

we've just heard you might not

get your degree, or some students

might not get their degree.

Well, I think the changes that

are happening at the moment

to the pension scheme are something

that affects students

in the long-term.

You're not worried, though?

You're paying £9,500, you're losing

a number of teachers...

£16,250.

I'm an international student.

Even worse!

How do you justify that, then?

The thing is, I don't think fees

should exist at all in education.

I'm completely against fees.

And I think that there are other

questions that these strikes

are raising right now.

Because the university sector has

effectively been brought

to a standstill this has been

a really great opportunity

for students to start questioning

why is it I have to pay

for my education?

Thank you very much.

Let me take you over

here to the other important

part of this strike,

which is the tea station.

And I think we've got...

Hello, have you had any students

who are a bit annoyed that they've

lost their teaching days

and they are paying all this money?

I think it's astonishing how

supportive the students have been.

Maybe there are some

who don't say anything,

cos they realise they're not

going to get a good reception,

but nearly everyone is on board,

they recognise why the lecturers

are doing this, so, yeah,

it's been really great

to have their support.

All right, thank you very much.

It looks like there might be a bit

of brownie left, so, you know,

far be it to be involved but this

strike could continue

to the end of the week,

and into the summer, who knows.

Ellie trying to dip into the

sustenance there!

Joining me now is Keith Simpson.

He's a lecturer at City University

and a member of the University

and College Union, who are

organising the strike.

And we're joined from Nottingham by

the pensions expert John Ralph.

We did invite Universities UK,

the group who represent universities

in the dispute, onto the programme

but they didn't have

anyone available.

But I'm delighted that you two are

here. First of all, Keith Simpson,

how do you justify potentially

depriving students of their degrees

and, in broad terms, their

education?

I think the situation is

that we have taken this industrial

action to make sure that students

are not deprived of education.

This

is about your pensions.

It is but it

is also about education generally.

We have also taken industrial action

that we think shows the employers we

are serious about this, and that

this will resolve the matter as

quickly as possible. When we started

this dispute, vice chancellors

across the country were saying that

there was no resolution possible,

that there was a massive black hole.

Now quite a lot of them of come out

saying that there is room for

negotiations and talks, and that is

exactly what we are going to do.

That is what is happening at Acas

today and we hope that this dispute

is over before the end of the week.

Do you agree with Keith Simpson? Is

he right to say there is a

resolution that is possible? You

have advised employers, including in

this sector. What of the scale of

the pension problem?

I have followed

pension schemes for many years and

as far as this is concerned, there

is more misinformation and

disinformation than I have ever seen

before. Of all the three parties

that are involved, USS the pension

scheme, you the union, and Unico,

the employers, they're all in denial

to various degrees. And I'm sorry to

correct you, the deficit is not £6

billion. The deficit in the last

published, audited accounts of US S,

March 2017, was £17.5 billion. My

concern is that all the three

parties, for different reasons, are

in denial about the extent of the

problem. They're all throwing up

smoke screens. I don't know what the

answer is but from a technical

forensic point of view, we need to

have the facts on the table, and the

facts on the table are people living

longer, real interest rates are

going down, therefore the cost of

providing pensions is going up and

that affects all employers. Added to

that, in the case of USS, the huge

deficit, the largest deficit, 17.5

billion, though we have ever seen

any UK pension scheme, is

self-inflicted. USS don't want to

own up to that. It is self-inflicted

because the last ten years or more,

they have been at the casino and it

has not paid off.

Well, deficit is

even bigger, £17.5 billion.

John

seems to make a living by on and

wrecking people's pensions.

Are you

saying he is wrong? That figure is

incorrect?

I am not a pensions

expert. I went directly to the

people that I think do know

something about it, the professors

that work at city University's

business school. Some of them are

actuarial scientists and they say

that the U UK position is very

negative and that this situation can

be resolved. I am not an expert.

John Grimes on all of these

programmes saying these things.

There is no black hole, and the

pension is actually getting more in

every year than is taken out of it.

It has got a long-term future, and

UK universities are something to be

proud of. They're not going to

disappear. We have some of the

leading universities in the world.

This is a sustainable pension fund

and you see you have put forward

proposals that we are talking about

at Acas that will make sure it is

sustainable for the future.

Answer

that criticism and your reputation

in saying that you are wrong on

this.

I hope I don't need to defend

my reputation. The 17.5 bigger is

not a figure that I have calculated

or estimated. It is in the published

report and accounts, done on exactly

the same basis that the other 5000

pension schemes on the UK have to

prepare their accounts. What

surprises me is that anybody thinks

that universities can be immune to

the changes that are happening -

repeat, people living longer, real

interest rates are lower. Look at

the 5000 pension schemes in the UK.

