0:00:05 > 0:00:09Until now, the BBC has been offering helpful lessons in how not to handle
0:00:09 > 0:00:11the issue of gender pay..
0:00:11 > 0:00:17Today, it tried to offer some lessons on how to get it right..
0:00:17 > 0:00:19After months of terrible publicity, it's preparing
0:00:19 > 0:00:20a thorough pay overhaul.
0:00:20 > 0:00:28But still claiming there's no systematic gender bias.
0:00:29 > 0:00:31Can that really be true?
0:00:31 > 0:00:35We'll ask the head of BBC news how can that really be true.
0:00:35 > 0:00:36Do you have a wood burning stove?
0:00:36 > 0:00:38Enjoy coming home to a real fire?
0:00:38 > 0:00:39Prepare to become a social pariah..
0:00:39 > 0:00:41Michael Gove says they're seriously polluting our air.
0:00:41 > 0:00:43We'll debate the latest government thoughts on restricting
0:00:43 > 0:00:45the burning of wood and coal.
0:00:45 > 0:00:53And this...
0:00:54 > 0:01:00the story of the sinking of the Empress of Britain.
0:01:00 > 0:01:05I never knew the name of the chap who saved me until I bought a book
0:01:05 > 0:01:12and suddenly there was a section where it became very emotional.
0:01:12 > 0:01:19Because I realised it was writing about me.
0:01:19 > 0:01:20Hello there.
0:01:20 > 0:01:23After three uncomfortable weeks in which it has had little to say
0:01:23 > 0:01:26in answer to critics of its unequal pay structure, the BBC came back
0:01:26 > 0:01:28with its own analysis today.
0:01:28 > 0:01:31With other companies being forced to address THEIR pay gaps this year,
0:01:31 > 0:01:34the BBC's defence may turn out to be a template for the arguments
0:01:34 > 0:01:40playing out elsewhere.
0:01:40 > 0:01:44It was compiled by the accountants PwC and you could summarise it as -
0:01:44 > 0:01:47"there is no problem, but yes, we are going to solve it".
0:01:47 > 0:01:50On the "no problem" side, it looks at the pay of news
0:01:50 > 0:01:52presenters and on-air journalists and finds that gender is not
0:01:52 > 0:01:58an issue - even though women are paid less on average.
0:01:58 > 0:02:01It's mostly down to the fact that the women have on average,
0:02:01 > 0:02:02arrived more recently, it suggests.
0:02:02 > 0:02:05More men were taken on in days when media pay rates
0:02:05 > 0:02:09were more generous.
0:02:09 > 0:02:11But the report also says, a problem needs solving:
0:02:11 > 0:02:14that the pay at the top level is a mess, and needs
0:02:14 > 0:02:15to be more structured.
0:02:15 > 0:02:23Our business editor, Helen Thomas reports.
0:02:25 > 0:02:30Public pay packets for high earners, the gender pay gap and now on-air
0:02:30 > 0:02:36talent. Questions of pay, fairness and equality has certainly knocked
0:02:36 > 0:02:42the BBC off balance. The report today by PWC looked at 824
0:02:42 > 0:02:45presenters, editors and correspondence who appear on screen.
