:00:13. > :00:16.It's one of the most feared parties in Pakistan, blamed for
:00:16. > :00:22.intimidation and political violence. How come it's being run here in
:00:22. > :00:32.North London. Orders are given and threats are made to political
:00:32. > :00:43.
:00:43. > :00:49.enemies. Can the party spokesman explain it all away? Bad news for
:00:49. > :00:54.ducks, there is a crackdown on MPs' expenses, don't worry too much,
:00:54. > :00:59.officialdom has tonight decreed MPs deserve a big pay rise. The BBC's
:00:59. > :01:04.glittering new headquarters have no sick pay, pity. The overwhelming
:01:04. > :01:08.focus was to get numbers out of the door as quickly as possible to
:01:08. > :01:16.save...You Know it is the license fee payers' money, it is not your
:01:16. > :01:26.money, it is our money. Also tonight, what were trade unions
:01:26. > :01:36.
:01:36. > :01:38.Granma? Britain has a long history of offering refuge to victims of
:01:38. > :01:41.persecution. Suppose instead it was offering sanctity to an
:01:41. > :01:44.organisation which was using Britain as a base from which to
:01:44. > :01:53.threaten and persecute others. That is the accusation against a leader
:01:53. > :01:56.of an organisation called the MQM, a man called Altaf Hussain. The MQM
:01:56. > :02:01.is one of the most feared political organisations in Pakistan. Mr
:02:01. > :02:05.Hussain is accused of no fewer than 30 murders there, which he denies.
:02:05. > :02:09.He now lives happily in North London from whence he controls the
:02:09. > :02:19.brain and brawn of his organisation, which dominates Pakistan's biggest
:02:19. > :02:22.
:02:22. > :02:30.city, Karachi. Thursday September 16th 2010, CCTV
:02:30. > :02:39.catches senior MQM member, Imran Farooq, at Edgware tube station.
:02:39. > :02:45.He's walking towards the 204 bus stop, and his murderers. After that
:02:45. > :02:53.the CCTV coverage stopped. But the police believe he walked for
:02:53. > :02:57.another ten minutes and then was stabbed to death outside his home.
:02:57. > :03:02.The police found a knife and a brick used to kill him, but there
:03:02. > :03:06.was very little else to go on. The first major breakthrough came over
:03:06. > :03:11.a year later. The Pakistan authorities arrested two men, I
:03:11. > :03:15.believe in Karachi, during the year. And that was on the grounds of this
:03:15. > :03:18.murder. We are liaising with the Pakistani authorities to see how to
:03:18. > :03:22.pursue this investigation and it is very much a live investigation.
:03:22. > :03:25.far the Pakistanis haven't handed anyone over but the police here
:03:25. > :03:28.have launched a massive investigation into the murder of
:03:28. > :03:33.Imran Farooq, and they just arrested someone a couple of weeks
:03:33. > :03:37.ago at Heathrow, he has been bailed until September. They also raided
:03:37. > :03:41.this house, and it belongs to Altaf Hussain, the leader of the MQM,
:03:41. > :03:47.around here I wouldn't be surprised if many people didn't even know who
:03:47. > :03:51.he was. Back in Pakistan he's one of the most famous politicians in
:03:51. > :03:55.the country. He's developed the practice of addressing thousands of
:03:55. > :04:00.his supporters in Karachi over the phone. They gather and listen to
:04:00. > :04:10.his voice. And after the raid on his home he lashed out at the UK
:04:10. > :04:18.
:04:18. > :04:23.Father of the nation! Altaf Hussain has been a UK resident for over two
:04:23. > :04:29.decades. He has a British passport. These are his party head quarters
:04:29. > :04:37.in Edgware. It may be a long way from Pakistan, but from here he
:04:37. > :04:43.exerts total control over his party. He denies any involvement in the
:04:43. > :04:49.murder of Imran Farooq. And to make the point he very publicly mourned
:04:49. > :04:54.his former colleague's death. In their raids the police found
:04:54. > :05:00.hundreds of thousands of pounds of unaccounted for cash. That has led
:05:00. > :05:03.to a money laundering investigation. And the Metropolitan Police are
:05:03. > :05:09.also formally investigating Altaf Hussain for something else. Whether
:05:09. > :05:19.he's using his London base to incite violence in Pakistan.
:05:19. > :05:39.
:05:39. > :05:47.By any standards Altaf Hussain uses The police are now assessing
:05:47. > :05:51.whether those speeches and others like them breach the law. So what
:05:51. > :05:57.does the British law say? We asked a London-based Urdu-speaking
:05:57. > :06:02.barrister to look at some of the clips and to make an assessment.
:06:02. > :06:06.Well there used to be potentially terrorism offences one would have
:06:06. > :06:10.to have the threat of force, which seems to be on the clips, made for
:06:10. > :06:13.a political cause, and the MQM is a political body, designed to
:06:13. > :06:15.influence the Government, all three seem to be made out. When one looks
:06:15. > :06:21.at the body of material Newsnight has gathered, it looks as though
:06:21. > :06:24.there is a case to answer. Because it appears there is an intention
:06:24. > :06:29.that the listener, or the person against whom a threat is being made
:06:29. > :06:35.should take it seriously. Highlights here, the most senior
:06:35. > :06:40.MQM leader in Pakistan. He's listening to Altaf Hussain speaking
:06:40. > :06:44.about tearing open abdomens, and yet he insists his leader doesn't
:06:44. > :06:48.use violent language. categorically would deny and refute
:06:48. > :06:54.that Mr Hussain would have ever said what you are saying to anybody.
:06:54. > :06:58.This is just simply impossible. as take the Supreme Court, they
:06:58. > :07:02.interpreted something he said as a threat and they demanded an apology,
:07:02. > :07:09.that is the Supreme Court of Pakistan. If something that may
:07:09. > :07:15.have come as a result of a kind of emotional outburst or gesture that
:07:15. > :07:20.may have come, so then we always all open to criticism also. We are
:07:20. > :07:26.open to correction also, that is what Mr Altaf Hussain has always
:07:26. > :07:31.retracted from such statements which may have caused and may have
:07:31. > :07:36.hurt the sentiments of the people of Pakistan or the institutions of
:07:36. > :07:41.Pakistan. We trietd to contact former MQM -- tried to contact
:07:41. > :07:44.former MQM members for this programme, only one agreed to talk.