Most of them have already closed and

moved from defined benefit to

defined contribution and I have to

say, that includes the pension

schemes of a lot of the individual

universities so if you are a

clerical employee at university you

are in a different scheme and the

lot of those aboard a close.

Do you

support the strike, Margaret?

I

think this is an issue... Let me

deal with the actuarial position

first. I think that would be

agreement across the two parties as

to the precise actuarial position.

These judgments so they should both

do it and then they should get on

and negotiated top I agree that

people are living longer, interest

rates are low and therefore moving

from defined contribution... From

benefits to a contribution system is

important. But at the back of all of

this, it sticks in the gullet, at

the same time as academics who are

not well paid are being asked to

give up their pension, you have vice

chancellors on huge, hefty sums of

money which will give them very,

very generous pensions when they

come out of...

Do you agree, Tom

Tugendhat? Do you have any sympathy

for this strike or do you think

people like these should get back to

work?

I have a huge sympathy while

students losing education, I have

huge sympathy for people who planned

the future and find out is not going

to be as it appeared. But the

reality is that we are living longer

and that is a great thing, it gives

grandparents time with their

children, a lot of people a lot more

time with families, and that is

fantastic news but it does mean we

need to change the way we do things.

Can you think of any other strike

that has happened as a result of

closing a final salary scheme that

has resulted in a change?

I can't see any change that has

happened where we are talking about

a thriving, multi-billion

contributions of the British

economy.

So you don't take on board

the whole point about living longer,

but these schemes are much more

expensive as a result of that?

People are living longer but,

actually, that is one reason why you

should have a good pension, because

I think, as Margaret said, we are

not well paid. University lecturers

and support staff don't go into this

to make lots of money. We have not

got a generous pension scheme even

now. We are defending something that

is good but is not the best. The

teachers' pension scheme is much

better than ours at the moment and

if we see the decline in our

pensions scheme, how are we going to

recruit the brilliant academics that

are actually making this a success

across the world? After Brexit we

will need to have the best

researchers, the best universities,

to compete.

We have to finish it

there. John Ralfe and Keith Simpson,

thank you very much.

Now, staying in higher education,

a graduate is suing her former

university for giving her

what she called

a "Mickey Mouse degree."

Fiona Pok studied

International Business Strategy

at Anglia Ruskin University,

in Cambridge, but she says

that the claims in the prospectus

about high-quality teaching

and excellent career

prospects were overblown.

And she joins us now.

In particular, what do you think

Anglia Ruskin misrepresented in the

prospectus?

In my opinion, the

University misrepresented the course

as to the quality of the course and

also what kind of resources they

have. They misrepresented the

prospect of a career, what kind of

job or what area you will end up in,

working in, after you graduate from

the course.

Have you had any joy

with getting a job, having

graduated?

Well, I know a lot of

people misunderstood that I have not

been able to get a job at the thing

is, the main point is, they

exaggerated the prospects of a

career, studying with them, and also

they exaggerate how connected the

network the has with, like,

regional, national or international

companies because at that time they

say they will help students or

graduates to find employment in a

lot of the big companies because

they have a connection with them.

What I found was so misrepresented

is, when I finished my study I

signed on at the career advice

bureau and tried to get some career

advice to see if any job

opportunities that I was hoping to

land on, and I find out the only

source they had was copy and pasted

from other companies, the

recruitment agencies already

available on the internet,

accessible by the public.

How much

are you suing them for?

I am suing

them for over £60,000.

And you think

that is justified, for students to

decide the quality of teaching and

whether it is satisfactory? You

graduated with a first, I

understand. Is it really the

responsibility of Anglia Ruskin to

guarantee you a job in the way you

have just outlined?

I think you

misunderstood. I am not saying they

have to guarantee me a job but they

have no right to make empty promises

if they have no capacity to deliver

them.

They have released a statement

saying, "We are well aware of the

claims made by this former student

and robustly defending the current

litigation". Has the university been

supportive in your concerns?

What do

you mean?

I mean, have they

understood... Before you decided to

take the action to sue, did you talk

to the university about your

concerns?

Of course. I have been

talking to them for over six years.

Internal complaints, external

complaints procedure has been gone

through, so there was no other thing

I could do.

All right, thank you

very much for joining us.

Comic Relief - or Red Nose Day

as it's better known -

has raised over £1 billion

for charities around the world

since it began 30 years ago.

Its subsidiary, Sport Relief,

returns this weekend,

encouraging the public

to "get active, raise money

"and change lives".

But Labour MP David Lammy questions

whether it's doing enough.

This is his Soapbox.