0:02:45 > 0:02:51The gender pay gap between the median of women salaries and men's
0:02:51 > 0:02:57was 6.8%, that is lower than the 9.3% for the BBC overall and the
0:02:57 > 0:03:04national gap of 18.4%. But in 656 lower profile roles, the gap was
0:03:04 > 0:03:1012.6%. And for the highest profile, the report found the range of pay
0:03:10 > 0:03:16was much too wide with more men at the top than women. But the BBC is
0:03:16 > 0:03:21trying to address two quite separate issues, the first is the gender pay
0:03:21 > 0:03:28gap. Every company with more than 250 employees must now publish
0:03:28 > 0:03:32various measures of the gap between the average of men's pay and
0:03:32 > 0:03:36women's. That gap can sometimes be partially explained by skills,
0:03:36 > 0:03:43seniority or by type of work. EasyJet posted a 45% gap because
0:03:43 > 0:03:47most of its highly paid pilots are men and most of its cabin crew are
0:03:47 > 0:03:53women. But the BBC is grappling with another issue, equal pay. That is
0:03:53 > 0:04:01the allegation that men and women have not been paid equally for doing
0:04:01 > 0:04:05jobs that are essentially the same or for work that are of an equal
0:04:05 > 0:04:08value to the organisation.It is not an audit of equal pay across the
0:04:08 > 0:04:12BBC, it is a particular sort of report that the BBC has ordered and
0:04:12 > 0:04:17without being cynical, it seems to be the report that the BBC wanted. I
0:04:17 > 0:04:20hope that other employers and employees are looking at all of
0:04:20 > 0:04:29theirs, I am sure they are bored with the shenanigans that the BBC,
0:04:29 > 0:04:32but the central thrust of what we are about is about telling other
0:04:32 > 0:04:34people that if it has happened to us, it is almost certainly happening
0:04:34 > 0:04:38to you or another woman that you care about.PWC said they had found
0:04:38 > 0:04:44no evidence of gender bias in paid decision-making but it criticised a
0:04:44 > 0:04:48lack of structure in setting pay and a lack of consistency and
0:04:48 > 0:04:53transparency. Today the BBC pledged to address that with the new paved
0:04:53 > 0:04:57framework, more information on pay and a faster push towards equal
0:04:57 > 0:05:03representation of men and women on air. These may be TV presenters with
0:05:03 > 0:05:066-figure salaries but discrimination lawyers say that the issues raised
0:05:06 > 0:05:11are the same as another equal pay cases.The principle is the
0:05:11 > 0:05:15principal and reminds me of the cases I did local authority bonuses
0:05:15 > 0:05:19for manual workers and the women who were not getting the bonuses and
0:05:19 > 0:05:22whether or not the bonuses were representing productivity. In the
0:05:22 > 0:05:29past, they might well have been productive, but in the time that we
0:05:29 > 0:05:33were doing the cases, it had become basic pay, they were coming up with
0:05:33 > 0:05:37the usual pay packet and that is the analogy here, there may well have
0:05:37 > 0:05:42been a time when this extra pay was merited, but that was then and this
0:05:42 > 0:05:46is now and they should have therefore change the page.The most
0:05:46 > 0:05:51eye-catching part of the BBC response so far has been pay cuts,
0:05:51 > 0:06:04for high-profile men, but that some say is a debatable approach.
0:06:05 > 0:06:08It is basically telling the women that if they raise an equal pay
0:06:08 > 0:06:11case, they are going to punish the men as a result. It is a deterrent
0:06:11 > 0:06:14to women pursuing cases and it makes them the villains, rather than
0:06:14 > 0:06:16actually being the victims. In the US, it is common to have clauses
0:06:16 > 0:06:20that ban pay cuts, so if an employer discovers that a woman is being
0:06:20 > 0:06:24underpaid, they must raise the pay of women and not cut the pay of men.
0:06:24 > 0:06:28Carrie Gracie has accused the BBC of illegal pay discrimination and
0:06:28 > 0:06:33tomorrow she will give evidence in Parliament. The BBC's balancing act
0:06:33 > 0:06:37is not set to get any easier.
0:06:37 > 0:06:38Fran Unsworth is the BBC's head of news.
0:06:38 > 0:06:41She's been in the job a month, but was deputy
0:06:41 > 0:06:44for sometime before that.
0:06:44 > 0:06:48I spoke to her this evening - does she really believe that when it
0:06:48 > 0:06:51comes to pay in news, gender is not an issue?
0:06:51 > 0:06:59I don't think that's quite what the report says.
0:07:06 > 0:07:09The report says that what the PWC has done is that there is no
0:07:09 > 0:07:12systemic gender bias in the way that pay has been set.
0:07:12 > 0:07:14That does not mean to say that there aren't differences
0:07:14 > 0:07:15in men and women's pay.
0:07:15 > 0:07:18What the report is saying there is that gender has not been
0:07:18 > 0:07:22the basis of the decision making, that people have used when they have
0:07:22 > 0:07:23set somebody's salary.
