19/12/2017 Newsnight

Tonight, we have a broadcast world

exclusive with the woman who fought

to bring Harvey Weinstein to justice

two long decades ago.

For me to have broken into a meeting

like that was very unusual,

and he did not question me.

He got up and came with me straight

away because he knew why

I was as angry and serious as I was.

So you accused him

of attempted rape?

Yeah, yeah.

And he denied it?

Yes.

He said nothing at all had happened.

And he swore on the life

of his wife and his children,

which was his best get out of jail

card that he used quite a lot.

And did it ever cross your

mind that that he might

be telling the truth?

No.

Good evening.

At the end of a year which has seen

women speak out with such clarity

about abuse of male power,

we dedicate much of tonight's

programme to hearing from one

who worked for Harvey Weinstein

two decades ago.

Zelda Perkins accused the Hollywood

mogul of the attempted

rape of her colleague,

and tried to start criminal

proceedings against him.

She has never spoken

on camera about it before.

She told Newsnight about the moment

she confronted Weinstein

over his behaviour, how

she expected his company

to fire him, and how she was told

the only way to get Miramax

to listen to her was by making

a monetary request.

Zelda Perkins ended up signing a non

disclosure agreement worth £125,000.

For 19 years, the company

bought her silence.

She told me why she

decided to break it now.

And what working for him was like.

Listen, Harvey now everyone sees

is this sort of repulsive monster.

Which he was and is, on one hand.

But I think what is interesting

and what isn't maybe brought forward

is that he was also an extremely

exciting, brilliant, you know,

stimulating person to be around.

He was at the top of

his game at that time.

He held all the cards.

Everybody came to him.

And I'm not just talking

about people in the

entertainment industry.

I'm talking about people

in politics and in, you know,

big business and industry.

And so to be in the enclave

of somebody that powerful,

you know, was very exciting.

He was also very

unpleasant to be around.

But he was a master manipulator

and you know, his moods changed very

quickly and you never knew

whether you were, you know,

his confidant or whether you were

going to be screamed at.

So it was a very highly

adrenalised environment.

When did you first notice

that he had a problem with women?

I don't know that I could

say I noticed he had

a problem with women.

I think, again it's very difficult.

Everybody now says why did everyone

go to his hotel room?

It wasn't as simple as that.

You know, everybody

went to his hotel.

This was where he did business.

It wasn't in his bedroom,

it was in his suite.

You know, you had top agents,

top movie stars male and female

coming in hourly for meetings.

This was his place of business.

So it wasn't sort of this spurious,

weird thing that you had

to go up to his room.

However, he had a lot

of meetings with actresses

and he clearly had girlfriends.

You know, he had regular

female visitors who were

actresses sometimes,

aspiring actresses,

well-known actresses.

And they clearly had

a fairly intimate personal

relationship with him.

But as an assistant that's not

really something that

you're involved with.

Did you assume that those

relationships were consensual?

Did they seem just to be

part of that world?

Yes.

I presumed they were consensual.

But there were obviously some women

who were reluctant to come.

You know, when you would ring up

to try and make a meeting

they would always come up

with excuses and Harvey

would get very angry.

And threatening.

And would threaten,

you know, you personally.

You had to make sure

that this meeting happened.

With Harvey there was

no such word as no.

I think that's really

the crux of the matter.

Zelda, when you first

started working for him,

some voices were warning

you what he was like?

I had one morning and I have to say

that woman really saved my honour.

Because actually being

warned is very important

because it arms you.

And all she had said to me was,

always sit in an armchair.

Don't ever sit

on a sofa next to him.

And always keep your

puffer jacket on!

No more than that.

But actually it was an incredibly

important and good piece of advice

because it meant that I was ready

actually when he did

start behaving badly.

And it also meant that

I wasn't as frightened.

Because I knew that it had

happened to other people.

So, you know, I was very robust

in the way that I dealt with it.

And he, you know, he took that.

He was very persistent.

What did he do?

Well, I think everybody by now has

read pretty much everything,

you know, that he has done.

And he didn't have a very original

repertoire, you know,

but it was a system that worked.

You know, massages,

inappropriate suggestions,

expecting people to work with him,

you know, unclothed.

You know, pretty much everything

that you've read I've had

to experience at some

point or another.

