16/01/2018 Newsnight

It's always risky to hire

the cheapest builder.

It's true of your new kitchen,

and it's true for government

contracts as well.

Is there a lesson there,

after the death of the giant

outsourcing contractor Carillion?

It's quite difficult for ministers

to go to Parliament and say, oh,

we've gone for a more expensive bid

here, because we thought

it was a better bid.

Outsourcing was loved by Labour

in power but Jeremy Corbyn says this

crisis is a sign it has to go -

we'll ask Dame Margaret Hodge

if she thinks it has much future.

And this - Hong Kong

football fans booing

the Chinese National Anthem.

Has Beijing stuck to its promise -

made to us - to respect democracy

after it took back Hong Kong?

After 30 years, I'm not sure

whether the British Government

still remember Hong Kong,

and still remembers the promises

that they have made.

We hear from the new leader

of the backbench Tory Brexiteers

on whether we may be heading

for a squidgy Brexit.

And the rise of the specialist

cultural sensitivity editor.

Publishers are employing people just

to sniff out anything in their books

that someone might find offensive.

Is this new front in the culture

war a modern necessity,

or dangerous censorship?

Hello.

So, today, the Carillion blame game.

The world has not fallen in, yet,

but the horror of the company

Carillion going bust with we now

know a mere £29 million

in the bank, with so many

contracts in operation,

so many smaller suppliers unpaid,

so much unfunded pension commitment

and so many workers

jobs dependent on it -

all while it has found

the money in the recent past

to handsomely reward its executives

and make big dividend payouts.

The Government knows

the optics don't look good

and has asked for an accelerated

investigation into the actions

of the directors.

Jeremy Corbyn thinks it makes

a bigger point about trying

to contract everything out.

Time to bring it in house, he says.

But for the moment, contracts rule

in the public sector -

from prisons and schools,

you can also see train

franchises as the same thing.

Some private companies make a mint.

Others - as Carillion knows -

operate on dangerously thin margins.

So is it possible for contracting

out to ever work well?

Here's Helen Thomas.

30,000 businesses, hundreds of

millions of pounds owed. Across the

country, companies working on

Carillion's private sector jobs are

wondering what happens when

Government support ends. Then, the

scale of the damage from the

company's dramatic collapse could

become clear. But there are tough

questions starting to be asked in

Westminster. About a third of

government spending goes through

external suppliers. So, has the

Government got a good handle on who

is building roads and hospitals, or

providing crucial public services?

And have passed lessons about the

pitfalls of dealing with private

companies been learned? About £250

billion of government spending goes

through external suppliers,

according to estimates from the

National Audit Office. 136 billion

of that is spending by central

government departments and the NHS.

But the NAO notes that the

Government is no clear figure for

the amount it spends through

commercial relationships. Decisions

about what to outsource and how are

often made within different

departments. One concern is that

there has not been enough central

management of the whole process.

Open book accounting clauses in

contracts give the Government access

to confidential information, that

helps track what is happening to the

taxpayer's pounds. But a survey in

2014 found only 31% of contracts

have open book clauses. For only 19%

of contracts have the Government

received the relevant data and taken

steps to verify it. A 2014 report by

the Public Accounts Committee

recommended open book accounting to

help scrutiny, greater transparency

and better information on contracts

and their performance, focus on

encouraging new and smaller entrance

in to boost competition, investment

in developing Cabinet Office and

departmental expertise, and,

crucially, contingency plans on all

contracts, should a supplier failed.

A follow up by the committee chaired

by Meg Hillier in 2016 called the

pace of change disappointing.

We see

repeatedly the same things, failure

of contract letting, failure of

contract management and companies

that promised more than they can

deliver for the price. Really, there

is still a very long way for

Government to go. The system isn't

working. There are too few large

companies bidding for the contracts.

They get good at bidding, but there

is no guarantee that being good at

bidding is good at running the

service.

But companies in the sector

would agree that change is needed.

Years of austerity and the drive to

cut costs has put the sector under

pressure. This chart shows operating

profit margins for the UK

construction sector. Construction

was the part of Carillion's business

that generated the most losses, and

the largest contractors have been

making lower margins still, argue

industry bodies.

industry bodies. AMA research puts

the industry-standard profit margins

at 2% to 3% in construction, and

maybe 3% to 5% in support services.

