11/05/2016 Newsnight

Facing destruction, or business as usual?

Where will the BBC be this time tomorrow?

The government is to set out its plans to change the way it's run.

If it didn't already exist you wouldn't invent it,

But it does work in practice and so it would be an act

of vandalism to get rid of it from a purely Tory point of view.

to independent public service broadcasting.

Censorship in China. Hello and welcome to BBC World News, what

happened to the golden era of British relations...

The Chinese evidently don't want to know what the Queen said about them.

So tonight we'll ask where relations between Britain and China now stand

and bring you fresh clues about what caused the row.

And a rare chance to hear from the mime artist who inspired -

Splendid, shining, always inspired creature.

When he was on the backbenches, Culture Secretary John Whittingdale

was for years pre-occupied by the BBC and the media landscape.

He was seen as a critic, describing the licence fee

Well, tomorrow, from the front bench, he gets to actually shape

policy, with a White Paper on the BBC, and the renewal

That poll tax will survive but there will be changes to the way

It's all about whether the Government will end up having

too much say in who runs the corporation.

Now, just before we get into this, the key background you need

is that there are two BBC boards at the moment, the real

one that runs the BBC, and is appointed by the BBC.

And the BBC Trust that supervises the BBC and is

Our political editor Nick Watt is with me.

What do you know about what will be in this white Paper? I have been

talking to my sources. There is an official government note out of

which cannot be reported until midnight. The government has decided

it does not want another row will stop it has the junior doctors and

teachers on its back. It looks like they have reigned in the culture

Department through an intervention. -- another row. The want to say that

they are protecting its historic independence. You will see this in

the new board. What they will suggest is that the BBC will have

the ability to ensure that it, not the government, can have a majority

of members on that board. The government will appoint the chair,

the deputy chair, but they will have to consult for the nations and

regions. Then the BBC will have to decide so it can have a majority.

And the medium remit, inform, entertain, and educate, that will be

there but there will be some tweaks on the remit. With regards to the

things we have been told to prepare for, it sounds like it has been a

bit Watership Down. Will it still be controversial? There will be

concerns. The Tories, Labour and Lib Dem people will say, is there not

some interfering on the board? Some senior Tory members are concerned

about the chair of the current trust. There is a suggestion she

will move to be the new head of the new board. Words that she is not

very effective and was appointed by George Osborne and perhaps we need a

bit more independence. Labour politicians, some mainstream ones,

will be saying we don't like the way the left of the Labour Party have

been attacking the BBC. But this has been a debate within the

Conservative Party so we thought we would take a look at the

Conservative relationship with the BBC down the decades.

A national treasure is celebrating his 90th birthday this week.

Prompting joy amongst his friends and a rare moment of consensus

amongst our political leaders. Would the Prime Minister join me in

wishing Sir David Attenborough a very happy 90th birthday. I

certainly join you in wishing a very happy birthday to David

Attenborough. Sir David Attenborough is pretty much the same age as the

BBC. Since the early days of public broadcasting in the 1920s arguments

have raged about the BBC's role. At this year is no exception. Following

the lefty Lovie exterior at the weekend, does my right honourable

friend agree that scrapping the discredit of BBC trust, asking for

more transparency in a publicly funded organisation, and wanted the

BBC to be instinctive and impartial is hardly the end of public service

broadcasting as we know it. CHUCKLES

The Conservative Party has had tortured relationship with the BBC.

Conflicting emotions about its place in our life 's world within the

heart of many a Tory. There are many conservatives that dislike anything

that seemed to be a publicly funded state institution. -- in our life

swirled. There are things that reflect the national character. It

would be an act of vandalism to get rid of it, from a Tory point of

view, because it is an institution that works. When you think of people

who like Strictly, who like the Archers, they are mostly

conservatives. The culture Secretary John Whittingdale knows the danger

of crossing Ambridge fans as he embarks on the first renewal in 20

years by a Conservative government of the BBC royal charter. What is

interesting is that even in the 80s when there were concerned up and

down Westminster and Whitehall about the political passing of the BBC.

