10/07/2013 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/07/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's one of the most feared parties in Pakistan, blamed for


intimidation and political violence. How come it's being run here in


North London. Orders are given and threats are made to political


enemies. Can the party spokesman explain it all away? Bad news for


ducks, there is a crackdown on MPs' expenses, don't worry too much,


officialdom has tonight decreed MPs deserve a big pay rise. The BBC's


glittering new headquarters have no sick pay, pity. The overwhelming


focus was to get numbers out of the door as quickly as possible to


save...You Know it is the license fee payers' money, it is not your


money, it is our money. Also tonight, what were trade unions


Granma? Britain has a long history of offering refuge to victims of


persecution. Suppose instead it was offering sanctity to an


organisation which was using Britain as a base from which to


threaten and persecute others. That is the accusation against a leader


of an organisation called the MQM, a man called Altaf Hussain. The MQM


is one of the most feared political organisations in Pakistan. Mr


Hussain is accused of no fewer than 30 murders there, which he denies.


He now lives happily in North London from whence he controls the


brain and brawn of his organisation, which dominates Pakistan's biggest


city, Karachi. Thursday September 16th 2010, CCTV


catches senior MQM member, Imran Farooq, at Edgware tube station.


He's walking towards the 204 bus stop, and his murderers. After that


the CCTV coverage stopped. But the police believe he walked for


another ten minutes and then was stabbed to death outside his home.


The police found a knife and a brick used to kill him, but there


was very little else to go on. The first major breakthrough came over


a year later. The Pakistan authorities arrested two men, I


believe in Karachi, during the year. And that was on the grounds of this


murder. We are liaising with the Pakistani authorities to see how to


pursue this investigation and it is very much a live investigation.


far the Pakistanis haven't handed anyone over but the police here


have launched a massive investigation into the murder of


Imran Farooq, and they just arrested someone a couple of weeks


ago at Heathrow, he has been bailed until September. They also raided


this house, and it belongs to Altaf Hussain, the leader of the MQM,


around here I wouldn't be surprised if many people didn't even know who


he was. Back in Pakistan he's one of the most famous politicians in


the country. He's developed the practice of addressing thousands of


his supporters in Karachi over the phone. They gather and listen to


his voice. And after the raid on his home he lashed out at the UK


Father of the nation! Altaf Hussain has been a UK resident for over two


decades. He has a British passport. These are his party head quarters


in Edgware. It may be a long way from Pakistan, but from here he


exerts total control over his party. He denies any involvement in the


murder of Imran Farooq. And to make the point he very publicly mourned


his former colleague's death. In their raids the police found


hundreds of thousands of pounds of unaccounted for cash. That has led


to a money laundering investigation. And the Metropolitan Police are


also formally investigating Altaf Hussain for something else. Whether


he's using his London base to incite violence in Pakistan.


By any standards Altaf Hussain uses The police are now assessing


whether those speeches and others like them breach the law. So what


does the British law say? We asked a London-based Urdu-speaking


barrister to look at some of the clips and to make an assessment.


Well there used to be potentially terrorism offences one would have


to have the threat of force, which seems to be on the clips, made for


a political cause, and the MQM is a political body, designed to


influence the Government, all three seem to be made out. When one looks


at the body of material Newsnight has gathered, it looks as though


there is a case to answer. Because it appears there is an intention


that the listener, or the person against whom a threat is being made


should take it seriously. Highlights here, the most senior


MQM leader in Pakistan. He's listening to Altaf Hussain speaking


about tearing open abdomens, and yet he insists his leader doesn't


use violent language. categorically would deny and refute


that Mr Hussain would have ever said what you are saying to anybody.


This is just simply impossible. as take the Supreme Court, they


interpreted something he said as a threat and they demanded an apology,


that is the Supreme Court of Pakistan. If something that may


have come as a result of a kind of emotional outburst or gesture that


may have come, so then we always all open to criticism also. We are


open to correction also, that is what Mr Altaf Hussain has always


retracted from such statements which may have caused and may have


hurt the sentiments of the people of Pakistan or the institutions of


Pakistan. We trietd to contact former MQM -- tried to contact


former MQM members for this programme, only one agreed to talk.