But the reality is that those remain

a target for some in a sector

littered with profit warnings and

restructurings. One former executive

told me that margins had come under

pressure across all outsourcing

sectors will stop that has happened

as companies have been asked to take

on more risk, and, some contracts

have become impossibly complicated.

A less flexible client, the

Government had also made it harder

to react as problems arose. It is

time, this person said, for a

fundamental rethink.

The Government

has been developing an increasingly

sophisticated appreciation that the

lowest bidder is not necessarily the

best. But it is quite difficult for

ministers to go to Parliament and

say, we have gone for a more

expensive bid because we thought it

was a better one, but I think maybe

this instance will liven Parliament

to the need for Government to look

more intelligently and these bids.

With promises of hearings and

inquiries, dealings between the

Government and its biggest suppliers

will soon be getting much more

scrutiny.

We did ask the Government to join

us tonight, but there

was nobody available.

But we have our own Newsnight

experts here to make sense of this -

political editor Nick Watt,

business editor Helen Thomas

and our policy editor Chris Cook.

Nick, what are you hearing tonight

about where this is going?

I

understand that tonight the

Government is planning to extend the

48-hour period in which it will fund

the official receiver to look at

private contractors, what are known

as the private sector counterparties

to Carillion to see whether they

want to basically accept the

termination of contracts, or whether

they want to pay for the ongoing

costs. I am hearing talk in

Whitehall that there have been talks

with the Treasury, they want to be

flexible, it is taking time to go

through these contracts. They want

to give them more time. But this

will not be indefinitely...

And they

won't call it a bailout?

It will not

be the same as the support they are

providing for the official receiver.

This is a contract where the

government battle has no stake, they

are basically helping the receivers.

On other aspects of this whole

thing, where is it going to go now?

It will take time to work out where

the pain is going to come any supply

chain, who is going to lay off

people, and there will be lay-offs,

and who might be taking financial

hits. As we touched on earlier, Greg

Clarke, the Business Secretary, has

called for two investigations, one

into the Carillion accounts, and the

reporting to Europe to the profit

warning in July, and also the

conduct towards its collapse,

including by current and former

directors. We are assuming every

aspect of this will be probed.

Corporate governance in the company,

including pay and board oversight,

and there are various people around

politics today promising to have

people in front of committees and

for them to be pretty fiery. You

know, there will always be this

lingering question of if the

Government should be more aware of

what was going on along the

Carillion business. A rival company,

into serve, launched a legal

challenge in 2014 into the award of

a contract by the minute job

defence, £4 billion. The contract

went to Carillion, and the rival

said that the kids were abnormally

low and could be undeliverable. --

the bids.

Whitehall insiders will be

having lots of concessions about the

meanings of this. A lot of them will

not be agreeing with Jeremy Corbyn

that it is the end of our

outsourcing.

Didn't think it is the

end of outsourcing. That is clear.

The big thing I keep hearing about

his concentration. They bring up how

frustrating it is that the market is

so concentrated with outsourcing.

There are relatively few players of

a scale large enough to take on the

kind of contracts that the

Government likes to deliver. They

also think that things are currently

in hand, they think that pensions

are going to be dealt with by the

pension protection fund, they think

public contracts will be picked up

and be OK. Obviously problems with

the supply chain. This isn't the

sort of Lehman Brothers catastrophe.

The problem for them in the

short-term is, actually, if you look

at the Serco share price, it has

gone up.

A big rival?

Yes, because

things are easier for them, there is

one fewer bidder in the market.

Are

they seeing big changes to

outsourcing now?

Not in the

short-term, not under this

government. The big thing worth

remembering is that there are

reasons that people outsource which

are not just about chiselling at the

cost. Do you have the strategic

capacity to do something? The civil

service does not want to have a

senior manager in charge of doing HR

for the people that maintain own

buildings. They are not interested

in that and they cannot foresee

doing that.

Thanks, all of you,

thank you very much.

Now I'm joined by Dame Margaret

Hodge, the Labour MP who chaired

the Public Accounts Committee

in 2014 when it produced a report

on outsourcing public services

to the private sector.

Do you think the collapse of

Carillion is the sign of a system

working, that a company that perhaps

was not very well run has gone out

of business? That happens. Or is it

a sign of systemic failure?