Mrs Thatcher was still not willing to take serious political measures

which would have constraint it. These instincts often coexist within

the same politicians. -- constrain it. That is because they understand

and admire many of the things the BBC does. David Attenborough's

birthday this week is a classic example of that. They're also very

concerned about the effective and fair proper spending of public money

in a license fee arrangement which socially quite regressive. Memories

of the rows between the BBC and the Thatcher government still run deep,

particularly over the reporting of Northern Ireland and the miners

strike. The BBC director-general lost his job after the man appointed

by the Margaret Thatcher to chair the board of governments flexed his

muscles. One figure at the heart of some of those rows in the 1980s

dismisses fears that history will repeat itself. Absolutely that is

not crossing the line. When I was the controller of BBC One misses

that was at the height of her powers. She packed the board with

one of us and the processes today for appointments, even if government

appointments, these are public appointments, everybody knows about

it, there are no secret votes, no jobs for friends, it doesn't happen

any more, it is much more open. -- this was at the height. Others

disagree. There needs to be clear distance between the government of

the day and the people who are deciding when and where and how the

BBC is covering news. The government insists it is protecting the BBC's

historic independence and we will find out tomorrow morning whether

MPs agree. Joining me now are two

Conservative politicians - the former Conservative Chairman

Lord Fowler, and Andrew Bridgen MP, chair of the regulatory

reform select committee. Good evening. The controversy, I

suppose, is government directly appointing people who will be

directly running the BBC. What do you feel about that? Well, what I

did feel until I heard the preamble to the programme, is that there are

great dangers in that. But if the story is that John Whittingdale has

great dangers in that. But if the changed tack, and that we are now

going to have a truly independent board, then obviously that is

something to welcome. There is a real problem with the BBC right at

the centre of it. This is my concern all along. We have been through this

great consultation. Almost everybody has been consulted. And at the end

of the day we have a white paper. has been consulted. And at the end

Then we think, well, now we have the bill, but you don't. The decision

rests with the government. I think this is a central issue which at

some stage we need to face. That it shouldn't be left on ministers to

decide. It should be parliament, and particularly

decide. It should be parliament, and You don't get to vote on it but you

can debate on it. Let's be clear, the government will appoint people,

directly, to the government will appoint people,

runs the BBC. Not a majority but it the government will appoint people,

and you are the government will appoint people,

that? I would prefer it if all of the board were independent members

and were appointed by an independent commission. But if the compromise is

the kind of compromise you set out I don't think everybody is going to

die in a ditch. We shall have to see the detail and what the numbers

actually are. Is it going far enough for you? You have been a critic of

the corporation. I am a critic of anything that has authority and

power without accountability. The government appointed all of the

members of the trust previously. The new board will begin new structure.

The unitary board will be responsible. I laid down an

The unitary board will be the TV licence. That led to the

Perry review. I have to accept that it did not go ahead. What I want to

see is a structure, a structure for the BBC to go forward to thrive in a

rapidly changing marketplace and respond to that. Before we leave

that, it is important to say that the BBC trust, which we all... I, as

chairman of select committee at the time, we all advised against that.

The Labour government went ahead and put it in. It is very welcome, the

BBC trust -- the fact it has gone. Government can go over the opinions

of the mass of people and the mass of politicians. As I understand it,

leading up to the failure of the trust, this 11 year period which

will be a health check five-year stint away to make sure the

government system is working, which is very sensible. -- which will be a

health check five years into it. Doesn't it always feel like it is

always coming up to another review? No, it will be a health check of the

government's regime. The last one failed. It isn't a health check on

the BBC, it is on the regime. That's right. And there have been scandals

recently. You have got to be careful that you don't get into a situation

where it feels like the BBC is always under investigation. No

business can act like that. It should be under constant

examination... It should be but from the independent board. If you are

going to have examination, call it what you will, at five years, and

then 11 years, the impression is going to be that government

ministers are looking over the shoulder of the BBC. We don't want

to go back to what I regard as the old nationalised industry where

ministers got involved. When the BBC is receiving the thick end of ?4

billion of taxpayers money every year I think there needs to be a

level of accountability. With the new charter, that will be increasing

by inflation. But you have to decide who actually does the process of

accounting. That is the crucial question. Do you think it is

appropriate for the governing party to play a big part in holding the

state broadcaster, let's call it that, to account? The government is

elected, after all, does that give us mandate to regulate? Because the

BBC is receiving such amounts of taxpayers money, which is 2.5 times

the amount of Commonwealth office Budget, the government has a

responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure that is delivering value and