And you then passed that warning on?

I did warn people that he had

a habit of behaving inappropriately.

But that they were safe,

because I had always been safe.

And I genuinely never

was physically threatened by him.

Emotionally and

psychologically, constantly.

But never physically.

And I said, I'm afraid he's a pain,

he will behave inappropriately,

you just tell him where to go.

You're tough with him,

nothing will happen.

But I was wrong.

And it came to a head

for you when he sexually assaulted,

attempted rape, on your colleague?

Yes.

We were at Venice Film Festival.

And he tried to rape her.

What did you do?

She was extremely distressed.

She was shaking, very

distressed, clearly in shock.

Didn't want anybody to know,

was absolutely terrified

of the consequences,

what would happen.

And I spoke with her and you know,

tried to calm her for

about half an hour.

And then I went straight downstairs

to where Harvey was having

a business meeting on the terrace.

And told him he needed

to come with me right away.

For me to have broken into a meeting

like that was very unusual.

And he did not question me.

He got up and came with me

straightaway because he knew why

I was as angry and serious as I was.

So you accused him

of attempted rape?

Yes.

And he denied it?

Yes.

He said nothing at all has happened.

And he swore on the life

of his wife and his children,

which was his best get out of jail

card that he used quite a lot.

And did it ever cross your mind

that he might be telling the truth?

No.

Not if you saw the girl

that I have just seen.

And at this point, four years down

the time of working for Harvey,

I knew him pretty well.

I knew when he was telling

the truth or not.

And then what did you do?

We returned to the UK

and I spoke to my only senior

in the Miramax offices.

And she suggested

that I got a lawyer.

So we both resigned from the company

saying that we felt

we were constructively dismissed

because of his behaviour

and that we would be, he would be

hearing from our solicitor.

And so you found

a lawyer, solicitor?

Yes.

And at this point I thought

we were going to go

to criminal proceedings.

And take him to court.

And that he would be punished

for what he had done.

You were prepared to go that far

and have him locked up?

Well, it was the only route

I thought there was.

It was the only route

as far as I was concerned.

And what happened?

The lawyers made it very

clear that we didn't

have very many options.

Because we hadn't gone to the police

when we were in Venice,

we had no physical evidence

and ultimately it would be two under

25-year-old women's word

against Harvey Weinstein,

Miramax Film Corporation

and essentially The Disney Company.

Because I naively believed that

if we went to Disney they would be

horrified and would fire Harvey

or you know help us

with the proceedings.

But the lawyers made it very

clear that that was not

how the world works.

So you were ready to bring him down

at that point, you took

the only option you thought

you could and you faced doors

slamming in your face?

Essentially?

Yes.

Yes.

And it sounds odd but for me,

you know, this was really

where my trauma started

and my abuse started.

I could deal with Harvey,

he was an unpleasant, difficult man,

but I had ways of dealing with him.

What I couldn't deal with,

what I had no equipment for was to

deal with the legal system.

You know, essentially I had gone

to the parents to say you know,

somebody's done something bad

and there was no

recourse, it seemed.

And that was really shocking

and very frightening to discover

that the law couldn't help me.

In hindsight it wasn't

a simple as that.

My lawyers were giving me the advice

they thought was best.

However...

And I think probably if we had gone

to the police, I don't know

what would have happened.

In truth I don't know

if we would have got anywhere.

You know and at 23 when you're faced

with that, you know,

the advice from your own legal team

is be quiet.

You know, you will get

dragged backwards, forwards

and sideways through the courts.

As will your family.

As will your friends.

As will anybody who knows

anything about you.

You haven't got a chance.

You will be destroyed.

It's quite difficult

to know where to turn.

Do you think now that

you were terribly advised,

or do you think they protected

you as best they could?

In truth, I don't know.

You ended up signing

a nondisclosure agreement.

Tell us how that came about?

This is very difficult because once

the lawyers presented a damages

agreement as our only option,

the one thing that I was very clear

about was that we had to find some

way of stopping Harvey's behaviour.

And two, that I didn't want money

to change hands at any point.

At this point I was told the only

way that we would even get Miramax

to the table was by making

a monetary request.

I mean, it was a very intense

agreement in terms of the secrecy.

I was not allowed to ever speak

to anybody about even

really my time working at Miramax.