I think

it is more of a sign of systemic

failure. We looked at this through

four years back, and I don't think

what has changed. According to Meg

Hillier, it hasn't. We found a

number of things, actually what the

Government was doing in trying to

create a market, it was almost

destroying the market because it was

killing off a lot of smaller

suppliers of public services and

allowing these very big oligarch

companies, that were very good at

winning contracts, to run public

services that they were less good

at. We also found there isn't enough

transparency. You can sort this out.

If you want to play in the public

sector market and you are using

taxpayer's money, you ought to be

open. So you shouldn't be able to

hide behind commercial

confidentiality.

The government

Marco can say we will make it open?

And they should. When we talked to

four of the big players, they were

willing to do that. The other thing

is the civil service capability. We

all know that it's really isn't

there. It is unrealistic to think we

are going to get rid of outsourcing.

Over half of the service is now

provided by the tax payer, this is

not, you know, tax relief or

benefits, pensions, but the

services, over half of them are

provided by private providers. You

cannot shift back.

Your leader,

Jeremy Corbyn, has used the word

fleecing the public, because the

companies take big profits out of

the delivery of public services. It

honestly doesn't sound like they are

taking very big profits. Carillion

was struggling to survive. Which is

the problem? The margins are

the problem? The margins are or too

fat?

There is too much ideology,

money conservatives, there is an

ideology. They believe that the

private sector can deliver more

efficiency. Chris Grayling is

probably the main proponent of this,

and you have seen a disaster in the

probation service. On the left,

there is an ideology that it has to

be the public sector that always

delivers, and that becomes to

produce a lead. We need to think of

the user, the citizen and patient.

It is much easier for me to go and

get my flu jab from Boots. Is that

outsourcing or privatisation? It

works for me as a citizen. We ought

to think about how we can construct

these services.

There is a big point

here, outsourcing is linked to the

big economy. They, respect for

companies push something like

cleaning or catering into agencies,

they don't give pensions, they maybe

have shorter contracts with staff.

The map -- gig economy is the

result. You don't think that has

gone too far? The marketisation of

all aspects of life?

I think I do.

We have to make this work, because

there is too much delivered through

private companies. You have to have

the transparency and create a

market. That means a government

backed or changing the way tenders.

If you are a small company, there

was no way you can go to that

expensive process they have to skill

of the civil service and then you

have to to have ethical standards by

behalf on these big companies. That

involves things like making sure

they employ people properly, we

ought to be regulated, codes of

practice and pay taxes, all of that

sort of thing. Don't lie about how

they are delivering the services.

And I think if we did that,

outsourcing could work better. We've

also got to move from the ideology

to apply that bad, public good, and

move to putting the citizen at the

heart of delivering services.

Margaret Hodge, editors, thank you.

Before Britain exited

Hong Kong two decades ago,

it said it would be keeping a close

watch on its former colony

once it was to be in Chinese hands.

We had signed a Joint Declaration

with China, that said for 50

years, the freedoms Hong Kong

enjoyed would be preserved.

John Major said that in the event

of any breach of that

agreement by the Chinese,

Britain would pursue every

legal and other avenue

available to challenge it.

Well, there are some

who look at Hong Kong now,

and observe Chinese restrictions

on democracy and free

speech slowly creeping in.

Tonight, student

pro-democracy leaders there -

including Joshua Wong -

are awaiting the outcome

of their final appeal to overturn

prison sentences for their roles

in sparking 2014's massive

pro-democracy protests.

Should Britain step into the breach?

Danny Vincent reports

from Hong Kong.

Every day 35,000 people take

the ferry to Kowloon.

And Hong Kongers enjoy

rights unique in China.

Thanks to the terms

of 1997 handover, Beijing

can't interfere in internal matters.

There's even a mini-constitution -

known as the "basic law".

But many worry that

Beijing is dramatically

undermining that agreement, that

democracy activists are being locked

up and that Britain

is looking the other way.

We're on our way to

a new development -

the railway station that will be

the new terminus for a

high speed railway link connecting

Hong Kong to mainland China.

It's raising serious

concerns over Hong

Kong's autonomy, because inside this

station Chinese national law will

apply, not Hong Kong law.

The basic law states

that mainland laws can

not be enforced in Hong Kong.

But when the new

Kowloon rail terminus

opens later this year, Chinese

customs and immigration officials

will operate inside the station,

with powers of search and arrest.