acting within its charter specifications. In Poland at the

moment there is a big controversy, it's been criticised by everybody

because it is changing its media government arrangements by putting

government appointees on the board. I think one of the crucial things

about this review, this charter, is going to be to see how much

micromanagement the Government is going to do, and as far as I'm

concerned, Iran's number of nationalised industries when I was

doing transport, but if you took reduce rail for example, civil

servants and Ministers had a look at the organisation, then the Prime

Minister had a look at the organisation. It is a bad way of

running a big organisation in this country. We have to look at the

whole white paper as a whole, we need to have an open mind. It does

feel as though it has been watered down, I wonder if that is a pattern,

that there is a lot of tough talk and a bit of BBC bashing, the Tory

party and the BBC not always the best of friends, but at the end of

day, it perhaps does get watered down, is that the perception? The

perception is everyone wants to reform the BBC and various things in

it, and events happen that supersede those. There are certainly events

going on at the moment which are important to the future of our

country, perhaps even more important than the future of the BBC. It

should be said just before we end that the BBC is one of the most

important institutions in this country, and a world leader, and if

we have got any sense, we don't take out of it. Thank you both very much

indeed. The Queen's inadvertent reveal

yesterday, of some of the behind the scenes tensions during the state

visit of China's President Li Xiaoping last year,

perhaps inadvertently also showed just how well the trip went -

that on stage, so little Those smiles all round,

were a display of true But tensions there were -

and about more than simply a bit Our diplomatic editor Mark Urban has

been combing through the footage and has discovered some fresh clues

as to the arguments going on. The Queen's ride with President Xi

in his state carriage was intended to personify

a golden era in relations. But reports that British police had

stopped a Chinese intelligence officer being inserted into that

carriage as an interpreter are apparently confirmed

by a conversation at that The Met police tonight declined

to comment on that and an earlier part in the same conversation

when the Queen revealed her views It was during that visit that

Chinese student demonstrators tried to drown out and screen off Tibetan

and other protesters. They complained at the time

that they had been given too little space by the police so as not

to upset the Chinese. Many in the Foreign Office felt

the visit marked their final defeat in China policy by George

Osborne and the Treasury. China policy was taken over

by George Osborne and a number of people in the Treasury

obviously as his advisers, That battle between those who wanted

to put trade first and those who had favoured a more assertive policy

has ebbed and flowed His decision to meet the Dalai Lama

in 2012 caused a deep freeze in relations with Beijing

that the Chancellor It certainly is the kind of thing

that the Chinese government complains about very publicly,

but actually, if you look at what the Cameron government seems

to care a great deal about, which is trade and investment,

it had almost no impact at all. So the Prime Minister

was not welcome in China, but actually, business went

on pretty much as usual, and you will find that the Chinese

are pretty pragmatic In his fight to push past

the Dalai Lama meeting, the Chancellor travelled to the east

of China and embraced Chinese bond As the prospect of a Chinese

presidential visit grew, the Queen was pressed

into the effort, meeting When arrangements were being made

for the Chinese premier to visit, there were some quite robust remarks

about the visit being cancelled if he was not granted an audience

with the Queen, for example. And we seem to be

seeing similar stuff. It all has to do, I believe,

with the culture of a communist bureaucracy, where officials

are desperately keen to earn brownie So determined whether Chancellor

and Prime Minister that President Xi Jinping's visit

here last year should go without a hitch,

they tried to ban various senior public figures

from seeing the Dalai Lama. They asked Prince Charles,

for example, not to do so, and for a written guarantee

from Nick Clegg that In the past seven months,

some of the sparkle has already Joining me now is the Hong Kong-born

entrepreneur Sir David Tang, who attended the state banquet

for the Chinese President during his So when you are at that banquet, was

their talk and gossip about tensions and things going on behind the

scenes? Know, everything was very friendly, and it was a very fine

banquet, no hitches at all. One of the charges is that the Queen feels

that the amp bustard, that the Chinese team were rude to the

ambassador. It could be that they were rude, it could be a

ambassador. It could be that they clash. Nobody will know because we