:07:44. > :07:52.Naim Ahmed said he used to work for the party in Karachi and its
:07:52. > :07:58.members there have killed people. cannot count but hundreds of people.
:07:58. > :08:02.Hundreds? Yes, hundreds of people killed. The MQM insists it is a
:08:02. > :08:10.peaceful party and doesn't use violence? No, they are not a
:08:10. > :08:16.peaceful party. They are militants as a group. And they are like a
:08:16. > :08:25.bunch of Mafia. Did you ever commit any acts of violence? No, it wasn't
:08:25. > :08:32.my job. It was because of the violence I left the party, I left
:08:32. > :08:39.the party for violence, yes. I left the party because of violence.
:08:39. > :08:43.Because of militancy. So what did you think of those young men in
:08:43. > :08:48.your district who were, you say, killing people in the name of the
:08:48. > :08:53.MQM? I always tried to convince them it is not the nice way. What
:08:53. > :08:59.you are doing, who is giving you the orders, they directly say they
:08:59. > :09:03.got their orders from London. in Karachi is dangerous. After the
:09:03. > :09:07.recent elections a well known political and social campaign there
:09:07. > :09:11.in the city -- campaigner in the city was shot dead outside her home.
:09:11. > :09:16.Over the years I have heard stories of how the police simply kill
:09:16. > :09:21.suspected MQM militants on the streets, meaning the MQM wants
:09:21. > :09:27.revenge. This Pakistani policeman got asylum in Europe because of
:09:27. > :09:33.threats from the Taliban, but also from the MQM. We have changed his
:09:33. > :09:38.name and voice and obscured his image. I think 80% of MQM
:09:38. > :09:44.terrorists arrested by the police are involved in the murder and
:09:44. > :09:48.other terrorist aiveties. When you made -- Activities.When you made
:09:48. > :09:53.these arrests, how did the MQM respond and what did they say to
:09:53. > :09:58.you? The MQM tried to give a statement against me. Also they
:09:58. > :10:04.threatened to kill me and they killed my other colleagues.
:10:04. > :10:10.many of your colleagues did they kill? I think 20.You say the MQM
:10:10. > :10:15.have killed all these police officers and yet you know there are
:10:15. > :10:18.very few convictions in Pakistan. Why are these people never
:10:18. > :10:24.convicted? Nobody wants to give evidence against MQM. Why don't
:10:24. > :10:32.people want to give evidence? they try to give evidence against
:10:32. > :10:41.MQM so MQM will kill them. And their families. Depending how you
:10:41. > :10:47.look at it, Altaf Hussain is charismatic or eccentric. (he
:10:47. > :10:50.sings) On TV he bolsters his image as a modern liberal man, but his
:10:50. > :10:54.reputation in Karachi is so fierce, many people try to avoid even
:10:54. > :11:00.saying his name in public. Why is he able to operate from London? It
:11:00. > :11:04.is not as if spax stand hasn't complained -- Pakistan hasn't
:11:04. > :11:07.complained. For 20 years Pakistani leaders have asked London to
:11:07. > :11:11.control Altaf Hussain. The police are investigating, but what about
:11:11. > :11:20.the Government? This is Britain's deputy High Commisioner to Pakistan
:11:20. > :11:24.paying Altaf Hussain a visit in North London. The MQM says whenever
:11:24. > :11:29.they need visas the Home Office issues them almost without
:11:29. > :11:32.exception. Why does Britain keep its doors open to the MQM in this
:11:32. > :11:36.way. One member of the House of Lords openly critical of the MQM
:11:36. > :11:40.told us he won't go to Karachi because he fears if he did so he
:11:40. > :11:44.could be killed. Another member of the Lords says she doesn't ask
:11:44. > :11:49.questions about the MQM, because, as she put it, she has a child to
:11:49. > :11:52.worry about. It all prompts the question why do British officials
:11:52. > :11:56.so keen to talk about promoting democracy in Pakistan deal with a
:11:56. > :12:02.party that privately, they say, uses violence to achieve its
:12:02. > :12:06.objectives. This letter may help answer that, written by Altaf
:12:06. > :12:11.Hussain it arrived in Number Ten within weeks of 9/11. In it Altaf
:12:11. > :12:15.Hussain offers Tony Blair human intelligence on Jihadis. For years
:12:15. > :12:19.the MQM and the Foreign Office refused to acknowledge this letter
:12:19. > :12:23.is genuine. But through a Freedom of Information request Newsnight
:12:23. > :12:27.has established that the letter is authentic and did reach Number Ten,
:12:27. > :12:31.who passed it on to the Foreign Office. It is a curious thing, on
:12:31. > :12:34.the one hand here you have this party which has a very complicated
:12:34. > :12:38.and controversial reputation in Pakistan being run by remote
:12:39. > :12:44.control at a distance of 4,000 miles by its leader from this very
:12:44. > :12:50.city. On the other hand, it offers Britain some degree of influence in
:12:50. > :12:54.Pakistan. And also a protection against the Jihadis? Yes, the MQM
:12:54. > :12:58.has played very heavily over the years on the idea that it presents
:12:58. > :13:04.a bulwark against Islamist extremism in Pakistan's most
:13:04. > :13:11.populated city. There is no doubt Altaf Hussain is under ever-greater
:13:11. > :13:20.pressure. For many in Pakistan the pressing question is this, will
:13:20. > :13:24.Britain put him on trial? Farooq Sattar, the parliamentary leader of
:13:24. > :13:32.the MQM in Pakistan is here now. When Altaf Hussain says he's going
:13:32. > :13:37.to tear out somebody's abdomen, is he planning to do so personally?
:13:37. > :13:43.Jeremy Paxman, what I have to say after I watched this documentary
:13:43. > :13:50.that the BBC, though it is a very reputable organisation, but it
:13:50. > :13:54.seems that there has been some influence of the profile and
:13:54. > :13:58.radical forces when this documentary was being prepared.