Tanya Chan has long

fought to defend the

basic law.

She argues this is the clearest

violation yet of the

territory's legal independence.

This is absolutely

the worst precedent,

the worst example so far.

We are actually putting

Chinese officials

in the heart of Hong Kong and now

this is the very first time that in

Hong Kong we are going

to apply national law.

Thousands demonstrated

against the plan on New Year's Day.

The basic law is a list of rights -

including freedom of

speech, of the press,

freedom to demonstrate.

They fear the plans for the station

are the thin end of the

wedge and Britain is not standing

by its international obligations to

protect their rights.

I'm not sure whether

the British Government still

remembers Hong Kong and still

remembers the promises that they

have made.

The British Government definitely

has a role to play and

definitely can make their comments

and raise their concerns.

We are waiting for them.

Three years, ago the "umbrella"

protest brought tens of

thousands on to the streets over

Beijing's control of the candidates

for Hong Kong's leadership.

They were led by

students like Joshua

Wong, but the protests

failed and Beijing still

controls who leads Hong

Kong.

So the students started their own

party to campaign for

more democracy.

Joshua Wong and fellow activist

Nathan Law believe the

court system is no longer

independent and it's been used

against them.

They have both been

imprisoned for public

order offences.

Now, they're out on bail,

but a hearing tomorrow could put

Joshua back in prison.

And he said he was

interrogated naked

when he was last in custody.

As a young prisoner,

I served my prison

sentence inside the highest security

prison in Hong Kong.

At the same time, they even

urged me to take off

all my clothes when I need

to answer the question.

They just treat us...

Like a dog instead of a human.

There are suspicions that Triad

gang members are paid

to intimidate activists.

Joshua says prison inmates

told him that they had been

told to attack

the umbrella movement.

When I was serving the prison

sentence in jail, I met a lot

of inmates who claimed

they had background,

come from the gangster

and they receive money to attack

or physically assault us

during umbrella movement.

Joshua doesn't know who paid them.

The prison authorities deny

mistreatment and we were unable to

speak to prisoners to confirm

the claim of intimidation.

Those who fight

for Hong Kong's legal

independence say they're also

fighting for its cultural identity.

I am meeting someone who may well be

at the heart of the next

flashpoint.

Hong Kong football fans have been

booing the Chinese national

anthem when it's

played at home games.

Now, Beijing has told Hong Kong

to criminalise the jeering.

The national anthem is not

representation of Hong Kong...

Jack and hundreds like him

will be breaking the law

if they carry on booing.

Why do football fans boo

the Chinese national anthem?

We don't think that we

are Chinese, we are

Hong Kong.

The difference is that Hong Kong has

democracy and also we

have the right of speech and right

of demonstration in Hong Kong.

This was at a game

between Hong Kong and

Bahrain.

Fans could be imprisoned

for three years.

New laws could be

applied retrospectively.

Critics say this contradicts

the basic law in

terms of freedom of expression,

applying Chinese national law

and applying it retrospectively.

But Jack is defiant.

Can they stop you

disrespecting the Chinese

national anthem?

No.

At West Kowloon Magistrates Court,

nine more activists

face public order charges.

All were key figure

in the umbrella protests.

Tanya Chan, who opposes Chinese law

in the new rail station, is one of

the defendants.

In fact, over 50 democracy

activists and elected

law-makers currently face court

cases that could bar them from

office or see them locked up.

This is just one

hearing in a series of

legal moves against the activists.

Professors, student leaders

and local politicians are all going

through the courts.

And all of them could

face prison time.

This case is seen as

a clear warning to every

level of Hong Kong's democracy camp

- the umbrella movement must

be crushed.

People who lead protests

against Beijing must be prepared to

face jail and, by using the courts,

the tool is the legal system itself.

We are defending our right to have

demonstrations, freedom of

expression and very important

is our right to have our own

choice of government.

But there is substantial

opposition to the democracy

activists in Hong Kong.

Pro-Beijing candidates

here command the largest

number of seats in the

partly-elected local chamber.

Regina Ip is is a strong

supporter of mainland China.

She says those who argue the basic

law is under threat are being

legal fundamentalists.

In a free society like

Hong Kong, with a wide

range of different opinions, we have

among our citizenry people who you

might call "fundamentalists"

you know, legal and

judicial fundamentalists,

who believe in sticking to every

letter of the basic law.