0:07:23 > 0:07:25Isn't the real reason that you do not want to admit that
0:07:25 > 0:07:28gender has been an issue, a specific issue, is that it gets
0:07:28 > 0:07:31you into legal problems and you then have to start paying back pay
0:07:31 > 0:07:35for six years for anyone who can show that they are a victim of it?
0:07:35 > 0:07:37That's just too expensive for the BBC to contemplate
0:07:37 > 0:07:38without having nightmares.
0:07:38 > 0:07:41I think that what the report is saying, it might
0:07:41 > 0:07:42apply in some cases.
0:07:42 > 0:07:44That there is an equal pay issue.
0:07:44 > 0:07:46But there is no systemic issue.
0:07:46 > 0:07:49Can you imagine, six years of back pay, in most cases
0:07:49 > 0:07:52where there is a gender issue?
0:07:52 > 0:07:56If we have broken the law in an individual case,
0:07:56 > 0:08:00then we will have to address that, yes.
0:08:00 > 0:08:03I think that part of the reason, though, that there was this
0:08:03 > 0:08:08discrepancy, because the gender pay gap is not the same as equal pay.
0:08:08 > 0:08:12That is two people in the same job earning very different amounts.
0:08:12 > 0:08:15And some of the reasons why two people in the same job may be
0:08:15 > 0:08:19earning different amounts of money, the law says you have to justify it,
0:08:19 > 0:08:22so there might be justifiable reasons why two people in the same
0:08:22 > 0:08:26job are on different salaries, but those criteria will be around
0:08:26 > 0:08:32how long has the person been doing it, what is their profile
0:08:32 > 0:08:34with the audience, does the audience tune in to the programme
0:08:34 > 0:08:38because of that person?
0:08:38 > 0:08:41In which case, there is not an equal pay claim under the law,
0:08:41 > 0:08:44but of course those are things that have to be justified
0:08:44 > 0:08:48and they might be open to debate as well, of course.
0:08:48 > 0:08:55The BBC argument has been, the BBC has been proportionally
0:08:55 > 0:08:57The BBC argument has been, the BBC has been disproportionally
0:08:57 > 0:09:01employing men in the era when money was a little bit looser and then
0:09:01 > 0:09:03diversity came along, the BBC made a big effort on that,
0:09:03 > 0:09:06just at that time when austerity was beginning to bite
0:09:06 > 0:09:07and the money was much tighter.
0:09:07 > 0:09:12Would you acknowledge there was systemic gender bias
0:09:12 > 0:09:15in the period say more than 5 years ago, when the BBC was
0:09:15 > 0:09:17recruiting more men, or a disproportionate
0:09:17 > 0:09:18number of them.
0:09:18 > 0:09:21Quite possibly, although there might have been a smaller pool of women
0:09:21 > 0:09:22from whom to choose.
0:09:22 > 0:09:24For all sorts of social reasons.
0:09:24 > 0:09:27And that is something that we have to address going forward.
0:09:27 > 0:09:30The Carrie Gracie case, she has been at the BBC 30 years,
0:09:30 > 0:09:33Jeremy Bowen has been at the BBC for 30 years, pretty
0:09:33 > 0:09:36different salaries, I wonder whether you think,
0:09:36 > 0:09:40as you look at the salaries, as you have gazed and eyeballed
0:09:40 > 0:09:43at them like everybody else did when many were published last year,
0:09:43 > 0:09:48did you not think, that looks strange, that looks a bit weird?
0:09:48 > 0:09:49Yes, we did.
0:09:49 > 0:09:52We very much did, yes.
0:09:52 > 0:09:56These salary issues were a matter of individual negotiations up
0:09:56 > 0:09:59to a point, it was sort of within a framework.
0:09:59 > 0:10:01They were confidential matters and we were not setting them vis
0:10:01 > 0:10:05a vis other people in quite the way that we should have done
0:10:05 > 0:10:07and disclosure, I think, has thrown a very uncomfortable
0:10:07 > 0:10:15light on that which needs to be addressed.
0:10:15 > 0:10:19You had access to that data the rest of the world did,
0:10:19 > 0:10:22so the rest of the world saw it last July and went, that
0:10:22 > 0:10:23looks a bit weird!
0:10:23 > 0:10:27You could have said that at any time!