:13:58. > :14:06.don't deny he said this, you don't deny he would tear out someone's
:14:06. > :14:13.abdomen? Whatever his statements have been televised here. They have
:14:13. > :14:18.been all referred to out of context and they have not been there is no
:14:18. > :14:22.reference to context to it in which he has said that, they are
:14:22. > :14:28.irrelevant. When he says to people, we are going to put you in a body
:14:28. > :14:37.bag, that is? He has not said that. Yes he has, it is on tape. He has
:14:37. > :14:45.not said that, he could not say that. Whatever he has said it.
:14:45. > :14:50.People were just laughing. It is because a malicious propaganda and
:14:50. > :14:57.and the media. It is against a secular, middle and working-class
:14:57. > :15:00.party that is MQM. By the perpetrators of the status quo and
:15:00. > :15:05.the political corrupt culture. And a section of the Pakistani media
:15:05. > :15:11.has been behind it, and now I'm seeing this documentary story in
:15:11. > :15:15.the international reputable media, to my shock, I'm shocked to see
:15:15. > :15:20.this. Misinterpretation. Are you also alleging that the people
:15:20. > :15:24.former members of your party, that murders were ordered from London to
:15:24. > :15:32.be carried out in Pakistan, they are also just having a joke are
:15:32. > :15:36.they? I would cat dworically deny and repute -- categorically and
:15:36. > :15:42.deny and repute there is any proof of any order coming from London,
:15:42. > :15:47.and as a result of that anybody got killed. I see.I categorically.
:15:47. > :15:52.you help us with the facts. such things happen in Pakistan.
:15:52. > :15:55.They have to understand the trial in...Help Us with something
:15:55. > :16:02.happened here. They have not been vindicated or substantiated.
:16:02. > :16:06.much money was found inside your offices here and inside Altaf
:16:06. > :16:10.Hussain's house? I know some amount of money was seized. How much?I
:16:10. > :16:16.don't know, because it is a matter of investigation. I would not like
:16:16. > :16:20.to. Our understanding is it is about �150,000 in the office, and
:16:20. > :16:24.�250,000 in his house, where did it come from? Since it is a matter of
:16:24. > :16:31.investigation, I would not like to comment anything further. Where did
:16:31. > :16:35.it come from, in cash? Hundreds of thousands of pounds? There was no
:16:35. > :16:38.court or any prop investigation will ask and then I will respond to
:16:38. > :16:44.that. I don't think it should be a subject of a media trial. That any
:16:44. > :16:52.money found in anybody's possession. These are vast sums of money. What
:16:52. > :16:57.was it for? This money? What was it for? What I'm saying is it is a
:16:57. > :17:01.matter of investigation, so let the investigation be completed. Don't
:17:01. > :17:05.you know what it was for? Nobody was arrested as a result of that.
:17:05. > :17:12.Yet? Nobody was arrested there was no charge framed against either
:17:12. > :17:19.Altaf Hussain or anybody in the party. Yet.And then there is no
:17:19. > :17:23.court case made as of now. Yet.So I think it is better to see how the
:17:23. > :17:25.investigation unfolds in the future. If I suggest to you there was a
:17:25. > :17:28.money laundering operation going on there, what do you say? It is
:17:28. > :17:33.simply you have a right to say whatever you want to say, but you
:17:33. > :17:37.can't be a judge on that. You can't say that simply during the raid if
:17:37. > :17:45.some money was found if during the raid on the house where Mr Altaf
:17:45. > :17:50.Hussain lived, or in any office, so that is directly interpreted as if
:17:50. > :17:53.it was illegally gotten money or out of some illegal means that the
:17:53. > :17:58.money was there. You will co- operate with all investigations?
:17:58. > :18:01.will, we have been. Even in the investigation of the murder of Dr
:18:01. > :18:05.Imran Farooq, catagorically from day one, we said we wanted the
:18:05. > :18:09.arrest of the real culprits. That was after the raid on your leader's
:18:09. > :18:15.house? Even if it was, we have not actually objected to the raid on
:18:15. > :18:19.the house. We have objected to the technicalties into that. Then the
:18:19. > :18:23.raid was carried out documents were taken away, the money was also
:18:23. > :18:29.taken away, no receipt or acknowledgement of that. So you
:18:29. > :18:33.knew there was money taken away? I'm saying some money was seized,
:18:33. > :18:37.I'm not saying it was not. When your leader says it was some
:18:37. > :18:43.conspiracy from Britain, he's wrong is he, you want to co-operate with
:18:43. > :18:46.this investigation? Yeah, but as soon as we see that the
:18:46. > :18:50.investigation is not being restricted to the investigation of
:18:50. > :18:54.the murder of Dr Imran Farooq, but is now going into investigating the
:18:54. > :18:58.procedures of the party, and the operational things of the party,
:18:58. > :19:02.which we see has no direct connection with Dr Imran Farooq's
:19:02. > :19:10.murder, as far as we perceive it. So we are say it in response that
:19:10. > :19:14.we have a right to say that. When all legal familiar yarts are not
:19:14. > :19:18.being observed legal issues are being observed properly, no charge
:19:18. > :19:22.has been framed or anybody arrested. There is nothing I can say beyond
:19:22. > :19:24.that. Thank you very much. Now nice work if you can get it, the
:19:24. > :19:29.independent body which considers what our rulers are paid thinks
:19:29. > :19:35.they ought to get more. Tomorrow they will say they should get over
:19:35. > :19:39.11% more. Public sector pay rises are being capped at 1%. MPs in the
:19:39. > :19:45.judgment of the organisation set up after some of them were discovered
:19:45. > :19:49.with their hands in the till ought to get over �7,000 extra, but their
:19:49. > :19:53.pensions and expenses will suffer. Allegra Stratton is here? It is a
:19:53. > :19:56.fudge that neither side will like. The public won't like it because it
:19:56. > :20:00.is way, way more than the wage rises they have or haven't had in
:20:00. > :20:04.the past and look like they are going to get in the future. It is
:20:04. > :20:08.lr for MPs. You look like you are not too sorry about people who have
:20:08. > :20:13.learned they are going to get a 10% rise. For MPs it takes them just
:20:13. > :20:17.above what their French equivalents get. It takes them nowhere near
:20:17. > :20:23.what their German and American equivalents get. They feel agrieved
:20:23. > :20:27.on that count. And also because a large package of concessions made
:20:27. > :20:36.by Sir Ian Kennedy, which we will look at, the first of which is they
:20:36. > :20:40.will have to accept. Shouldn't there be an apostrophe on that
:20:40. > :20:46.MP's? There were due to be increased in the next few years, it
:20:46. > :20:51.is more like a 9% one. It is lower pensions, it becomes a career
:20:51. > :20:57.average. Cuts to their evening meal allowance. Boo hoo to that.