Naim Ahmed said he used to work for the party in Karachi and its


members there have killed people. cannot count but hundreds of people.


Hundreds? Yes, hundreds of people killed. The MQM insists it is a


peaceful party and doesn't use violence? No, they are not a


peaceful party. They are militants as a group. And they are like a


bunch of Mafia. Did you ever commit any acts of violence? No, it wasn't


my job. It was because of the violence I left the party, I left


the party for violence, yes. I left the party because of violence.


Because of militancy. So what did you think of those young men in


your district who were, you say, killing people in the name of the


MQM? I always tried to convince them it is not the nice way. What


you are doing, who is giving you the orders, they directly say they


got their orders from London. in Karachi is dangerous. After the


recent elections a well known political and social campaign there


in the city -- campaigner in the city was shot dead outside her home.


Over the years I have heard stories of how the police simply kill


suspected MQM militants on the streets, meaning the MQM wants


revenge. This Pakistani policeman got asylum in Europe because of


threats from the Taliban, but also from the MQM. We have changed his


name and voice and obscured his image. I think 80% of MQM


terrorists arrested by the police are involved in the murder and


other terrorist aiveties. When you made -- Activities.When you made


these arrests, how did the MQM respond and what did they say to


you? The MQM tried to give a statement against me. Also they


threatened to kill me and they killed my other colleagues.


many of your colleagues did they kill? I think 20.You say the MQM


have killed all these police officers and yet you know there are


very few convictions in Pakistan. Why are these people never


convicted? Nobody wants to give evidence against MQM. Why don't


people want to give evidence? they try to give evidence against


MQM so MQM will kill them. And their families. Depending how you


look at it, Altaf Hussain is charismatic or eccentric. (he


sings) On TV he bolsters his image as a modern liberal man, but his


reputation in Karachi is so fierce, many people try to avoid even


saying his name in public. Why is he able to operate from London? It


is not as if spax stand hasn't complained -- Pakistan hasn't


complained. For 20 years Pakistani leaders have asked London to


control Altaf Hussain. The police are investigating, but what about


the Government? This is Britain's deputy High Commisioner to Pakistan


paying Altaf Hussain a visit in North London. The MQM says whenever


they need visas the Home Office issues them almost without


exception. Why does Britain keep its doors open to the MQM in this


way. One member of the House of Lords openly critical of the MQM


told us he won't go to Karachi because he fears if he did so he


could be killed. Another member of the Lords says she doesn't ask


questions about the MQM, because, as she put it, she has a child to


worry about. It all prompts the question why do British officials


so keen to talk about promoting democracy in Pakistan deal with a


party that privately, they say, uses violence to achieve its


objectives. This letter may help answer that, written by Altaf


Hussain it arrived in Number Ten within weeks of 9/11. In it Altaf


Hussain offers Tony Blair human intelligence on Jihadis. For years


the MQM and the Foreign Office refused to acknowledge this letter


is genuine. But through a Freedom of Information request Newsnight


has established that the letter is authentic and did reach Number Ten,


who passed it on to the Foreign Office. It is a curious thing, on


the one hand here you have this party which has a very complicated


and controversial reputation in Pakistan being run by remote


control at a distance of 4,000 miles by its leader from this very


city. On the other hand, it offers Britain some degree of influence in


Pakistan. And also a protection against the Jihadis? Yes, the MQM


has played very heavily over the years on the idea that it presents


a bulwark against Islamist extremism in Pakistan's most


populated city. There is no doubt Altaf Hussain is under ever-greater


pressure. For many in Pakistan the pressing question is this, will


Britain put him on trial? Farooq Sattar, the parliamentary leader of


the MQM in Pakistan is here now. When Altaf Hussain says he's going


to tear out somebody's abdomen, is he planning to do so personally?