0:10:27 > 0:10:30You could have just looked at it and said, that looks a bit strange,
0:10:30 > 0:10:32you were strangely not curious, I suppose in not having
0:10:32 > 0:10:35raised this before.
0:10:35 > 0:10:38I think it is around really not having a proper
0:10:38 > 0:10:41framework in which to do it and that is what this report
0:10:41 > 0:10:47introduces now which says, if you work on this type
0:10:47 > 0:10:50of programme, this is the type of salary that you can expect to be
0:10:50 > 0:10:56paid within a range, recognising those factors.
0:10:56 > 0:10:58That is what we did not do before.
0:10:58 > 0:11:01That is why, I think a lot of women are quite reasonably saying,
0:11:01 > 0:11:02this was not transparent.
0:11:02 > 0:11:05Strangely, you did not even do it knowing that they were going to be
0:11:05 > 0:11:07published last July, you had a year's warning
0:11:07 > 0:11:09that they would be published.
0:11:09 > 0:11:10I think there was...
0:11:10 > 0:11:12Did you not even eyeball them and say before the publication,
0:11:12 > 0:11:15we have got a problem looming here, we as the bosses probably have
0:11:15 > 0:11:19to sort this out and make sure we have got something to say
0:11:19 > 0:11:26to staff who are obviously going to see anomalies all over the place.
0:11:26 > 0:11:28Many of them seem to be quite gender specific.
0:11:28 > 0:11:32There was a bit of that, but not enough and I would accept
0:11:32 > 0:11:34the premise of your question, that we should have been
0:11:34 > 0:11:36on to this earlier.
0:11:36 > 0:11:39The eyes of the country are very much on the BBC and the pay
0:11:39 > 0:11:40formation at the moment.
0:11:40 > 0:11:43People will be interested if the BBC finds a system which is not
0:11:43 > 0:11:49replicated elsewhere.
0:11:49 > 0:11:50which is replicated elsewhere.
0:11:50 > 0:11:54If you have this BBC system and you have a rate for a job,
0:11:54 > 0:11:56I don't know, the presenter of the Ten O'Clock News,
0:11:56 > 0:12:00and you've got a range for that job and then you want to employ someone
0:12:00 > 0:12:02from outside who is on a higher salary than in our
0:12:02 > 0:12:04range, what do you do?
0:12:04 > 0:12:07It is a really good question, which we have thought of and I think
0:12:07 > 0:12:10that we are taking the view that we will have to stick
0:12:10 > 0:12:13within the ranges, broadly, but what has changed,
0:12:13 > 0:12:18I do believe, is the market for news presenters.
0:12:18 > 0:12:26Now, the BBC has been discounted anyway, according to the market,
0:12:26 > 0:12:29but I think that we'll be continuing with that process
0:12:29 > 0:12:37and I think it does...
0:12:39 > 0:12:43You will not employ someone higher than that rate and if they don't
0:12:43 > 0:12:44come in for the going salary...
0:12:44 > 0:12:47I think there will be more of that, yes, than there has been
0:12:47 > 0:12:51in the past, because if we don't apply that, that is how things do
0:12:51 > 0:12:52get very out of line.
0:12:52 > 0:12:54Do you see that over the next five years,
0:12:54 > 0:12:57the BBC saving money or spending money on reforming this pay?
0:12:57 > 0:13:00I don't know the answer to that, to be honest, that is probably,
0:13:00 > 0:13:03it might be that in the short term they are spending, and in the long
0:13:03 > 0:13:04term, it is saving.
0:13:04 > 0:13:08We have not run the numbers on that, we are still here and there
0:13:08 > 0:13:09are approximately 200 more cases.
0:13:09 > 0:13:13I do think, though, that this will be a fairer, more transparent,
0:13:13 > 0:13:17and more justifiable to both the public and to our workforce,
0:13:17 > 0:13:20and our way of paying people.
0:13:20 > 0:13:22Fran Unsworth, thank you very much.
0:13:22 > 0:13:28Thank you.
0:13:28 > 0:13:30Last week, our diplomatic editor Mark Urban ran a piece
0:13:30 > 0:13:32on Saudi Arabia's richest businessman, Waleed bin Talal.