I was not allowed to speak

to a therapist without them signing

a confidentiality agreement.

I was not allowed to speak

to my accountant with regards

to the money that I received.

Which was how much?

It was 125,000.

And I think at this point once

I realised that this

was my only arsenal,

the only thing I was going to have

to try and prevent Harvey's

behaviour, was to create

an agreement that was as binding

to him and as difficult for him

as it was going to be for me.

And the only way that

I could accept the fact that money

was going to have to change hands

was that he was going to have to do

an awful lot for that money.

And what did you ask him to do?

Well, there were a lot

of obligations initially

but during the negotiations I had

to concede, we had to

concede some of them.

But some of the main

ones that stayed in was

that he had to attend therapy.

For his behaviour.

And that I was to be present

in his first therapy session

because I was very concerned

that he wouldn't talk

about the relevance, the reason

that he was at a therapist.

Again you have to remember,

this is a man who can manipulate

everybody and I was very

aware of this.

And I was trying to put teeth

into any little clause that I could.

And did you go with him

to that therapy session?

That never happened.

I don't know if he

attended therapy or not.

I pushed to have this meeting.

But his legal team kept stalling.

And after this process

I actually was pretty broken.

I was pretty broken and exhausted

and so disillusioned.

And I didn't have the energy

to go on fighting.

And in reality it was not my

obligation to follow

up his obligation.

And what is extraordinary looking

back is you would imagine that

Miramax Films would have been

bending over backwards to make

sure that all of those

obligations were fulfilled.

But they weren't.

Your career path

was ended that point.

Pretty much, yes.

So what did you do?

I ended up moving to

Central America to train horses!

I did spend a little bit of time

trying for work again

in London and it was

a pretty unpleasant experience.

Because my reputation

was pretty suspect.

And when you've spent a month

of your life fighting with every

ounce of your strength

for right and to stop,

you know, a predator,

to have to face that kind of...

..environment afterwards

was very, very hard.

I really couldn't, I couldn't stay

in the industry at that point.

He calls himself a sex addict now.

Do you think that was at the root?

No.

I don't think he's a sex addict.

He's a power addict.

Everything he did, everything that

drove him was about dominance.

With men and women.

He put an enormous amount of energy

into humiliating men and an enormous

amount of energy into getting

women to submit.

And getting men to submit.

That was what drove him.

You know, his overarching

need for power.

So you think now if you had been

listened to at that point,

everything that came after 20 years

ago would have been avoided?

Yes.

It was the entire system, you know.

And the system essentially protected

Harvey in this case,

but I can guarantee it protects 100

other people like that.

Because if you have the power

and the money to create agreements

that cover-up essentially a very

serious and in this case crime,

criminal action, then I dread

to imagine what other things

are being covered up.

You describe these feelings

of signing an NDA that basically put

you in exactly the opposite position

to the one you had hoped.

You wanted to be speaking out,

you wanted to be changing

the culture, and you were gagged.

How long did you live with that

before you had enough?

Well this happened 19 years ago.

During that time there were a couple

of occasions where I made attempts

to circumnavigate my agreement.

However it was almost impossible

for me because one of the causes

-- clauses of the agreement

disallows me to have a copy of it.

So I don't actually have a copy

of the agreement that I signed.

Why?

Because it's a smoking gun.

If you have an agreement that

somebody signed that says

that he will go to therapy,

that he will be dismissed

from his own company if anybody else

makes a claim in the ensuing period,

you know that HR policy for sexual

harassment has to be

brought into the company,

it's pretty clear that

something is wrong.

So they never let

you have a copy of it?

They never let you see

the whole thing?

I'm allowed to look

at it supervised.

I was allowed to look at it

supervised in my lawyer's office.

What do you think should

happen with NDAs now?

I mean as you say,

you broke your cover,

you want others to do the same.

Listen, I'm not stupid.

I understand that nondisclosure

agreements have a place

in society and for both sides.

But it's really important that

legislation is changed around how

these agreements are regulated.

You cannot have a legal document

that protects a criminal.

This isn't someone

telling you a dodgy car.

You know.

And in fact now the state

of California, New Jersey

and New York are changing

legislation so that you can no

longer hide sexual assault or abuse

in a nondisclosure agreement.