:20:57. > :21:01.Restriction on taxi fares, and lower payouts for MPs who lose
:21:01. > :21:06.their seats. There is a real worry, not just amongst sitting MPs and
:21:06. > :21:11.people who watch and comment Tate on MPs that the quality you can
:21:11. > :21:15.bring in is difficult when the pay increase is not so good. What they
:21:15. > :21:19.have had today, Jeremy you are laughing. I'm not laughing.You are
:21:19. > :21:24.trying not to. What they have had today is all the pain of a pay rise
:21:24. > :21:28.but not much of the game. All of these, Sir Ian Kennedy's own words
:21:28. > :21:31.will mean the public purse is paying out not much more. I wasn't
:21:31. > :21:36.laughing, I was smiling actually at Margaret Hodge here who is actually
:21:36. > :21:40.taking part in a discussion a bit later on and has very gamely come
:21:40. > :21:45.in to defend what is not going to be a very popular cause I imagine?
:21:45. > :21:48.I don't think I'm going to try to defend it Jeremy. I think it is
:21:48. > :21:52.inappropriate at a time when we are asking public sector workers to
:21:52. > :21:56.take a 1% increase in their pay, we are public sector workers and
:21:56. > :22:01.people, that is how I view myself. You won't be accepting this rise?
:22:01. > :22:06.Let me say something about that, I'm not going to enter into a Dutch
:22:06. > :22:10.auction of I will do it for �30,000. I'm not suggesting a Dutch auction,
:22:10. > :22:15.it is a clear-cut decision, it is being offered? That's what starts
:22:16. > :22:23.to happen. I will tell you why, in the end we will say some MPs will
:22:23. > :22:26.do it for �10-�20,000, some may pay for their seat. Then back to the
:22:26. > :22:29.19th century when people bought their seats. We don't want a Dutch
:22:29. > :22:33.auction. It is inappropriate at a time when every public sector
:22:33. > :22:36.worker is being asked to take a 1% pay rise, I don't know if that is
:22:36. > :22:40.what you are getting, I don't think it is right that MPs should be out
:22:41. > :22:44.of line. You are happy enough with the change to pension arrangements
:22:44. > :22:49.so it is a career average? haven't looked at the details of
:22:49. > :22:53.the pension changes at all. I can't quite understand how he makes it
:22:53. > :22:56.cost neutral. But I'm glad it is cost neutral, that is probably a
:22:56. > :23:01.sensible thing to do. I just think it is the wrong time. Can I make
:23:01. > :23:04.one other observation. If you wish to carry on, please do. The only
:23:04. > :23:09.other observation is this is an incredibly difficult decision to
:23:09. > :23:12.take. When we tried to take it ourselves we got it wrong. We then
:23:12. > :23:16.give it to an outside body, it doesn't look like they have got it
:23:16. > :23:20.right. I just wish as a society we could really have a grown-up
:23:20. > :23:23.conversation about what you think we should get paid. We are having a
:23:23. > :23:26.grown-up conversation about it now. You have just told us you won't get
:23:26. > :23:31.into a Dutch auction and put a figure on it. Would your advice to
:23:31. > :23:35.your colleagues be, don't accept this? I think the advice at this
:23:35. > :23:38.point is take part in the consultation, we haven't got a
:23:38. > :23:42.final figure. My own view, if I'm asked is it shouldn't be more than
:23:42. > :23:46.1% and then let as take it to the next step. With what would be wrong
:23:46. > :23:50.is if people start taking differential amounts. I really
:23:50. > :23:54.think that, that is the long road back into rotten boroughs. See you
:23:54. > :23:57.in a minute. Senior suits from the BBC spent an
:23:57. > :24:03.uncomfortable afternoon today trying to explain how so many
:24:03. > :24:09.senior figures at the organisations managed to stick their snouts in a
:24:09. > :24:13.trough full of public money. They were trying to tell MPs,
:24:13. > :24:16.specifically Margaret Hodge and her colleagues Thesee threw cash at
:24:16. > :24:19.friends to ease their path into the new world. The Director General
:24:19. > :24:29.said the organisation had lost the plot, he's hoping to help them find
:24:29. > :24:29.
:24:29. > :24:33.it again. People who can't get a ticket for a
:24:33. > :24:40.West End show, or a Boris bike, will sometimes end up on a tour of
:24:40. > :24:44.the BBC's new HQ. It is a nice day out, though it is �13.50 a head.
:24:44. > :24:52.Some former BBC bosses had to work for up to two minutes to make that
:24:52. > :24:56.kind of money. Or not work for two minutes, come to that. Easy Big Ben.
:24:56. > :25:06.These visitors are fascinated by what goes on behind the scenes at
:25:06. > :25:10.the corporation. And that goes for license fee payers and MPs as well.
:25:10. > :25:13.The Public Accounts Committee put current BBC top brass on the spot.
:25:13. > :25:18.After the National Audit Office push illusioned a damning report
:25:18. > :25:23.into pay-offs to some of their former colleagues. Did you know
:25:23. > :25:27.about all these severence payments to BBC staff? We knew that
:25:27. > :25:32.severence payments were being made, it was a question of shock and
:25:32. > :25:39.dismay for us to discover how many had been beyond contractual and
:25:39. > :25:43.therefore had been even higher than they needed to be. Where they
:25:43. > :25:49.concede contractual obligations, should the Trust have known? Yes,
:25:49. > :25:55.and if you call in due course a previous Director General of the
:25:55. > :26:00.BBC, I will be as interested as you are in why we didn't know. Lord
:26:00. > :26:05.Patten was referring to former D G Caroline Thompson. The committee
:26:05. > :26:10.heard he wrote to the BBC -- Mark Thompson. The committee heard he
:26:10. > :26:14.wrote to the BBC Trust and said the payments were in line with
:26:14. > :26:18.contracts. Did Mark Thompson lie to you or were you negligent. I have a
:26:18. > :26:22.copy of a letter or note that tame to the Trust and I have the
:26:22. > :26:27.National Audit Office report, those two do not connect. Mark Thompson
:26:27. > :26:33.lied to you? I'm not going to make a comment, you address that to him.