Many pan-democrats

in Hong Kong feel that

the Government and perhaps Beijing

are targeting them and carrying out

somewhat of a political persecution.

What do you say to that?

We have no political

offences in Hong Kong.

If people are charged for disrupting

public order, incitement or

disturbance, that is all based

on common law and common law

principles and the statutory laws

that we

inherited from Britain.

I think these accusations

are totally ungrounded.

Hong Kong's autonomy was enshrined

in the basic law, but the

criminalisation of the umbrella

protesters and others who challenge

Beijing does raise questions about

the rule of law in the territory.

It also raises questions about

Britain's commitment to the people

and the system it once

pledged to protect.

Danny Vincent there.

We did try to speak

to the Chinese Government

and the the British government

about this story, but nobody

was available from either.

The EU has been sounding both tough

and tender as regards Brexit today.

In a speech to the Parliament

today, the President

of the Council Donald Tusk did

the tender bit.

David Davis said if a democracy

cannot change its mind it ceases to

be a democracy. We here on the

continent haven't had a change of

heart. Our hearts are still open to

you.

Forget the idea that we will set our

own fishing quotas. Each state is

piling their own issues into the

negotiations. Nick Watt is back us

with. Why didn't Michel Barnier come

out with that our heart is open.

It

was Donald Tusk and sometimes you

need to set his words to music. But

what he said was music to the ears

of a small number of Remain

supporters who are seeking to

reverse Brexit. What they need is

Brussels to say, we would like to

have you back and the reason why

they need that is by the time of the

autumn when we will have this deal,

they want the British people to see

two options - the new deal or the

existing membership and they're

talking about ways of defeating

Brexit.

Is this going to happen?

I

was speaking to a member of the

cabinet who supported Remain, who

said you couldn't see it happening

unless public opinion shifted

dramatically. 60-40 in favour of

Remain, it not really shifting.

One of the most most vocal

supporters of Brexit has been

the Tory backbencher Jacob Rees

Mogg.

He was rewarded for his work in this

area today by being appointed

Chairman of the party's influential

European Research Group -

a sort of internal lobbying grouping

which works to push for a

hard Brexit.

I spoke to him earlier

and I put it to him that

despite President Tusk's comments

earlier, the EU was preparing to be

pretty tough and uncompromising

for the next round of negotiations

Well, I'm all in favour

of being tough and uncompromising.

I want a proper Brexit.

I want us to leave

the European Union,

heart, soul and mind.

I don't want us to have the sort

of Brexit where, because they've

given us all sorts of baubles,

we have stayed in bits

that deny us freedom.

The key thing is coming up

with the trade negotiation now.

It is so important that we maintain

the flexibility to do deals

with other countries,

that were not so bound

in by the EU's requirements

that we can't get the benefits

of cheaper food, clothing

and footwear, that will flow

from setting up our own trading

relationships.

So, their being tough may actually

push us into a clearer Brexit.

Could we talk about the transition?

Because the Government is pretty

keen on a transition,

or implementation.

The EU, all signs are,

from the draft negotiating

positions, they're going

to be really tough.

Well, I think the language

is really important.

Is it an implimentation period

which the Government is asking for,

or is it a transition?

If it is an implimentation period,

we've left the EU and we are

implementing the consequences.

That is to say it might take time

to put in new immigration

queues at Heathrow.

And, until that's done,

we're implementing.

If it's a transition, we are in fact

still in the European Union.

If they set our fishing quotas,

if new laws coming in from the EU

affect the UK, if the ECJ still has

jurisdiction, it would be untrue

to say we have left.

It would be an extension

of our membership.

If that is what the Government

should want to do, it should do it

under the terms of Article 50 and be

honest about it.

It would be a deceit

to have a transition that kept us

in the EU for two years by default.

And you wouldn't necessarily be

against extending our membership

for two years to get everything

sorted out, but you want

honesty about that if that

is what the plan is?

Because the EU, by the way,

is in no doubt at all,

it is an extension of membership

by another name.

I would be opposed to

extension of membership.

An implimentation period is fine.

A transition period is not.

The Prime Minister,

who I fully support,

has been very careful

to say implementation period...

But you're just using the language

that you know is going to appeal

to you, business just

hears transitional arrangement.