I want that to happen here,

it has to happen here.

We are a civilised culture.

You know, this has to be debated

and the law needs to be changed.

You can't change the Harvey

Weinsteins of the world.

There are always going to be people

who follow the darker

side of their character.

But if the rules and the laws

that we have to protect ourselves

enable that then there's no point

in having them.

Do you think that

culture is changing now?

Do you feel that this has been

a proper watershed year?

I think it has.

I think it's still got

a very long way to go.

I think that women are in a much

stronger position, but I think

we have to be extremely careful.

And I think the media has to be

responsible with its reporting.

But I think there is

still a long way to go.

Do you think Hollywood will change

now, or do you think it

will always go where the money

is and the artistic minds are?

Yes, I think Hollywood will change

but this isn't just about Hollywood.

This isn't about Hollywood,

this is about, the reason that this

story has captured everybody's

imagination is because it involves

glamorous, famous people.

And because if you were trying

to paint a fantasy monster,

Harvey fits the bill perfectly.

So it's the perfect media storm.

But this isn't about Hollywood.

This is about the abuse of power.

How do you think you will see

2017 in this context

in your life, looking back?

It's an interesting question.

Because everybody when they talk

to me, they say this must be very

distressing for you.

And the one thing it

isn't is distressing.

The last 20 years have

been distressing.

Where I've not been allowed

to speak, where I've not been

allowed to be myself.

And not just for me,

for lots of women.

Who have not been able

to own their past.

And for many of them, their trauma.

And I think I've realised that

actually it was much more traumatic

than I realised at the time.

Because the freedom of being able

to speak and being validated.

And being able to now

see that I wasn't mad.

You know, that this was wrong,

this is wrong, this is right.

And that although you know,

the process that I went

through was legal, it was immoral.

And now I feel that maybe I can be

instrumental in some sort of change.

And if I can make one good thing

happen out of something as horrific

as all the damage that Harvey has

caused, then you know,

that makes this year a fabulous

year for me personally.

Zelda Perkins, thank you.

Thank you.

In response to her allegations,

Harvey Weinstein's lawyers issued

the following statement:

"Mr Weinstein categorically denies

engaging in any non-consensual

conduct or alleged

threatening behaviour."

The Walt Disney Company

has not replied.

Miramax had no comment.

The lawyers representing

Zelda Perkins at the time

that the Non Disclosure Agreement

was signed said it was inappropriate

for them to comment,

given the terms of the NDA.

Geoffrey Robertson is one

of Britain's best known barristers

who writes on media

law and free speech -

he's familiar with the case.

You have watched that interview.

What would you say to people

listening to say enormous sympathy

for what she has been through but

why would she have taken the money?

She's courageous in speaking up

because she has been led to think

that she will suffer from the Disney

company, from Miramax, from the

lawyers of Harvey Weinstein. But in

fact I would say she achieved a

great deal. Harvey Weinstein was not

able to be prosecuted for the simple

reason and I do not think she

understands this, that the offence

was committed in Italy and it is a

matter for the Italian police. The

CPS might have sent statements but

that is as far as it would've gone.

So given that she had only one which

was to sue him, to bring legal

proceedings and of course when the

legal proceedings were threatened

for constructive dismissal and so

on, they were met with this offer of

money but they achieved more than

that. She was entitled to money as

compensation for losing her job, she

obviously could not work with Harvey

Weinstein again after this, she was

entitled to compensation for the

stress. But what she achieved was in

fact a direction that lawyers should

organise therapy for Harvey

Weinstein. If that had been done

dozens of women may not have been

abused. There was a proper system

setup, there was meant to be.

What

was interesting for me was when she

talks about the trauma may be

beginning not with Harvey Weinstein

but with that legal net of the

agreement are closing around her...

Well what I have seen of the

agreement, I would regard that as

unenforceable. I have no doubt that

the Supreme Court, Justice Brenda

Hale and her colleagues would say a

lot about that but certainly would

say it was unenforceable. But of

course it would never get to the

Supreme Court or Court of Appeal or

High Court because the victim is

intimidated.

Because it cost so

much. Instead of looking at this as

whether the victim should be on

trial for this is the question is

whether the disclosure agreements

themselves should be on trial.