weren't there. There are two different cultures and two different

languages. I speak both English and Chinese, and for us Chinese even, we

are very monosyllabic and very loud and very blunt, because it is

staccato, every word is a singular sound, so even to ourselves we sound

a bit rude, so to the west and we might sound very rude. And when that

is translated into English, that is even possibly more rude. When I went

to Beijing and I wanted an alarm call, when the phone came at seven

o'clock, I picked up the phone, and at the other end, the concierge

says, get out! For the Chinese, that is not rude. So there could be a

cultural misunderstanding, one would hope that the ambassador at least

would understand. British diplomats are very soft-spoken. Did you know

anything about the row over who got into the carriage to ride with the

Queen? I think only the interpreter, who was probably the security guard

as well. He obviously spoke Chinese and English, but this whole incident

is really a storm in a teacup. If the gold commander, as she was

called, should complain about the Chinese, I can't imagine what she

would be like dealing with the Americans. All these people in dark

glasses with Ian things coming out looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

They must have been incredibly... Do you think the Chinese care about

this kerfuffle? They appeared to care enough that they censored it

from the BBC One broadcast -- BBC World broadcast. This incident is

completely a storm in a teacup. I actually thought that it was rather

odd for the Lord Chamberlain to bring this subject up at a garden

party. They were enjoying, albeit raining rather heavily, but why do

you want to talk about somebody being rude ten months ago when you

could be talking about so many things? They could be making small

talk about the rain and the weather! Do you think the Chinese would be

surprised that it has been broadcast and publicised everywhere? I don't

think so. Not even the Chinese, but I shouldn't imagine the British

Government couldn't care less about how this was interpreted. It is

really a non-incident. The fact that they heard what the Queen said, the

Queen is perfectly entitled to her own private conversation. I blame,

I'm afraid, again the Lord Chamberlain for putting a microphone

near her and not heeding that whatever she said could have been

heard. What is the general state of Anglo-Chinese relations at the

moment? You have Chancellor George Osborne, you can't get more slick

than him, he is like an Exxon Valdez oil slick as far as the Chinese are

concerned, and they love it! Thank you very much.

The American attorney general Loretta Lynch ignited a huge buzz

of excitement this week, with some words on the rights

It wasn't even a speech as such, but merely a statement

She was announcing that the US government is taking action

against the state of North Carolina, which has courted controversy

by passing legislation that demands everybody uses the bathroom that

accords to their gender at birth, rather than the gender

The arguments have been raging on that, but the intervention

of the attorney general has been called the "I have a dream moment"

This law provides no benefit to society, and all it does is harm

innocent Americans. And instead of turning away from our neighbours,

friends and colleagues, let us instead learn from our history and

avoid repeating the mistakes of our past. Some of you have lived freely

for decades, and others of you are still wondering how you could

possibly live the lives that you were born to lead. But no matter how

isolated, no matter how afraid and no matter how alone you may feel

today, know this. That the Department of Justice and indeed the

in tire Obama administration want you to know that we see you.

Interesting to hear a comparison made to the civil rights

From bathroom rights to bigger things.

Over a few years we've seen dramatic changes in attitudes

towards trans issues, but does the comparison

to the advance in black civil rights stand?

Joining me now is Kerri Kupec, who works for the Alliance Defending

And from San Francisco, the executive director

of the Transgender Law Center, Kris Hayashi.

Thank you both for joining us. Kris, if I could start with you, how

excited are you buy that Loretta Lynch statement? The federal

government made it clear that discrimination against transgender

people will not stand, and as I watched the Attorney General speak

on Monday, I thought about all of the transgender leaders,

particularly transgender women of colour who have fought for rights,

whose work bought us to this moment, and who I no longer with us because

of hatred and violence. As a transgender man myself, someone who,

when I was born, the doctor said I was a girl, but I have always known

myself to be a man and I have lived most of my life as a man, is a

transgender person of colour, I have rarely felt truly seen by the people

and systems that make up our government, and Monday was a rare

moment where I not only felt seen, but I felt that the federal

government would join with us in this battle against discrimination.