KLAXON

CHEERING

From this weekend, thousands

of Britons will be raising

money for Sport Relief,

a biannual telephone that asks

Britons all over the country to part

with their cash to help

poverty stricken Africans.

Sport Relief and Comic Relief have

tattooed images of poverty in Africa

into our national psyche to such

an extent that few of us can escape

the guilt of not donating.

A billion people reduced to just

one prevailing image -

mothers, desperate, crying,

worried for their children,

and children with swollen

bellies, hungry.

This is not to say that dire

poverty is not persistent,

or that images of suffering is not

the most effective

way to raise money.

But Sport Relief surely

has to be different.

Life expectancies are up over 10%

in 37 African states.

Economic growth in the 11 largest

sub-Saharan countries

was double the world

average in the past decade.

The Nigerian film industry,

Nollywood, has overtaken Hollywood

as the world's second-largest

movie-maker.

Sport Relief should be helping

to establish the people of Africa

as equals to be respected,

not as victims to be pitied.

So, rather than getting celebrities

to act as tour guides,

why not get Africans to talk

for themselves about the continent

and the problems that they know?

CHEERING AND APPLAUSE

Sport Relief

and Comic Relief should do more

to challenge their audience.

Challenge their audience not just

to feel guilty but to feel angry.

Angry that despite the wars that

plague the continent,

the international world places more

restrictions on bananas

than they do AK-47s.

Get their audience thinking

about trade and about governance.

Don't just present a reservoir

of poverty but help people

understand what sustained

change really means.

So, this year, let's have a debate

about the big issues -

trade, dictatorship,

debt, education -

in the continent of Africa.

Of course the fundraising

is worthwhile but the Red Nose Day

formula is tired and hugely

patronising to the people

of a great continent.

David Lammy is here,

as is Ben Maitland,

a spokesperson for Comic Relief.

It's tired and hugely patronising.

What do you think about Comic Relief

and Sport Relief?

We wouldn't accept

that and we've been looking at the

very issues David is talking about

and we are constantly seeking to

change how we make our funds. We are

very excited and proud of the

changes we've been making and we are

going to see for the first time real

focus on local voices and local

heroes be they community health

workers or nurses, talking about the

work they're doing. Equally it is

important remember Sport Relief is

50% is spent here and 50% is spent

internationally. In particular over

the last couple of weeks, we've been

really proud of the public debate,

exactly the type of debate David

talks about, that both Zoe Ball and

Greg James have sparked about mental

health.

I'm always amazed about the

amount of money raised and the

generosity of people here. Doesn't

it prove it works? It is all very

well questioning whether or not it

is the right tone, or should we talk

about trade and dictatorship, but

this is raising money for poor parts

of the world and it works.

It

doesn't work if it compounds the

problem is. My constituents are not

am elated about Sport Relief and,

grief because many of them come from

African countries and they know

that, as Leeds University knows that

British primary school children,

their formative impressions of

Africa come from Red Nose Day and

what they talk about people who are

starving, people who are poor and

victims.

Are they not accurate?

We've just heard that Sport Relief

and Comic Relief are happy to use

British voices articulating on

behalf of themselves in relation to

British poverty. They don't use that

in relation to Africans and their

issues which is what they need to be

pushed on.

It is those local heroes,

albeit in Kenny or Sierra Leone,

that will be at the heart of the

forms we are making. They will be

talking about our partnerships. We

have a generational opportunity to

eradicate an appalling disease and

we're working with global partners

and local workers on the ground, and

telling their story.

The important

thing to remember with Comic Relief

and Sport Relief is the platform

they have from the BBC is immense,

no other charity gets hours and

hours of programming and television

to influence the dish public. No one

wants to knock charity but let's

remember that the dire spread

communities right around the world,

let's educate the public, why is it

when people think of Nigeria think

of somewhere that is war-torn, not

with downtown Lagos with huge

buildings. And what role do

charities play in perpetuating an

image of swollen bellies, children

with flies running around them? Last

time on Comic Relief, you had three

black children die over the hours.

You wouldn't have done that if it

was Britain. But it was OK because

it was a black child. That is the

thing we have to question.

Well, I

think it is right we continue to

change and evolve and we put local

voices at the heart of what we show.

Ed Sheeran? He isn't local, Izzy?

We

will see differences in how our

films are made this year. We

currently fund 1,000 different

charities and organisations here and

around the world and our obligation

is to continue raising money so we

continue that vital work to make

sure the money gets to people who

needed.

How is it vital if it

continues a perception of a kind of

imperialist colonialist... You seen

the problems charities have found

themselves in where there is a

perception of who is accountable?

How is their scrutiny? How do you

hold yourself up to the best of your

intentions? Those are the big issues

that are emerging for International

development.