Jeremy Paxman, what I have to say after I watched this documentary


that the BBC, though it is a very reputable organisation, but it


seems that there has been some influence of the profile and


radical forces when this documentary was being prepared.


don't deny he said this, you don't deny he would tear out someone's


abdomen? Whatever his statements have been televised here. They have


been all referred to out of context and they have not been there is no


reference to context to it in which he has said that, they are


irrelevant. When he says to people, we are going to put you in a body


bag, that is? He has not said that. Yes he has, it is on tape. He has


not said that, he could not say that. Whatever he has said it.


People were just laughing. It is because a malicious propaganda and


and the media. It is against a secular, middle and working-class


party that is MQM. By the perpetrators of the status quo and


the political corrupt culture. And a section of the Pakistani media


has been behind it, and now I'm seeing this documentary story in


the international reputable media, to my shock, I'm shocked to see


this. Misinterpretation. Are you also alleging that the people


former members of your party, that murders were ordered from London to


be carried out in Pakistan, they are also just having a joke are


they? I would cat dworically deny and repute -- categorically and


deny and repute there is any proof of any order coming from London,


and as a result of that anybody got killed. I see.I categorically.


you help us with the facts. such things happen in Pakistan.


They have to understand the trial in...Help Us with something


happened here. They have not been vindicated or substantiated.


much money was found inside your offices here and inside Altaf


Hussain's house? I know some amount of money was seized. How much?I


don't know, because it is a matter of investigation. I would not like


to. Our understanding is it is about �150,000 in the office, and


�250,000 in his house, where did it come from? Since it is a matter of


investigation, I would not like to comment anything further. Where did


it come from, in cash? Hundreds of thousands of pounds? There was no


court or any prop investigation will ask and then I will respond to


that. I don't think it should be a subject of a media trial. That any


money found in anybody's possession. These are vast sums of money. What


was it for? This money? What was it for? What I'm saying is it is a


matter of investigation, so let the investigation be completed. Don't


you know what it was for? Nobody was arrested as a result of that.


Yet? Nobody was arrested there was no charge framed against either


Altaf Hussain or anybody in the party. Yet.And then there is no


court case made as of now. Yet.So I think it is better to see how the


investigation unfolds in the future. If I suggest to you there was a


money laundering operation going on there, what do you say? It is


simply you have a right to say whatever you want to say, but you


can't be a judge on that. You can't say that simply during the raid if


some money was found if during the raid on the house where Mr Altaf


Hussain lived, or in any office, so that is directly interpreted as if


it was illegally gotten money or out of some illegal means that the


money was there. You will co- operate with all investigations?


will, we have been. Even in the investigation of the murder of Dr


Imran Farooq, catagorically from day one, we said we wanted the


arrest of the real culprits. That was after the raid on your leader's


house? Even if it was, we have not actually objected to the raid on


the house. We have objected to the technicalties into that. Then the


raid was carried out documents were taken away, the money was also


taken away, no receipt or acknowledgement of that. So you


knew there was money taken away? I'm saying some money was seized,


I'm not saying it was not. When your leader says it was some


conspiracy from Britain, he's wrong is he, you want to co-operate with


this investigation? Yeah, but as soon as we see that the


investigation is not being restricted to the investigation of


the murder of Dr Imran Farooq, but is now going into investigating the


procedures of the party, and the operational things of the party,


which we see has no direct connection with Dr Imran Farooq's


murder, as far as we perceive it. So we are say it in response that


we have a right to say that. When all legal familiar yarts are not


being observed legal issues are being observed properly, no charge


has been framed or anybody arrested. There is nothing I can say beyond


that. Thank you very much. Now nice work if you can get it, the


independent body which considers what our rulers are paid thinks


they ought to get more. Tomorrow they will say they should get over


11% more. Public sector pay rises are being capped at 1%. MPs in the


judgment of the organisation set up after some of them were discovered


with their hands in the till ought to get over �7,000 extra, but their


pensions and expenses will suffer. Allegra Stratton is here? It is a


fudge that neither side will like. The public won't like it because it


is way, way more than the wage rises they have or haven't had in


the past and look like they are going to get in the future. It is


lr for MPs. You look like you are not too sorry about people who have


learned they are going to get a 10% rise. For MPs it takes them just


above what their French equivalents get. It takes them nowhere near


what their German and American equivalents get. They feel agrieved


on that count. And also because a large package of concessions made


by Sir Ian Kennedy, which we will look at, the first of which is they


will have to accept. Shouldn't there be an apostrophe on that


MP's? There were due to be increased in the next few years, it


is more like a 9% one. It is lower pensions, it becomes a career


average. Cuts to their evening meal allowance. Boo hoo to that.