Kerri, where you moved at all by the Attorney General's statement on

Monday? I was moved, but I was not moved in a positive way, as both an

attorney and a woman, I was very concerned about the words coming

from our nation's chief attorney. Yes it is important to see everyone,

as she said, absolutely, but the problem with her words is she was

ignoring and quite rightly marginalising millions of women

across this country who understandably and justifiably feel

very concerned about the idea of allowing men into intimate settings

like a women's allowing men into intimate settings

Attorney General is taking, using the Civil Rights act to take action

against the Civil Rights act to take action

that point, and you think that is an abuse of the Civil Rights act to do

that Chris? abuse of the Civil Rights act to do

privacy law is fully compliant abuse of the Civil Rights act to do

federal law. It forbids discrimination on the basis of sex,

and sex. That does not include gender identity or how one perceives

their gender and sex. The plain meaning of the text says biological

sex. The legislative history, the sponsors of the bills at the same,

in fact of the sponsors of one of the act of the Department of Justice

specifically says that the act of the Department of Justice

that facilities can still maintain sex-specific facilities. And there

is a real irony here. Protecting against sex discrimination in the

60s and 70s came as a result of combating Sextus ruination against

60s and 70s came as a result of women. Women

60s and 70s came as a result of shake in employment and

60s and 70s came as a result of these same laws that were designed

60s and 70s came as a result of to protect women are now being used

against women, and telling women that regardless of how they feel,

regardless of what their feelings and concerns are,

regardless of what their feelings into their locker rooms, and

regardless of what their feelings trump women's. Kris, hold your

discussion on the bathroom policy, I just want to know

discussion on the bathroom policy, I about using the Civil Rights act for

the transgender movement, because clearly that wasn't what was in the

mind of those who drafted that back in the 1960s. It is very

straightforward. Transgender people are protected from discrimination

under Sextus rumination law. We are protected from discrimination in

employment under title seven, transgender students are protected

from discrimination, and in the transgender Law Centre in 2012 won

the case and made very clear that transgender people are protected

from discrimination. What the eternal General did was simply

reaffirm the law. Kerri, you can't see that Mac one, he is in the other

studio. What is your problem with him going into amen's bathroom. It

wouldn't be common sense for him to go into a women's bathroom, which is

what North Carolina forces him to do.

They force those to undress. It is a fundamental right to privacy.

Everybody deserves that. This law strips the right of privacy from

everybody who understandably, and justifiably, feel concerned about

the idea of undressing in front of a biological man. I think it is not

what about the ones or what I want, but what is best for the millions of

people across this country who have concerns. Those concerns should be

recognised. These people shouldn't be slandered or attacked but should

be recognised. Do you understand that? As a transgender person safety

is important. But transgender people face disproportionate rates of

violence and harassment. There are already laws in place in North

Carolina. It is true across the country to protect women, children,

anyone from facing this. The reality of the law is that it opens the door

for harassment. Not just against transgender people but against

anybody who looks a bit different. Against anyone who doesn't fit in

the stereotypes of what a man or a woman should look like. Do you

accept transgender people as equal, do they deserve full protection

against discrimination at work in college, in housing, all of these

different areas? Discrimination and bullying should never be tolerated.

But we're not talking about that. We are talking about a fundamental,

since right to bodily privacy. We are talking about millions of people

who understandably don't feel comfortable... Really, really, was

it really a problem in North Carolina before they pass the bill,

where millions of men and women around America thinking, my

goodness, my life is ruined because my right to bodily privacy is being

undermined by transgender people using my bathroom? I'm not saying

that. I'm saying that opening bathrooms and locker rooms to

whoever wants to come in. Somebody can come in and say I identify as

such therefore I can go in. That opens the door to those who would

abuse those laws to gain access to the people inside for bad reasons.