They don't make any distinct at all.

No, it's very important

to focus on the details.

The Prime Minister is a person

of great precision.

She doesn't use language loosely.

And she has invariably

said implimentation,

and she has said that we will leave

on the 29th of March 2019,

and I fully support her position.

Right.

I wonder how you interpreted

Nigel Farage's comments

on a second referendum.

Because that, again,

was seen by some as a kind of sign

of nervousness on the Brexit side

that it's just slipping

away, potentially.

I don't know why Mr Farage

decide to say he wanted

a second referendum.

One of the interesting things

about polling on this

at the moment is that people,

they broadly haven't changed from

where they were in the referendum,

but on the question do you want

another referendum, everyone in this

country is Brenda from Bristol.

There is no appetite

for another referendum.

As it happens, I think

there would be real anger

if there was a second one,

because we're not one

of those smaller EU states,

that when we vote to give the answer

that the EU doesn't like get told

to vote again and again

until we do as we're told,

like good little boys.

Therefore I think,

if there was a second

referendum, you would see

considerable popular discontent.

You're now running the ERG,

the European Reform Group.

This is about 60 Tory MPs,

on the more Brexit side,

the Brexit side, let's say.

Are you going to hold

the Government's feet to the fire,

on all the things we've

been talking about?

The Government's determination

to go for a clear Brexit,

rather than a slightly

messier, softer one?

The ERG is a group of like-minded

members of Parliament and it

provides research to help us

with work on European issues.

I'm very keen to help the Government

achieve the policy that it set out,

and the Prime Minister set out

particularly in the Lancaster House

speech, and encourage a vigorous

implimentation of that policy.

The Government has my personal,

complete support in doing that.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, thanks very much.

Thank you very much.

Pretty well anyone who writes

anything these days knows how easy

it is to be unwittingly -

or wittingly - offensive.

In the era of identity politics,

it's not hard to trigger a reaction

that says you are guilty

of insensitivity to

one group or another.

Now, while some writers

thrive on controversy,

many want to avoid it,

and even if they don't

their publishers might.

So enter the idea of

sensitivity readers.

People employed to look at a book

ahead of publication, to advise

on potential mis-steps within.

As always, the US leads in these

trends and the American press has

become quite pre-occupied

by the debate as to whether

sensitivity readers improve books,

or censor free speech and indulge

a noisy Twitter mob too keen to take

umbrage at anything.

Here's Stephen Smith

on how it works.

# I'm mad about good books

# Can't get my fill...#

Budding authors have always been

told, write about what you know.

That seems particularly canny advice

now, when an imaginative leap

into unfamiliar territory can lend

a writer in trouble for

misrepresentation or stereotyping.

Some readers and critics are alert

to any real or perceived failures

of authenticity in areas including

race, gender and sexuality.

So, publishers and writers

are turning to so-called

sensitivity readers,

who scan texts before publication

on the lookout for any missteps that

might jar or give offence.

One author of books for young adults

told us she used sensitivity readers

when she created characters

with deafness and selective mutism.

I have a friend who is deaf,

and I also knew somebody who was

a British sign language interpreter.

So, they both individually

read it and came back

to me with their notes.

And then we discussed it together.

It was to make sure that

I was representing, in this case,

deafness, as authentically

and truthfully as possible,

to make sure that, for people

who have experience of it,

that they would be able to recognise

the way I was portraying it.

But is there a danger

that writers and readers

could become oversensitive?

That difficult material

will simply be avoided

for fear of giving offence?

And sensitivities vary, of course.

Even just about everyone's favourite

boy wizard managed to upset some

over so-called occult themes

in the Harry Potter books.

Right now, young adult readers

seemed to be more alive to issues

of sensitivity than the general

book buying public.

Yes, I think very much so.

Especially with social media

allowing people to have much more

of a voice than maybe

they would have done before,

and in larger numbers.

I think it's definitely something

that I, as a YA author,

and friends of mine who are YA

authors are very aware of.

# Sitting and reading

# Enjoying the breathing

of you...#

As more authors take advice

from sensitivity readers,

some bookworms may be

in for a more

stress-free experience.

But will that really

make for a happy ending?

Joining me now to discuss

is author Laura Moriarty,

who worked with sensitivity readers

on her novel 'American Heart'.

She's in Kansas.