Restriction on taxi fares, and lower payouts for MPs who lose


their seats. There is a real worry, not just amongst sitting MPs and


people who watch and comment Tate on MPs that the quality you can


bring in is difficult when the pay increase is not so good. What they


have had today, Jeremy you are laughing. I'm not laughing.You are


trying not to. What they have had today is all the pain of a pay rise


but not much of the game. All of these, Sir Ian Kennedy's own words


will mean the public purse is paying out not much more. I wasn't


laughing, I was smiling actually at Margaret Hodge here who is actually


taking part in a discussion a bit later on and has very gamely come


in to defend what is not going to be a very popular cause I imagine?


I don't think I'm going to try to defend it Jeremy. I think it is


inappropriate at a time when we are asking public sector workers to


take a 1% increase in their pay, we are public sector workers and


people, that is how I view myself. You won't be accepting this rise?


Let me say something about that, I'm not going to enter into a Dutch


auction of I will do it for �30,000. I'm not suggesting a Dutch auction,


it is a clear-cut decision, it is being offered? That's what starts


to happen. I will tell you why, in the end we will say some MPs will


do it for �10-�20,000, some may pay for their seat. Then back to the


19th century when people bought their seats. We don't want a Dutch


auction. It is inappropriate at a time when every public sector


worker is being asked to take a 1% pay rise, I don't know if that is


what you are getting, I don't think it is right that MPs should be out


of line. You are happy enough with the change to pension arrangements


so it is a career average? haven't looked at the details of


the pension changes at all. I can't quite understand how he makes it


cost neutral. But I'm glad it is cost neutral, that is probably a


sensible thing to do. I just think it is the wrong time. Can I make


one other observation. If you wish to carry on, please do. The only


other observation is this is an incredibly difficult decision to


take. When we tried to take it ourselves we got it wrong. We then


give it to an outside body, it doesn't look like they have got it


right. I just wish as a society we could really have a grown-up


conversation about what you think we should get paid. We are having a


grown-up conversation about it now. You have just told us you won't get


into a Dutch auction and put a figure on it. Would your advice to


your colleagues be, don't accept this? I think the advice at this


point is take part in the consultation, we haven't got a


final figure. My own view, if I'm asked is it shouldn't be more than


1% and then let as take it to the next step. With what would be wrong


is if people start taking differential amounts. I really


think that, that is the long road back into rotten boroughs. See you


in a minute. Senior suits from the BBC spent an


uncomfortable afternoon today trying to explain how so many


senior figures at the organisations managed to stick their snouts in a


trough full of public money. They were trying to tell MPs,


specifically Margaret Hodge and her colleagues Thesee threw cash at


friends to ease their path into the new world. The Director General


said the organisation had lost the plot, he's hoping to help them find


it again. People who can't get a ticket for a


West End show, or a Boris bike, will sometimes end up on a tour of


the BBC's new HQ. It is a nice day out, though it is �13.50 a head.


Some former BBC bosses had to work for up to two minutes to make that


kind of money. Or not work for two minutes, come to that. Easy Big Ben.


These visitors are fascinated by what goes on behind the scenes at


the corporation. And that goes for license fee payers and MPs as well.


The Public Accounts Committee put current BBC top brass on the spot.


After the National Audit Office push illusioned a damning report


into pay-offs to some of their former colleagues. Did you know


about all these severence payments to BBC staff? We knew that


severence payments were being made, it was a question of shock and


dismay for us to discover how many had been beyond contractual and


therefore had been even higher than they needed to be. Where they


concede contractual obligations, should the Trust have known? Yes,


and if you call in due course a previous Director General of the


BBC, I will be as interested as you are in why we didn't know. Lord


Patten was referring to former D G Caroline Thompson. The committee


heard he wrote to the BBC -- Mark Thompson. The committee heard he


wrote to the BBC Trust and said the payments were in line with


contracts. Did Mark Thompson lie to you or were you negligent. I have a


copy of a letter or note that tame to the Trust and I have the


National Audit Office report, those two do not connect. Mark Thompson


lied to you? I'm not going to make a comment, you address that to him.


