10/07/2013 Newsnight

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