Of

course they should and in America

where there is no inhibition on

nondisclosure agreements that

cover-up crime, the story has been

very influential and laws are being

changed. She could change it here?

The law here requires a bit of

explanation and I must give you a

bit of history, 1000 years ago

wealthy men could rape and pay money

and never be punished. But in the

civilising process we decided that

rape and assault were not just

crimes against individuals but

against society and deserved

punishment. So we have a law called

the provision of felony where it was

an offence to cover up a serious

crime. In 1967 we changed that the

law in the criminal Justice act

section five, we made it an offence

for a victim like Zelda to receive

money to cover up the crime. But she

was entitled to receive money for

the trauma and wrongful dismissal

and so forth. But we did not make it

an offence for the perpetrator to

offer money.

So how can a NDA be

used to cover-up crime, that is the

question at the bottom of this.

My

view is that a NDA which purports to

cover-up crime is unenforceable. And

it's possibly illegal. What I think

Parliament should do, is to change

the 1967 law to make it an offence

for the perpetrator or his agents to

offer money and they should add to

the unfair contract act that

nondisclosure agreements should only

operate 457 years.

Let me ask you

more broadly, there are other women

out there like Zelda who have signed

an NDA. It is not binding.

So they

could come forward? If they have

enough money to pay lawyers, yes.

They could still be prosecuted by

civil war?

Under civil law they

could, and attempt could be made to

pressure them with breach of

confidence. My answer to that, legal

answer, there's no in iniquity, that

is the law and iniquity infused

sexual assault. -- includes. So if

you fearful of the object of these

NDAs is to intimidate, to

intimidate, to make them fearful,

you have nothing to fear by speaking

out.

Thank you very much.

Last night, we looked back

at Labour's political year.

Tonight, in our last

programme of 2017, we turn

to the Conservatives.

Its hard to remember, in December,

what they looked like in March.

Before the General Election,

Theresa May was 20 points

ahead in the polls.

Tonight, we ask what the Tories

need to do to redefine

themselves in 2018.

Whether they risk being defined

by Brexit and Brexit alone,

and how the cabinet views

the parliamentary rebels that

have the power to lose

their Prime Minister a critical vote

in the commons.

We'll ask Chris

Grayling in a moment.

First a look back.

Not only was it appalling,

but it was a real tragedy

because we have a good

story to tell.

I thought the Prime Minister

was let down badly.

It was ill-advised

strategically, tactically.

Not to get the result

that she or any of us

expected was pretty low.

For some the end of 2017

will not come soon enough.

Certainly it has been

a year of two halves.

A buoyant spring brought

the triggering of Article 50.

The United Kingdom is leaving

the European Union.

For a while it seemed

like the parliamentary battle over

Brexit had been won.

But then came this...

The government should

call a general election.

The election they called snap,

which turned out to be

more like roulette.

It took an agonisingly

long toll on the public.

I think the whole country has

had enough of politics,

politicians telling us this,

that and the other.

And on the party itself.

I thought the Prime Minister

was let down badly.

It was ill-advised strategically,

tactically, a clunky to say

the least election campaign.

Made robots of us all.

Repeating dead mantras.

And we made Corbyn look authentic.

Well, it was appalling.

And you know, I knew that I felt

that very deeply on the ground.

And in my view not

only was it appalling,

but it was a real tragedy.

Because we have a good

story to tell.

What do people want?

Good infrastructure, good public

services, wealth creation.

If you don't get the basics right,

OK, then you cannot branch

off into social care,

you cannot branch off into reform.

When May's closest advisers

were forced out it seemed the PM

herself wouldn't be far behind.

Now, let's get to work.

But she survived that.

While we will...

Excuse me.

And even that.

It was not possible

to reach agreement today.

And yes, that too.

The Prime Minister's personal

resilience is extraordinary.

And actually she demonstrated that

in the EU negotiations, you know,

getting to phase two.

In the way she handled

the fallout from the DUP not

agreeing and then agreeing,

and everything else.

So I think actually,

there are definitely elements

of strong and stable there.

And it's what the country want.

And somehow at the year's end it

feels like she's turned it around.

# Christ the Saviour is born...

A deal on the first phase

of Brexit has left party

feeling, well, hopeful.

# Christ the Saviour is born...

The spirit of the age

is a spirit of insurgent,

creative, entrepreneurial

opportunity and empowerment.