Mr Thomson is said to be appearing before MPs at a future date. The


New York Times his current employer expressed full confidence in him.


When his successor George Entwistle exited after 53 days in the job he


was paid �475,000, including �25,000 for a three-week handover


to his temporary replacement. Entwistle was paid the more or less


equivalent of what one of my constituents earns as an average


annual salary for 20 days work above his contractual obligations.


What actually did he do in that 20 days. Very little. We started the


clock from the end of the month, because we were worried that there


might be issues in a handover period to Tim Davie, who was acting


Director General, but the fact of the matter is Tim Davie coped


brilliantly on his own and within 12 days we had appointed the next


Director General, Lord Hall, whose appointment was extremely well


received, I think. So you can...So He didn't do anything? As it


happened he wasn't required to do anything. Mark Byford, the former


Deputy DG left office with �950,000. Mrs Hodge called the pay-offs a


fiddle to get people out. Culturally as, I think Lucy Adams


and others have said, you all commented, I think we had lost the


plot. We had lost the way. We had got bedevilled by zur rows on


various salaries. -- zeros on various salaries.


Good evening, the Peruvian plan...A Former presenter of this show, who


shrugged it off to find respectability in the BBC, said


there is a question mark over the chair of the BBC Trust. There is


always coming a time where anybody in a senior position has come to


the end of their utility, has run out of road, as they say, and I


think the questions must be asked and will be asked whether that is


the case with Chris Patten. The BBC is a London landmark, it is not on


the monopoly board, though a good few who passed through its portals


have collected their �200 and the rest. Margaret Hodge is still here,


we are also joined by the former BBC chairman, Sir Christopher Bland.


Do you think the BBC has been transparent? No. We have had to


drag the information so far out of them it all started with The


Entrepenurial State pay-off, and then on the back of that -- the


Entwistle pay-off, and then there was the cost of somebody in post


only for five months. We have had this deeper look, but there are 150


senior managers who have left the BBC over a three-year period, the


cost is �25 million. To put that into perspective, the cost of


running Radio 4 is double that, so half the cost of running Radio 4,


all the programmes on Radio 4 is what was spent on exiting 150


senior managers. Do you know who signed off on those deals? We know


who signed off on a few deals. We don't know the amount, the why and


the who on most of those deals. That is why we have asked the


question of the BBC to provide us with that information. What's gone


wrong? Tony Hall put it well, said there was a failure of central


oversight. There was a failure of the BBC Executive Committee, not at


the BBC Trust, and also of the non- executive directors who sit on the


BBC executive. That is where the primary fault lies. Did you say you


don't agree? One of the really depressing facet of today's hearing


was the inability to accept accountability and always passing


the buck. So it has been passed. Welcome to the BBC! It is not


uncommon, I'm afraid. Tony Hall didn't pass the buck, he said it


was down to. He wasn't here.He said it was the fault of the


Executive Committee and it was. me just say this to you, if you are


the chair of a Trust, which Chris Patten is, and the members of that


Trust, you have a duty both to ensure value for money and a duty


to protect the license payers' interest, you take as a strategic


objective, you want to reduce the number of senior managers, we all


applaud that, but then not to concern yourself with the detail,


not to know whether or not actually the BBC broke its own rules. I


think it demonstrates that the Trust of not providing proper


oversight. I don't buy this argument that it wasn't for them.


Some of this was down to parliament. It was parliament who set up the


crazy structure of a Trust with clear blue water between it and the


BBC, separate employment, separate building, it is the Executive


Committee and the first instance who are responsible for signing off


that. Someone miss led it?That is yet to be seen, and one of the


missing elephants in the room. you know who misled them? One of


the missing elements in the room was Mark Thompson, who signed off,


I would guess those payments, with the non-executive members of the


Executive Committee of the BBC. And they should have exercised in the


first instance oversight. It is very convenient today to blame two


people who weren't there, Mark Thompson, and the chairman, the ex-


chairman of Barclays. You blamed them that is why you are hauling


him in front of you. I didn't blame him I have to say members of the


Trust blamed him and the implication from the executive was


it was the previous executive. I would say everybody is accountable.