And that is exactly how

we found grassroots organisations to

make sure that money goes where it

is needed most. So we seek money

from grant-making so we ensure there

is a strong voice in what we do.

What about the issue of trade? What

would you like to see governments

to?

We need a transaction tax. And I

think the international development

charities should be very public

about that. There are problems in

the ways big institutions like the

EU are set up that put a

stranglehold on African countries.

You should be up against it for

lobbing politically as well as

saying give money.

Would you be

comfortable doing that?

We are not a

political organisation and we are

proud not to be. I'm part of the

generation that grew up with Comic

Relief and remember the first Red

Nose Day back in 1988 so what we've

done is bring a whole generation of

people back into these issues you

haven't paid much attention before

and we are proud of that. And to see

how people we've inspired are

engaging is great. Amnesty

International have a stronger

political voice and they do it

better than we should.

I think that

relief is something we've done is a

government and we've done it in a

targeted manner because what we

don't want to do is giving debt

interest into a dictator but to a

country that is growing. David was

right because he talks about trade.

One of the things were doing is

we're rethinking our trade you

disease-mac policy. I'd like to see

Barry is coming down to trade with

countries like Ghana and run wonder

that have done and commenced amount

of reform locally and are poised to

exploit this link with the United

Kingdom. I'd like to see those

countries getting richer.

Isn't

there a problem to attaching

conditions to aid with the poor

parts of Africa because they may

have a dictator? A lot of these

countries are run by dictators and

you deprive the countries of the

money you need.

We should challenge

corruption where ever it exists but

I would say a very simple thing that

we could do which could help even

more than you do through charitable

giving and that is another amendment

to the bill we were talking about

earlier on money-laundering. If we

had transparency in our overseas

territories, our tax havens, at a

stroke you to stop money being

exported by those dictators into the

tax havens. These poor countries

lose three times as much in money

from tax avoidance as they gain in

development aid.

On that, thank you

for coming in.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was which poster have

Transport for London banned

from their Tube stations?

Was it...

A job advert for leader of Ukip?

A commercial to tempt young people

to join Conservative?

An advert for Corbyn memorabilia?

Or an attempt to entice

business people to move

France following Brexit?

So, what's the correct answer?

It's got to be France.

You're right!

You're so pleased with yourselves

and good for you.

Yes, a spoof lonely hearts advert

telling British businesses

to contact Mr Norman D

to avoid post-Brexit tariffs

has appeared online but banned

by Transport for London

on the grounds of "public

controversy or sensitivity."

The advert, released

by the Normandy Development Agency,

which promotes growth in the region

of northern France,

seeks "hot entrepreneurs" and boasts

"You will find the process

"as smooth as our Camembert

or our oysters, for that matter."

French journalist

Marie Le Conte is here.

It is actually quite funny, isn't

it? Do you think transport for

London has had a sense of humour

loss?

I think they did. I am

entirely biased on this because my

family is from Normandy, but I

thought it was

thought it was very funny. The Brits

can dish it out but can't take it,

clearly.

It is a light-hearted

attempt, but do you think it will

work?

I'm not sure and I mean it

with love. Normandy isn't the most

exciting bit of France.

It does seem

to be cheeky, audacious at the very

least. Or may be imaginative by the

local Mormon tea Council.

It is and

they make a valid point that there

is so much incentive for businesses

in the UK, and businesses might be

looking to move somewhere else, so

there is a real pointer.

Is it a

false promise? All this idea of

smooth camembert and oysters and

coastal walks. Do you think it is

really fake news?

I mean... Not

really. The one thing I'll say is

the weather is basically the same in

Normandy as in the UK so no big

changes there. It isn't fake news.

Businesses would be perfectly happy

in Normandy should they want to move

there.

Right, you two, is transport

for London not joining in the fun?

Or is there a serious point? I think

they've taken it too hard here. I

think Normandy is a fantastic place

freight holiday but not the centre

of business as London is. Each to

their own. I don't know any

camembert manufacturers in London

but perhaps I'm wrong. Oyster growth

is actually coming back to the

Thames.

What would your

counterproposal be? What would you

do to make sure British

entrepreneurs stay here?

I think

they should move to Kent.

English

cheese is coming into its own at the

moment so it may well be our version

of camembert is the as tasty as the

French but I think transport for

London have gone too far. This is

Brexit, we are expecting competition

with people who have been partners,

they are now our competitors. We

should not be surprised.

You have

left me hungry with camembert,

oysters and English cheese. Thank

you all very much.

Thanks to our guests.

The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now.

I'll be here at noon tomorrow

with all the big political stories

of the day.

Do join me then.