:26:33. > :26:37.Mr Thomson is said to be appearing before MPs at a future date. The
:26:37. > :26:42.New York Times his current employer expressed full confidence in him.
:26:42. > :26:47.When his successor George Entwistle exited after 53 days in the job he
:26:47. > :26:53.was paid �475,000, including �25,000 for a three-week handover
:26:53. > :26:58.to his temporary replacement. Entwistle was paid the more or less
:26:58. > :27:01.equivalent of what one of my constituents earns as an average
:27:01. > :27:09.annual salary for 20 days work above his contractual obligations.
:27:09. > :27:13.What actually did he do in that 20 days. Very little. We started the
:27:13. > :27:19.clock from the end of the month, because we were worried that there
:27:19. > :27:24.might be issues in a handover period to Tim Davie, who was acting
:27:24. > :27:29.Director General, but the fact of the matter is Tim Davie coped
:27:30. > :27:33.brilliantly on his own and within 12 days we had appointed the next
:27:33. > :27:41.Director General, Lord Hall, whose appointment was extremely well
:27:41. > :27:46.received, I think. So you can...So He didn't do anything? As it
:27:46. > :27:52.happened he wasn't required to do anything. Mark Byford, the former
:27:52. > :27:56.Deputy DG left office with �950,000. Mrs Hodge called the pay-offs a
:27:56. > :28:01.fiddle to get people out. Culturally as, I think Lucy Adams
:28:01. > :28:07.and others have said, you all commented, I think we had lost the
:28:07. > :28:12.plot. We had lost the way. We had got bedevilled by zur rows on
:28:12. > :28:19.various salaries. -- zeros on various salaries.
:28:19. > :28:22.Good evening, the Peruvian plan...A Former presenter of this show, who
:28:22. > :28:26.shrugged it off to find respectability in the BBC, said
:28:26. > :28:29.there is a question mark over the chair of the BBC Trust. There is
:28:29. > :28:33.always coming a time where anybody in a senior position has come to
:28:33. > :28:36.the end of their utility, has run out of road, as they say, and I
:28:36. > :28:43.think the questions must be asked and will be asked whether that is
:28:43. > :28:49.the case with Chris Patten. The BBC is a London landmark, it is not on
:28:49. > :28:52.the monopoly board, though a good few who passed through its portals
:28:53. > :28:58.have collected their �200 and the rest. Margaret Hodge is still here,
:28:58. > :29:03.we are also joined by the former BBC chairman, Sir Christopher Bland.
:29:03. > :29:08.Do you think the BBC has been transparent? No. We have had to
:29:08. > :29:16.drag the information so far out of them it all started with The
:29:16. > :29:19.Entrepenurial State pay-off, and then on the back of that -- the
:29:19. > :29:23.Entwistle pay-off, and then there was the cost of somebody in post
:29:23. > :29:27.only for five months. We have had this deeper look, but there are 150
:29:27. > :29:32.senior managers who have left the BBC over a three-year period, the
:29:32. > :29:38.cost is �25 million. To put that into perspective, the cost of
:29:38. > :29:44.running Radio 4 is double that, so half the cost of running Radio 4,
:29:44. > :29:48.all the programmes on Radio 4 is what was spent on exiting 150
:29:48. > :29:54.senior managers. Do you know who signed off on those deals? We know
:29:54. > :29:57.who signed off on a few deals. We don't know the amount, the why and
:29:57. > :30:01.the who on most of those deals. That is why we have asked the
:30:01. > :30:08.question of the BBC to provide us with that information. What's gone
:30:08. > :30:13.wrong? Tony Hall put it well, said there was a failure of central
:30:13. > :30:21.oversight. There was a failure of the BBC Executive Committee, not at
:30:21. > :30:24.the BBC Trust, and also of the non- executive directors who sit on the
:30:24. > :30:29.BBC executive. That is where the primary fault lies. Did you say you
:30:29. > :30:32.don't agree? One of the really depressing facet of today's hearing
:30:32. > :30:37.was the inability to accept accountability and always passing
:30:37. > :30:42.the buck. So it has been passed. Welcome to the BBC! It is not
:30:42. > :30:48.uncommon, I'm afraid. Tony Hall didn't pass the buck, he said it
:30:48. > :30:52.was down to. He wasn't here.He said it was the fault of the
:30:52. > :30:57.Executive Committee and it was. me just say this to you, if you are
:30:57. > :31:02.the chair of a Trust, which Chris Patten is, and the members of that
:31:02. > :31:06.Trust, you have a duty both to ensure value for money and a duty
:31:06. > :31:11.to protect the license payers' interest, you take as a strategic
:31:11. > :31:14.objective, you want to reduce the number of senior managers, we all
:31:14. > :31:19.applaud that, but then not to concern yourself with the detail,
:31:19. > :31:23.not to know whether or not actually the BBC broke its own rules. I
:31:23. > :31:26.think it demonstrates that the Trust of not providing proper
:31:26. > :31:30.oversight. I don't buy this argument that it wasn't for them.
:31:30. > :31:35.Some of this was down to parliament. It was parliament who set up the
:31:35. > :31:41.crazy structure of a Trust with clear blue water between it and the
:31:41. > :31:46.BBC, separate employment, separate building, it is the Executive
:31:46. > :31:50.Committee and the first instance who are responsible for signing off
:31:50. > :31:53.that. Someone miss led it?That is yet to be seen, and one of the
:31:53. > :31:59.missing elephants in the room. you know who misled them? One of
:31:59. > :32:04.the missing elements in the room was Mark Thompson, who signed off,
:32:04. > :32:09.I would guess those payments, with the non-executive members of the
:32:09. > :32:13.Executive Committee of the BBC. And they should have exercised in the
:32:13. > :32:18.first instance oversight. It is very convenient today to blame two
:32:18. > :32:22.people who weren't there, Mark Thompson, and the chairman, the ex-
:32:22. > :32:25.chairman of Barclays. You blamed them that is why you are hauling
:32:25. > :32:30.him in front of you. I didn't blame him I have to say members of the
:32:30. > :32:32.Trust blamed him and the implication from the executive was
:32:32. > :32:37.it was the previous executive. I would say everybody is accountable.