And with me in the studio

is publisher Sharmaine Lovegrove,

who heads up London-based Dialogue

Books.

Good evening to you. Laura, you had

a curious experience. You worked

with sensitivity readers, and it was

a book with Muslim themes. And there

was still quite a lot of anger at

your book anyway?

Exactly. As I was

writing the book, I actually

instinctively did it on my own, I

asked a Muslim American friend to

read the book and I asked some

Persian American friends to read the

books. I even sent the manuscript to

a friend of a friend in Iran, and

she sent her thoughts. I wanted to

make sure it was authentic and

accurate, my depictions of Muslims

and Iranians. Once I sold the book

to Harper, they also hired

sensitivity readers to go through

the book again. I think what is

interesting is, for me, I didn't

mind when Harper said they wanted

sensitivity readers to go over it

again. If I think of it as accuracy

readers, if I think about someone

who has an experience that can look

at my work and make sure I am being

accurate and thoughtful about how I

depict groups. That is fine with me.

I think the biggest misperception is

that the writers are forced to take

every suggestion that the

sensitivity reader makes. That

wasn't the case for me.

I just want

to get... Basically, you agreed the

book with the sensitivity readers

and the publisher, then was a lot of

upset. The saviour of the book of

the Muslims was a white woman, and

it was more her story than theirs?

Right, there were people that were

upset, when the description of the

book came out, that the narrator and

the protagonist is a white

non-Muslim girl. She is very bigoted

at the beginning. She has grown up

in the extremely xenophobic United

States.

States. She overcomes her prejudice

by meeting a Muslim.

What did you make of that story, the

book through the sensitivity reader

and then there was outrage?

The

question overall is why we need

sensitivity writers? Who is writing

the stories?

the stories? It seems like a

formidable amount of people that

were involved to make sure that

something was correct.

something was correct. If we have

the people employed in the first

place in publishing houses, it seems

like it is from the confidence from

the publishers as where it has gone

wrong. I also question the idea of

anyone being able to write anything

from any perspective, the idea of a

White saviour with a Muslim, that is

complicated.

There are issues there.

The point is that Muslims would not

have one view on that, would they?

You don't necessarily want the

noisiest or the most offended people

to dictate what is published? Or is

that not where you end up?

Absolutely. We have to remember that

YA publishing is particularly

sensitive.

Young adults?

Yes,

because the issues are front-loaded.

This is about reading for the next

generation. We absolutely have to

get this right. We have to get the

reading right, we have to get the

writing right. We have to listen to

the voices that are coming through

and complaining. Actually, we have

to to think who is writing our

stories, who are our children going

to be listing to?

Is there a

problem, forget sensitivity readers,

is the problem basically that too

many publishers and writers are

scared of offending people?

Well, I

think that is very much the case

right now. I think there is an idea

that you could possibly hire enough

sensitivity readers where nobody

would be offended, and that is of

course impossible. With my book, I

had my readers, the publishing house

hired more, and people were still

incredibly offended. As you say,

there are different sensitivities,

even within marginalised

communities. You're never going to

please everybody and make everybody

happy. I think the focus needs to be

an authenticity. I would disagree,

and I think that while I agree that

we would like to see more diversity

in publishing and writers, I don't

think that there should be such

strict limits on who should tell

such stories. I think we can imagine

each other's lives. My first novel

was about a girl growing up on

welfare, and she was white, and

nobody ever asked me anything about

it.

Do you have any worries about

this being a sort of shutting down,

rather than opening up.

rather than opening up.

What we

really want to see us diversity in

publishing, diversity in terms of

characters, and confidence from the

writers. It has to be fair and it

has to be pronounced. We need to

have that in order for the next

generation.

Thank you both very much

indeed.

That's it for tonight.

But following last week's row

when Donald Trump was accused

of favouring immigrants from Norway

over those from Haiti,

people have been asking just

what is it about the liberal

Norwegians that the

President actually likes.

Now a new theory has emerged online,

that Norway is in fact helping

Mr Trump to maintain his most

closely guarded cover-up.

Judge for yourself.

Good night.

DONALD TRUMP:

Ricardo Sanchez,

on his Spanish drivetime radio

show in Los Angeles,

has taken to calling Donald J Trump

"The Man of the Toupee".

This was on the front page

of the New York Times.

I don't wear a toupee.

It's my hair!