The purpose of the Trust, it may well be that on the margins we got


it, parliament got it a little bit wrong. Got it entirely wrong.Hang


on, if the purpose of the Trust is to protect the license fee payers'


interests, and the Trust needs to provide value for money, allowing


what we described as a quarter of the pay-offs we looked at had


broken the BBC's own rules, exceeded them in all sorts of ways,


for that not to be monitored by the Trust. It should have been


monitored by the Trust. That is not how you set the Trust up. You


actually excluded it from day-to- day responsibility for senior


executive remuneration. You read the charter. And parliament did


that. I'm not talking about responsibility for remuneration,


what I'm a talking about. That is what we are talking about.


talking about a proper monitoring to protect the license fee payers'


interest and ensure value for money. It doesn't mean you take the


decisions, but you monitor those decisions, that is what oversight


is to ensure that actually the objectives of the Trust and the


interests of the license fee payers is being defended. Nobody in the


room did that or took responsibility for that. Including


if I may say so, I wish she were here, your HR director of the BBC


who is paid in excess of �100,000. We invited her on, but she like all


the other managers you can't see them for dust? Hang on she has had


a tough day. She may have. I also had a tough day. You were handing


it out rather than taking it. trying to be fair. I think you were.


The fact is Tony Hall was right, it is not the Trust's responsibility


in the first instance, it is the BBC's executive, it is the Director


General, it was parliament, by the way, who said the Director General


shall also be the chairman of the Executive Committee. Another


serious element of judgment, next time round you should put that


right. There was so much that was so wrong, it was jolly depressing


today to hear it all come out. If in fact the executive lied to the


Trust, I think that is terrible. I still fail to understand why a


whole number of executives walked out with hundreds of thousands of


pounds into new jobs. One to the British Library, one to run a


college in London, one to work in the private sector for Burberry.


Are you going to insist that more names are named? We are going to


insist that the names, what they got, why they got it and who they,


who authorised it is revealed to the committee. How we then handle


that, we will obviously have to do that sensitively. Thank you very


much. There was an even more raucous than usual bout of name-


calling in the House of Commons today as MPs sleeked at each other


about where their party got its funds from. The Conservatives were


desperate to get as much mileage out of the question of Labour's


links with the trades unions, as they could, before Ed Miliband


achieves his ambition of making the issue disappear in the undergrowth


of some inquiry or other. The unions themselves, which invented


the Labour Party of course are pretty agitated about what Mr


Miliband says he has in mind. They have deeper worries too.


No motorcars or carts are allowed in the streets of Durham. The


miners take complete possession of the city. Around this time of year,


Victorian pit bosses gathered in Durham to set miners' wages, not


surprisingly the miners turned up too. What began as rally for higher


wages became a good knees up, the famous Durham Rhineers' gala.


can't scare me # I'm sticking with the union


This weekend will be a carnival without its cause. Mines have


closed, Britain's Labour forces changed, -- Britain's labour force


has changed, and so too its trade unions.


This is more like it, the offices of the General Municiple Boiler


Makers union or the GMB, 632 Cherry Orchard Walk, Swindon. If Ed


Miliband wants a more direct relationship with union members, it


is people like this, supermarket lorry drivers on a union health and


safety course. In 1979 union membership peaked at 13.2 million.


There were sharp falls in the 80s and 90s, and after new Labour in


1997 the expansion in public sector employment saw this decline plateau,


current membership is 7.2 million, 26% of today's work force are in a


union, most are in the public sector, but 14% of private sector


employees are in a union. Separate figures show there were 589,000


more union members in 20 -- 59,000 more union members in 2012 than


there were before. Tony Watkins has lived through the change. It was a


closed shop, that's going back to 1969. To get a job it was closed


shop. If you didn't join a union you didn't get a job. It has


changed in leaps and bounds. The unions are more professional, they


are there for the members and not for what they can get. There is


none of these strike actions. Everything is negotiated.