:32:37. > :32:41.The purpose of the Trust, it may well be that on the margins we got
:32:41. > :32:47.it, parliament got it a little bit wrong. Got it entirely wrong.Hang
:32:47. > :32:51.on, if the purpose of the Trust is to protect the license fee payers'
:32:51. > :32:55.interests, and the Trust needs to provide value for money, allowing
:32:55. > :32:59.what we described as a quarter of the pay-offs we looked at had
:32:59. > :33:07.broken the BBC's own rules, exceeded them in all sorts of ways,
:33:07. > :33:11.for that not to be monitored by the Trust. It should have been
:33:11. > :33:16.monitored by the Trust. That is not how you set the Trust up. You
:33:16. > :33:19.actually excluded it from day-to- day responsibility for senior
:33:19. > :33:22.executive remuneration. You read the charter. And parliament did
:33:22. > :33:26.that. I'm not talking about responsibility for remuneration,
:33:26. > :33:29.what I'm a talking about. That is what we are talking about.
:33:29. > :33:32.talking about a proper monitoring to protect the license fee payers'
:33:33. > :33:36.interest and ensure value for money. It doesn't mean you take the
:33:36. > :33:39.decisions, but you monitor those decisions, that is what oversight
:33:39. > :33:44.is to ensure that actually the objectives of the Trust and the
:33:44. > :33:47.interests of the license fee payers is being defended. Nobody in the
:33:47. > :33:53.room did that or took responsibility for that. Including
:33:53. > :34:00.if I may say so, I wish she were here, your HR director of the BBC
:34:00. > :34:04.who is paid in excess of �100,000. We invited her on, but she like all
:34:04. > :34:09.the other managers you can't see them for dust? Hang on she has had
:34:10. > :34:14.a tough day. She may have. I also had a tough day. You were handing
:34:14. > :34:17.it out rather than taking it. trying to be fair. I think you were.
:34:17. > :34:22.The fact is Tony Hall was right, it is not the Trust's responsibility
:34:22. > :34:25.in the first instance, it is the BBC's executive, it is the Director
:34:25. > :34:29.General, it was parliament, by the way, who said the Director General
:34:29. > :34:34.shall also be the chairman of the Executive Committee. Another
:34:34. > :34:37.serious element of judgment, next time round you should put that
:34:37. > :34:41.right. There was so much that was so wrong, it was jolly depressing
:34:41. > :34:46.today to hear it all come out. If in fact the executive lied to the
:34:46. > :34:50.Trust, I think that is terrible. I still fail to understand why a
:34:50. > :34:53.whole number of executives walked out with hundreds of thousands of
:34:53. > :34:58.pounds into new jobs. One to the British Library, one to run a
:34:58. > :35:02.college in London, one to work in the private sector for Burberry.
:35:02. > :35:07.Are you going to insist that more names are named? We are going to
:35:07. > :35:11.insist that the names, what they got, why they got it and who they,
:35:11. > :35:16.who authorised it is revealed to the committee. How we then handle
:35:16. > :35:20.that, we will obviously have to do that sensitively. Thank you very
:35:20. > :35:23.much. There was an even more raucous than usual bout of name-
:35:23. > :35:26.calling in the House of Commons today as MPs sleeked at each other
:35:26. > :35:29.about where their party got its funds from. The Conservatives were
:35:29. > :35:33.desperate to get as much mileage out of the question of Labour's
:35:33. > :35:38.links with the trades unions, as they could, before Ed Miliband
:35:38. > :35:41.achieves his ambition of making the issue disappear in the undergrowth
:35:41. > :35:46.of some inquiry or other. The unions themselves, which invented
:35:46. > :35:53.the Labour Party of course are pretty agitated about what Mr
:35:53. > :35:57.Miliband says he has in mind. They have deeper worries too.
:35:57. > :36:02.No motorcars or carts are allowed in the streets of Durham. The
:36:02. > :36:06.miners take complete possession of the city. Around this time of year,
:36:06. > :36:10.Victorian pit bosses gathered in Durham to set miners' wages, not
:36:10. > :36:16.surprisingly the miners turned up too. What began as rally for higher
:36:16. > :36:21.wages became a good knees up, the famous Durham Rhineers' gala.
:36:21. > :36:25.can't scare me # I'm sticking with the union
:36:26. > :36:32.This weekend will be a carnival without its cause. Mines have
:36:32. > :36:35.closed, Britain's Labour forces changed, -- Britain's labour force
:36:35. > :36:42.has changed, and so too its trade unions.
:36:42. > :36:52.This is more like it, the offices of the General Municiple Boiler
:36:52. > :36:55.Makers union or the GMB, 632 Cherry Orchard Walk, Swindon. If Ed
:36:55. > :36:59.Miliband wants a more direct relationship with union members, it
:36:59. > :37:04.is people like this, supermarket lorry drivers on a union health and
:37:04. > :37:10.safety course. In 1979 union membership peaked at 13.2 million.
:37:10. > :37:15.There were sharp falls in the 80s and 90s, and after new Labour in
:37:15. > :37:20.1997 the expansion in public sector employment saw this decline plateau,
:37:20. > :37:24.current membership is 7.2 million, 26% of today's work force are in a
:37:24. > :37:29.union, most are in the public sector, but 14% of private sector
:37:29. > :37:35.employees are in a union. Separate figures show there were 589,000
:37:35. > :37:41.more union members in 20 -- 59,000 more union members in 2012 than
:37:41. > :37:46.there were before. Tony Watkins has lived through the change. It was a
:37:46. > :37:49.closed shop, that's going back to 1969. To get a job it was closed
:37:49. > :37:53.shop. If you didn't join a union you didn't get a job. It has
:37:53. > :37:56.changed in leaps and bounds. The unions are more professional, they
:37:56. > :38:00.are there for the members and not for what they can get. There is
:38:00. > :38:04.none of these strike actions. Everything is negotiated.