As a woman, if a man enters the locker room I can get the manager, I

can say, you don't belong here. Now, if we open our locker room and rest

rooms I cannot say anything until something actually happens to me. We

need to leave it. This is not about transgender people, this is about

the rights of everybody. Thank you. Well, if you are someone

who likes trans rights, you may also like the art and music

of the late David Bowie. Which brings us to a rare chance

to hear from someone who was a muse Lindsay Kemp is actually one

of the most extraordinary performers It wasn't just Bowie

he was close to, he also taught Now 78, he's the last

of the bohemians, equally at home performing mime in a striptease club

or dancing for his many Kemp lives in Italy and he hasn't

returned to the UK for 15 years. But he's back, to teach

a class at Rada in London. And to talk sex, 'Strictly' -

and Morris dancing - You see, I never walked

in the streets, I always danced. I found dancing much more

pleasurable than walking. because I didn't march,

I danced. I was doing a little

show of the tiny theatre -- I was doing a little

show at a tiny theatre David Bowie was in the audience one

night as a 19-year-old boy. He came to my dressing room

and he was like the Archangel the Archangel Gabriel standing

there, I was, like, you know, Mary, He expressed the desire to work

with me, to learn from me, and at the time I was teaching dance

classes at the Dance Centre in Covent Garden, so he enrolled

the following day. # Poor Harlequin you're quite

an exception # A troubadour

on a downer #. Kemp and Bowie became lovers

and toured Kemp's production of The Pierot In Turquoise,

which was later adapted for TV. He told me he met me just in time,

because he was on his He had been studying Buddhism quite

seriously and was considering taking He did declare later on,

Lindsay, save me from And quitting the business,

was that... And quitting the business, yeah,

he wasn't getting anywhere, he was certainly multifaceted,

a chameleon, a splendid, shining, always inspired creature,

a genius of a creature. # There's a star man

waiting in the sky # He'd like to come

and meet us # But he thinks he'd

blow our minds #. Kemp collaborated with Bowie

on the stage show of Ziggy Stardust, which was the making

of the singer, though by then their

relationship had ended. My best friend, needless to say,

you know, just like in the mags. I foolishly, and rather

theatrically, and not too seriously, attempted to cut my

wrists, you know. I was taken to the hospital,

the doctor looked at them, Oops.

and sent me back and said, Bad luck.

than me, she was revived # And she can't stop

till them shoes fall off # These shoes do,

a kind of voodoo #. Another willing pupil of Kemp's

was Kate Bush, though at first Modest, she was, she was always

at the back and I was forever having But once she started moving,

and improvising, she was dynamic. One evening, returning to my house

in Battersea, there was a record shoved under

the door, The Kick Inside, and on the record there was the song

Moving, which she wrote, His proteges have gone on to great

things, but Kemp is happy just to be on stage performing mime or dance,

whether it is at Rada this week, the billing "Lindsay Kemp

Mimes His Own Business". I worked in some of those striptease

clubs. Oh, well, it was a joy,

I liked it. For me it is all part

of my world of entertainment, It looked good, it smelt good,

and it was just full The tea rooms, I believe,

are still there. the money to enjoy, eclairs,

their delicious eclairs, I would treat myself to them

from time to time. Are you aware of the phenomena

of Strictly, over in Italy? because there was a lull

after the demise of Morris Where do you stand on Morris

dancing? That famous phrase, I'll try

anything except Morris Well, I don't think

I've tried incest yet, Nick Watt on. -- Nick Watt is here.

Cameron rejects TV debate on Europe is the Daily Telegraph headline,

what do we know about this? The government wants to avoid a row with

the BBC but there are still some ups and downs. We've heard Downing

Street has agreed the first series of elections the referendum debate.

With the BBC discussions are ongoing. That is because Downing

Street are worried about the mention of Wembley Arena. They think it

might be like what happened in Glasgow, where it was a bit hostile

in the Better Together Campaign. But a major row has broken out on the

ITV debates. They are saying that Nigel Farage is not part of the

official campaign, why you not inviting us. It looks like the

government is trying to choose its own opposition and we will sue ITV,

they are saying. Thanks very much. That's all we have time

for tonight; it's James O'Brien Probably with more on the BBC White

Paper. A largely dry and cool weekend to

come. A few showers