Management will talk to you, where ten years ago they wouldn't talk to


you. If you were in the union you were stood on. Now they treat you


as an equal. The make up of the unionised work force has changed


greatly since 1995, there are a million fewer manufacturing members,


numbers in construction have fallen too, but in the private sector the


number of unionised shop staff has risen, a surge in Teaching


Assistants becoming unionised has also pushed up numbers in education,


healthcare has seen the numbers grow too. Ed Miliband's idea is the


three million union members who pay a political levy will be asked to


give their conscious approval that some of that money supports the


Labour Party. Right now that is a choice made by union bosses that


members are informed of. If asked to make this decision themselves


the GMB thinks they just won't. Your boss, Paul Kenny said this


morning he thinks numbers will go down, is that your experience?


may well go down, on the basis people will have to opt in rather


than choosing to opt out. Minutes later Carol's suspicion gets backed


up by the men on the health and safety course. Most of the members


do stand on their own two feet and I think a lot of the union members


aren't politically motivated any more. I don't think we should be


associated with any political party. We should be totally separate from


it. Would I vote for Labour? No I wouldn't. Have you voted Labour


before? A long, long time ago. Now I look at what people are going to


give us and then I vote. Labour held only a modest lead over the


Tories, in 2010, among public sector union members who said they


were certain to vote, but that lead has now increased hugely. Among


private sector union members the Tories held a healthy lead in 2010,


that lead has now almost disappeared. You think the link


with Labour should carry on, but they should listen to you more?


Definitely, it is value for money. Members pay for representation.


Where is it, we pay for MPs to do our bidding, to a certain extent.


They should be agents of us. I know it is an outdated concept, this is


how it should happen, but it is not happening.


As it was in the beginning of the Labour movement, the unions have


come a long way since then, the question is how they wold influence


in the future? -- they wield influence in the future?


Billy Hayes is the General Secretary of the Communication


Workers Union, David Goodhart is the director of the centre left


think-tank, Demos. Do you think there is any point any longer in


this link? Not really. I think it is stopped being functional


actually for both parties to the link. It used to obviously have a


purpose, that unions were a great moderating influence in the Labour


Party, in the relatively recent past. But I do think Labour suffers


from it politically as we saw in the House of Commons today. I think


the bigger point is the unions now get very little out of this


relationship. They have a massive, massive job to do in modern Britain.


They are not doing it very effectively. We have an hourglass


labour market. We have about a third of the economies highly-


skilled, high productivity jobs, where the unions are quite well


organised. We have a middle sector, public sector and others, we have a


massive bottom of the hourglass, which is about 35% of the


population, ten million people who are mainly in low paid jobs in care


in cleaning in retail, and these jobs are not organised, with one or


two exceptions. The unions have an historic job to do organising there.


And the link with the Labour Party is not helping them do that. Do you


feel it helps you? I think it does, I think the link with the Labour


Party is a connection with the work place, you wouldn't have had the


minimum wage had it not been for the affiliation to the Labour Party.


But it has been described in the past, it is a contentious alliance,


it is the most and transparent relationship of any political party


when you compare, they are called donors, but the donations are made


by the Conservatives...Let As stay off the Tories and talk about the


unions and Labour, or the unions in particular. Explain to him why he


might be in the sky with this? could go on having a relationship,


look at Germany the trade unions there don't have the kind of


official affiliation to the Social Democratic Party, but come election


time most of the officials they are out there, you know, battling for


the SPD. But it doesn't damage the SPD politically, they are not seen


as funded by the unions. I mean I think this point about the minimum


wage is not right. You could have had that even if you had not been


affiliated to the Labour Party. There are all sorts of things you


could and should have and that actually labour -- Labour


affiliation there. According to Biz, if you are a union member you enjoy


an 18% difference to non-unionised work forces, where they are


organised they are effective. are effective. We are across BT,


sant tanned der, where we are organised we are effective. There


is a issues with sector, the big corporations have gone, and one of


the things unions have to do is recognise the changes that are


taking place demo graphically. The majority of trade unionists in


Britain are women. We need more ethnic minorities in positions of


leadership. The unions have to change. Unions are still effective.