:38:04. > :38:10.Management will talk to you, where ten years ago they wouldn't talk to
:38:10. > :38:16.you. If you were in the union you were stood on. Now they treat you
:38:16. > :38:20.as an equal. The make up of the unionised work force has changed
:38:20. > :38:23.greatly since 1995, there are a million fewer manufacturing members,
:38:23. > :38:28.numbers in construction have fallen too, but in the private sector the
:38:28. > :38:32.number of unionised shop staff has risen, a surge in Teaching
:38:32. > :38:40.Assistants becoming unionised has also pushed up numbers in education,
:38:40. > :38:44.healthcare has seen the numbers grow too. Ed Miliband's idea is the
:38:44. > :38:47.three million union members who pay a political levy will be asked to
:38:47. > :38:50.give their conscious approval that some of that money supports the
:38:50. > :38:55.Labour Party. Right now that is a choice made by union bosses that
:38:55. > :39:01.members are informed of. If asked to make this decision themselves
:39:01. > :39:05.the GMB thinks they just won't. Your boss, Paul Kenny said this
:39:05. > :39:09.morning he thinks numbers will go down, is that your experience?
:39:09. > :39:13.may well go down, on the basis people will have to opt in rather
:39:13. > :39:17.than choosing to opt out. Minutes later Carol's suspicion gets backed
:39:17. > :39:22.up by the men on the health and safety course. Most of the members
:39:22. > :39:26.do stand on their own two feet and I think a lot of the union members
:39:26. > :39:30.aren't politically motivated any more. I don't think we should be
:39:30. > :39:36.associated with any political party. We should be totally separate from
:39:36. > :39:41.it. Would I vote for Labour? No I wouldn't. Have you voted Labour
:39:41. > :39:46.before? A long, long time ago. Now I look at what people are going to
:39:46. > :39:50.give us and then I vote. Labour held only a modest lead over the
:39:50. > :39:55.Tories, in 2010, among public sector union members who said they
:39:55. > :40:00.were certain to vote, but that lead has now increased hugely. Among
:40:00. > :40:05.private sector union members the Tories held a healthy lead in 2010,
:40:05. > :40:09.that lead has now almost disappeared. You think the link
:40:09. > :40:12.with Labour should carry on, but they should listen to you more?
:40:12. > :40:17.Definitely, it is value for money. Members pay for representation.
:40:17. > :40:21.Where is it, we pay for MPs to do our bidding, to a certain extent.
:40:21. > :40:26.They should be agents of us. I know it is an outdated concept, this is
:40:26. > :40:30.how it should happen, but it is not happening.
:40:30. > :40:34.As it was in the beginning of the Labour movement, the unions have
:40:34. > :40:40.come a long way since then, the question is how they wold influence
:40:40. > :40:43.in the future? -- they wield influence in the future?
:40:43. > :40:46.Billy Hayes is the General Secretary of the Communication
:40:46. > :40:50.Workers Union, David Goodhart is the director of the centre left
:40:50. > :40:56.think-tank, Demos. Do you think there is any point any longer in
:40:56. > :41:01.this link? Not really. I think it is stopped being functional
:41:01. > :41:05.actually for both parties to the link. It used to obviously have a
:41:05. > :41:12.purpose, that unions were a great moderating influence in the Labour
:41:12. > :41:15.Party, in the relatively recent past. But I do think Labour suffers
:41:15. > :41:20.from it politically as we saw in the House of Commons today. I think
:41:20. > :41:26.the bigger point is the unions now get very little out of this
:41:26. > :41:31.relationship. They have a massive, massive job to do in modern Britain.
:41:31. > :41:36.They are not doing it very effectively. We have an hourglass
:41:36. > :41:39.labour market. We have about a third of the economies highly-
:41:39. > :41:43.skilled, high productivity jobs, where the unions are quite well
:41:43. > :41:47.organised. We have a middle sector, public sector and others, we have a
:41:47. > :41:52.massive bottom of the hourglass, which is about 35% of the
:41:52. > :41:58.population, ten million people who are mainly in low paid jobs in care
:41:58. > :42:03.in cleaning in retail, and these jobs are not organised, with one or
:42:03. > :42:07.two exceptions. The unions have an historic job to do organising there.
:42:07. > :42:12.And the link with the Labour Party is not helping them do that. Do you
:42:12. > :42:16.feel it helps you? I think it does, I think the link with the Labour
:42:16. > :42:19.Party is a connection with the work place, you wouldn't have had the
:42:19. > :42:23.minimum wage had it not been for the affiliation to the Labour Party.
:42:23. > :42:28.But it has been described in the past, it is a contentious alliance,
:42:28. > :42:34.it is the most and transparent relationship of any political party
:42:34. > :42:38.when you compare, they are called donors, but the donations are made
:42:38. > :42:42.by the Conservatives...Let As stay off the Tories and talk about the
:42:42. > :42:45.unions and Labour, or the unions in particular. Explain to him why he
:42:45. > :42:49.might be in the sky with this? could go on having a relationship,
:42:49. > :42:52.look at Germany the trade unions there don't have the kind of
:42:52. > :42:59.official affiliation to the Social Democratic Party, but come election
:42:59. > :43:05.time most of the officials they are out there, you know, battling for
:43:05. > :43:10.the SPD. But it doesn't damage the SPD politically, they are not seen
:43:10. > :43:13.as funded by the unions. I mean I think this point about the minimum
:43:13. > :43:16.wage is not right. You could have had that even if you had not been
:43:16. > :43:26.affiliated to the Labour Party. There are all sorts of things you
:43:26. > :43:31.could and should have and that actually labour -- Labour
:43:31. > :43:34.affiliation there. According to Biz, if you are a union member you enjoy
:43:34. > :43:41.an 18% difference to non-unionised work forces, where they are
:43:41. > :43:45.organised they are effective. are effective. We are across BT,
:43:46. > :43:49.sant tanned der, where we are organised we are effective. There
:43:49. > :43:52.is a issues with sector, the big corporations have gone, and one of
:43:52. > :43:56.the things unions have to do is recognise the changes that are
:43:56. > :44:01.taking place demo graphically. The majority of trade unionists in
:44:01. > :44:04.Britain are women. We need more ethnic minorities in positions of
:44:04. > :44:08.leadership. The unions have to change. Unions are still effective.