Conservatism for the 21st-century

can take that spirit and use

Brexit as the moment

to electrify our programme.

The good news is the public

aren't looking at us

as an eight-year-old,

tired, burnt out administration.

But as this old fraught,

mistake laden year draws to a close,

the party is trying to work out how

to position itself

for the year to come.

In the face of Jeremy Corbyn's

Momentum, what is their offer

to voters and how much

are they constrained

by those demands of Brexit?

It is really urgent that

as the Prime Minister sees

through the noble and frankly

thankless task of negotiating

Brexit, that under her leadership

a messianic piece of work has begun

to make this a moment

of Conservative renewal that can

inspire those who didn't

vote for it.

I think it's very urgent.

I think if we don't,

this is in danger of being Brexit

that breaks, not makes conservatism.

We are in a risk of this

being a moment, a catastrophic

moment where conservatism isn't

forgiven by generation

who didn't vote for it.

There's very clear policies that

have come out in the last two

and a half years that I have been

in this place that I have

not been able to sell

on the doors in Plymouth.

And you do think, and I have thought

to myself, how do these policies

become in the public domain?

Why is that, I think

because we are reaping

the harvest of a generation

of career politicians.

There are some really talented ones

in there and there are some really

gifted people who come to Parliament

because they believe in something.

But I think those two categories

have fallen somewhat.

And what of this

politician's career?

May, who so often these past months

appeared to be hanging by a thread,

now looks if not exactly strong,

at least stable.

And curiously, it's the ones

who have traditionally toed

the party line who have now

become her backbench rebels.

The ones with the power

to lose her her first Brexit vote.

Nicky Morgan was one of a handful

who sided in favour of Parliament

having the ultimate vote on Brexit.

She was deemed a malcontent

and a traitor by certain elements

of the national press.

The extent of the bullying,

if you like, the name-calling,

the abuse, personal,

death threats, it is extraordinary.

And I don't like talking about it

as a female MP because we need

more women in politics.

I don't want to put people off.

But it has become quite

an extraordinary way to behave.

So maybe 2018 will just be one more

year with the Tories

split along Europe.

Or maybe the election will come

to be seen as the best thing

Theresa May ever did

for her colleagues, at least those

who kept their seats.

The loss of her majority

which seemed so politically

devastating at the time,

may just have allowed her to reset

the parameters of what Brexit means.

Well - earlier I spoke to

Theresa May's Transport Secretary -

and the man who chaired her

leadership campaign -

Chris Grayling.

And I asked him how

the year had been.

Well, it's had its ups,

it's had its downs.

We've had some difficult times

through the general election

campaign that was disappointing.

We have been through a lengthy

Brexit process but we have

reached the end of the year

in a good position.

Where we have completed the first

stage of the negotiations.

And actually alongside all of that,

perhaps the thing I am proudest

of that we have achieved this year,

the lowest unemployment

since the 1970s.

That's a really big step

forward for the country.

Jeremy Corbyn thinks

he could be Prime Minister

by this time next year.

Well, I think that is a sign of why

Jeremy Corbyn is not fit

to be Prime Minister.

He obviously has not read

the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

The next general election

is due in June 2020-22.

The Conservative Party

will take us through Brexit.

We will deliver a Britain

that is going forward,

that is using smart technology,

smart innovation, to create

an exciting future.

And we have no intention of letting

Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near power.

You cannot fault his logic, though.

Your government has seemed like one

that could tumble at any point

in the last six months.

No, that is tittle tattle.

It's not at all a government

that is going to topple.

We have a strong relationship

with the DUP, we've got

a team of Conservative MPs

who are committed to taking

this country forward.

When people say this

I ask the question, can

you name the Conservative MP

who is going to vote

for an early election,

who's going to abandon the Brexit

process, and leave the country

in danger of a far left-wing

government led by Jeremy Corbyn?

There is no such

member of Parliament.

Your hands are tied by Brexit,

Jeremy Corbyn has momentum,

everything that you do,

everything you want to pay

for and push forward

comes back to Brexit.

You might just be the caretaker

government for the public

until they can have their Brexit

and get rid of you.

Well, no.

Not at all.

We are a government that has

delivered real change since 2010.

Positive change.