We have just seen tonight on the telly, a celebration of somebody


getting the sack. I know it is a big popular programme, the


apprentice, when was the last time there was a television programme


about the role of trade unions in the work place, we don't get that


any more. We are just having one now, we are having a programme


about it now. Jeremy with the greatest respect to you, 11.10 on a


Wednesday night, we are...You dream on for a bit, matey!


saying you are effective, that is exactly what I'm a saying, but you


are not representing the working poor of Britain. We have eight to


ten million low-skilled jobs, with the exception of the retail sector


you guys are not there. Your heartland is in the public sector.


You represent professionals. members are in telecommunications.


The whole movement I'm a talking about. I'm talking about my own


union and experience, we have some of the best paid people in Britain


and they want to be in a union, I get your point about the bottom end,


but we are organising the bottom end as well. Cloners, catering.


have to relearn those skills you need all the time and energy and


money at your disposal to do that massive job of organising the


bottom ten million low-paid people in Britain. I think the Labour


Party connection. Politics is not for ordinary people then. Quite the


opposite. That is the whole discourse that we are hearing in


Britain, it is all of a sudden trade unionists are starting to get


a bid more influence in terms of this or that selection and it


excites the posh people. You have no influence over the Labour Party.


The posh people's politics is getting a bit unsettled that some


how or another the trade unions are starting to exert a bit more


influence than before, and it is exciting everyone. But the Labour


Party has become posh under your, with your link. It is also about


how you see politics in this country. It was quite clear from


that piece there that it a lot of your members who don't see it in


quite the direct lined way, linear way that you in the trade union


leadership see the business of this country? That is true, we regularly


poll our members, 48% of our members voted Labour last election.


22% Conservative, 20% liberal. I'm not a political loader in a sense


that I don't represent the Labour Party, I represent the CWU, but we


want political influence. You need political influence on the


coalition and employers, you need to be a stakeholder in the economy,


not just narrowly focused on one political party. You and the whole


trade union movement should be running a campaign for the living


wage, there is huge support for it, Boris Johnson supports it, lots of


Tories support it, and it is not happening. The CWU is involved in


the living page, we pay our employees the living wage, we are


looking for accreditation on that. But we do engage with other


political parties. On behalf of the CWU. It is harder, surely?What I


find fascinating this week is there is nothing that excites the media


and political class in this country than talking about trade unions, it


is the one area excluded from political life. We are the second-


biggest voluntary organisation in Britain today, six million people


join and are members of the trade union movement, the National Trust


is the biggest. How much say do we get in that process. There is


nothing excites the posh political consensus in this country an


ordinary working people having a say. You would have a louder voice


if you were not associated just with one political party I'm afraid.


Thank you very much indeed. That's it for now, if we can make


it into the office tomorrow through all the walking wounded executive,


we will have lots more that the Temperatures reached 28 Celsius in


the best of the sunshineed to, but the sunshine wasn't as widespread


as recent days, we will make that right tomorrow, Earl legal cloud


across eastern areas will burn back on the coast, most of us in the


same boat. Patchy cloud, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The warm


spots 27, 28 degrees, an isolated thundery downpour into the


Grampians, most dry. Clearly where you have the sunshine here and


across northern England, compared with the cloud today it will have


an impact on the temperature, higher through the Midlands. Cloud


in Lincolnshire, but it will be a brighter and warmer day at Trent


Bridge, for the Test Match and southern England. The sunshine


lighting up the ground, maybe not quite as warm across south-west


England and Wales, temperatures easily into the 20s, light winds,


glorious afternoon to come. But will it last? As we go deeper into


the week. Looking into Friday it will. Plenty of sunshine again, and


actually on Friday, temperatures will be even higher, some spots


near 30, parts of north-east England down to Yorkshire, into the


Midlands for example, it will be another cracking day to come. Let's


Download Subtitles