:44:08. > :44:12.We have just seen tonight on the telly, a celebration of somebody
:44:12. > :44:15.getting the sack. I know it is a big popular programme, the
:44:15. > :44:19.apprentice, when was the last time there was a television programme
:44:19. > :44:22.about the role of trade unions in the work place, we don't get that
:44:22. > :44:29.any more. We are just having one now, we are having a programme
:44:29. > :44:33.about it now. Jeremy with the greatest respect to you, 11.10 on a
:44:33. > :44:37.Wednesday night, we are...You dream on for a bit, matey!
:44:37. > :44:41.saying you are effective, that is exactly what I'm a saying, but you
:44:41. > :44:46.are not representing the working poor of Britain. We have eight to
:44:46. > :44:51.ten million low-skilled jobs, with the exception of the retail sector
:44:51. > :44:55.you guys are not there. Your heartland is in the public sector.
:44:55. > :44:59.You represent professionals. members are in telecommunications.
:44:59. > :45:02.The whole movement I'm a talking about. I'm talking about my own
:45:02. > :45:06.union and experience, we have some of the best paid people in Britain
:45:06. > :45:10.and they want to be in a union, I get your point about the bottom end,
:45:10. > :45:14.but we are organising the bottom end as well. Cloners, catering.
:45:14. > :45:19.have to relearn those skills you need all the time and energy and
:45:19. > :45:25.money at your disposal to do that massive job of organising the
:45:25. > :45:29.bottom ten million low-paid people in Britain. I think the Labour
:45:29. > :45:33.Party connection. Politics is not for ordinary people then. Quite the
:45:33. > :45:37.opposite. That is the whole discourse that we are hearing in
:45:37. > :45:42.Britain, it is all of a sudden trade unionists are starting to get
:45:42. > :45:46.a bid more influence in terms of this or that selection and it
:45:46. > :45:50.excites the posh people. You have no influence over the Labour Party.
:45:50. > :45:53.The posh people's politics is getting a bit unsettled that some
:45:53. > :45:56.how or another the trade unions are starting to exert a bit more
:45:56. > :46:00.influence than before, and it is exciting everyone. But the Labour
:46:00. > :46:04.Party has become posh under your, with your link. It is also about
:46:05. > :46:11.how you see politics in this country. It was quite clear from
:46:11. > :46:17.that piece there that it a lot of your members who don't see it in
:46:17. > :46:21.quite the direct lined way, linear way that you in the trade union
:46:21. > :46:26.leadership see the business of this country? That is true, we regularly
:46:26. > :46:30.poll our members, 48% of our members voted Labour last election.
:46:30. > :46:36.22% Conservative, 20% liberal. I'm not a political loader in a sense
:46:36. > :46:39.that I don't represent the Labour Party, I represent the CWU, but we
:46:39. > :46:43.want political influence. You need political influence on the
:46:43. > :46:48.coalition and employers, you need to be a stakeholder in the economy,
:46:48. > :46:50.not just narrowly focused on one political party. You and the whole
:46:50. > :46:54.trade union movement should be running a campaign for the living
:46:54. > :46:57.wage, there is huge support for it, Boris Johnson supports it, lots of
:46:57. > :47:03.Tories support it, and it is not happening. The CWU is involved in
:47:03. > :47:08.the living page, we pay our employees the living wage, we are
:47:08. > :47:14.looking for accreditation on that. But we do engage with other
:47:14. > :47:18.political parties. On behalf of the CWU. It is harder, surely?What I
:47:18. > :47:21.find fascinating this week is there is nothing that excites the media
:47:21. > :47:25.and political class in this country than talking about trade unions, it
:47:25. > :47:28.is the one area excluded from political life. We are the second-
:47:28. > :47:31.biggest voluntary organisation in Britain today, six million people
:47:31. > :47:36.join and are members of the trade union movement, the National Trust
:47:36. > :47:40.is the biggest. How much say do we get in that process. There is
:47:40. > :47:43.nothing excites the posh political consensus in this country an
:47:43. > :47:47.ordinary working people having a say. You would have a louder voice
:47:47. > :47:51.if you were not associated just with one political party I'm afraid.
:47:51. > :47:54.Thank you very much indeed. That's it for now, if we can make
:47:54. > :48:04.it into the office tomorrow through all the walking wounded executive,
:48:04. > :48:09.
:48:09. > :48:12.we will have lots more that the Temperatures reached 28 Celsius in
:48:12. > :48:17.the best of the sunshineed to, but the sunshine wasn't as widespread
:48:17. > :48:21.as recent days, we will make that right tomorrow, Earl legal cloud
:48:21. > :48:25.across eastern areas will burn back on the coast, most of us in the
:48:25. > :48:30.same boat. Patchy cloud, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The warm
:48:30. > :48:33.spots 27, 28 degrees, an isolated thundery downpour into the
:48:33. > :48:37.Grampians, most dry. Clearly where you have the sunshine here and
:48:37. > :48:44.across northern England, compared with the cloud today it will have
:48:44. > :48:47.an impact on the temperature, higher through the Midlands. Cloud
:48:47. > :48:50.in Lincolnshire, but it will be a brighter and warmer day at Trent
:48:50. > :48:54.Bridge, for the Test Match and southern England. The sunshine
:48:54. > :48:58.lighting up the ground, maybe not quite as warm across south-west
:48:58. > :49:02.England and Wales, temperatures easily into the 20s, light winds,
:49:02. > :49:06.glorious afternoon to come. But will it last? As we go deeper into
:49:06. > :49:11.the week. Looking into Friday it will. Plenty of sunshine again, and
:49:11. > :49:14.actually on Friday, temperatures will be even higher, some spots
:49:14. > :49:17.near 30, parts of north-east England down to Yorkshire, into the
:49:17. > :49:21.Midlands for example, it will be another cracking day to come. Let's