To go back to that point

about the state of the labour

market, never in my wildest dreams,

I was employment minister back

in 2010, inheriting the mess

we took over from Labour,

two and a half million

unemployment and rising.

It has exceeded all my expectations

that we now have brought

unemployment down to the lowest

level since the 1970s.

But you know as well as I do...

That is just one example

of the positive change

we've made in government,

we've delivered in government.

You know as well as I do that

many of those jobs don't even

deliver the living wage.

I'm going to quote you Iain

Duncan Smith who said,

"British business will have to learn

to get by in a different world."

And we know that today for example

the Financial Times has estimated

that the UK is £350 million a week

worse off than if it

had voted Remain.

What does it mean to get

by in a different world?

Well, the Financial Times,

that figured can't be right

because our economy has

carried on growing.

We've carried on seeing economic

progress, exports for example have

risen sharply in the past 12 months.

The pound against the dollar

is at the level that it was at

the time of the referendum.

Our growth forecasts have

been revised downwards.

We are now growing more minutely

than anywhere else in Europe.

But the issue the Office

for Budget Responsibility brought

forward at the time of the budget

which is where these

projections come from,

is all down to our productivity

and this is why we are

investing in the future.

We are investing in technology,

we are investing in infrastructure.

That election was the moment wasn't

it where Theresa May had to learn

to be a consultative,

parliamentarian PM.

She strengthened parliament's

restraint if you like

of her own government.

Well, it certainly the case that

in terms of Parliament,

in terms of the numbers,

it's a more challenging

period now for us.

We don't have a majority, we have

to win arguments in Parliament.

We won't always do that,

though over the last few months

we've won virtually all of the votes

that have been in Parliament.

But just looking recently,

where those 11 backbenchers right

to hold out to give Parliament

the last word on that Brexit vote?

I respect the views

of colleagues who differ

from the line that we've taken.

I would argue that the approach

we were taking was right,

offering a meaningful vote

on the treaty when we conclude it.

We did not win that vote

but the truth is we had

literally dozens of votes

on the European Union

Withdrawal Bill.

We've lost one.

They were called mutineers,

traitors, malcontents

by a leading daily newspaper.

Look, I'm very clear...

Were you shocked by that?

I am very clear, we have a free

press and the press is entitled

to say within the bounds of decency

what it does.

I defend...

Those MPs say they've received death

threats on the back of that.

That is absolutely unacceptable.

And the Prime Minister has

been clear about that...

So why didn't the Prime Minister

speak out publicly

about that headline?

The Prime Minister did speak

out yesterday and said

that it was absolutely unacceptable.

I absolutely defend the rights

of individual members of Parliament

to follow their consciences.

We try to encourage them

to make sure they agree

with what the government is bringing

forward, but threatening people

who vote the other way is never

acceptable and the Prime Minister

was very clear about that yesterday.

So why didn't Theresa May stand up

and say, that kind of headline,

from a leading newspaper,

is frankly unacceptable

from a leading newspaper, is frankly

unacceptable and abominable?

All of us as politicians get

criticised in the newspapers

from time to time.

That doesn't give any kind of excuse

to people outside or around

politics to make the kind

of direct we've seen.

That is entirely unacceptable.

But it's part of a broader picture.

And I have to say that a significant

part of the blame lies with parts

of the Labour movement,

the Momentum campaigns we saw

during the campaign.

We have seen some really

brutal behaviour, threats

to Conservative candidates,

threats to family members

of Conservative candidates.

It is bringing a nastiness into our

politics that we do not accept.

So you think the headline

was Labour's fault?

Well, I think that what we've seen

over the past few months,

a large proportion of it has come

from the left I'm afraid.

A tone in our politics,

a hostility, an unpleasantness,

and frankly sometimes downright

threatening behaviour

that is unacceptable.

It hasn't just been directed at us,

it's been directed at moderate

Labour MPs as well.

Some of the ways in which they have

been treated has been utterly

unacceptable and we all need to work

together across the political

spectrum to stamp this out.

Chris Grayling, thank you.

You're welcome.

That's all we've got

time for tonight.

And indeed that's it

from Newsnight for this year.

Evan - and the rest of the team -

will be back to usher

in 2018 on January 2nd.

But until then, good

night and good luck -

or at least have a good break

from all of us here.