0:13:32 > 0:13:35He was - you'll remember - incarcerated as part
0:13:35 > 0:13:37of the anti-corruption drive in the Kingdom.
0:13:37 > 0:13:39In Mark's film, we heard from someone who'd been
0:13:39 > 0:13:44in video contact with him, for the Saudis, and who said
0:13:44 > 0:13:47he did not look well, was a different man
0:13:47 > 0:13:48and was twitching.
0:13:48 > 0:13:50Well, things moved on fast after Mark's piece.
0:13:50 > 0:13:53Waleed Bin Talal was released over the weekend, and just before that
0:13:53 > 0:13:58even appeared in a video suggesting he'd been well looked after.
0:13:58 > 0:14:00I feel at home, no problem at all here.
0:14:00 > 0:14:02Everything is fine.
0:14:02 > 0:14:09And all the rumours that appeared on the BBC especially,
0:14:09 > 0:14:12you saw that and it upset me a lot.
0:14:12 > 0:14:13And it is all lies, frankly speaking.
0:14:13 > 0:14:15All lies.
0:14:15 > 0:14:18You know, I have been all the time here at this hotel
0:14:18 > 0:14:19and everything has been fine.
0:14:19 > 0:14:22And all these rumours really upset me.
0:14:22 > 0:14:25Because they went so far.
0:14:25 > 0:14:26Which rumours in particular?
0:14:26 > 0:14:30You know I read about them and saw them on the BBC and others saying
0:14:30 > 0:14:32Waleed was sent to some other place, you know,
0:14:32 > 0:14:34the main prison.
0:14:34 > 0:14:35And that he had been tortured.
0:14:35 > 0:14:41All lies, you know.
0:14:43 > 0:14:46Here he is just two days after his release...
0:14:46 > 0:14:50Arriving at work to applause.
0:14:50 > 0:14:54Is it a coincidence that Prince Bin Talal was released soon
0:14:54 > 0:14:56after we ran our item?
0:14:56 > 0:14:59Maybe not - we've heard suggestions that there was a link.
0:14:59 > 0:15:01I'm joined now from Cairo by Hugh Miles, a journalist
0:15:01 > 0:15:04who specialises in the Middle East and has done extensive research
0:15:04 > 0:15:11into corruption in Saudi Arabia.
0:15:11 > 0:15:18What do you think was going on last week with the sequence of events?I
0:15:18 > 0:15:25think BBC Newsnight was instrumental in getting points to one released. I
0:15:25 > 0:15:30think the Saudis reacted to the report, they were surprised and
0:15:30 > 0:15:34shocked to see the Newsnight report. I do not think they had any plans to
0:15:34 > 0:15:38release him beforehand. And they realised something had to be done
0:15:38 > 0:15:43because otherwise this news report was going to dominate the news cycle
0:15:43 > 0:15:49and Davos was going on, the Saudis keen to get investment. Mohammed bin
0:15:49 > 0:15:53Salman planning a visit to the UK, to the west and this Newsnight
0:15:53 > 0:15:58report released on them because it showed that Prince Waleed bin Talal,
0:15:58 > 0:16:03one of the most high-profile of all the detainees with all the
0:16:03 > 0:16:06international connections, was being abused in detention.What did you
0:16:06 > 0:16:11make of his protests that he had been in fact quite well looked
0:16:11 > 0:16:16after?I do not think they are credible at all. I think the BBC
0:16:16 > 0:16:22Newsnight report last week got it right, I think the Saudis pulled out
0:16:22 > 0:16:27Waleed bin Talal to try to show and convince the world that they're not
0:16:27 > 0:16:31torturing detainees, not doing a big shakedown and taking all the assets
0:16:31 > 0:16:36of all the businessmen in the kingdom. But I do not think Waleed
0:16:36 > 0:16:41bin Talal, that his video was credible for a number of reasons. It
0:16:41 > 0:16:47was a performance, propaganda.And it is important to the Saudis to
0:16:47 > 0:16:51show they're not mistreating businesspeople because they want
0:16:51 > 0:16:55investment in the country, presumably?They desperately want
0:16:55 > 0:17:01investment, they need foreign investment to make their vision of
0:17:01 > 0:17:07success. If they do not get it it will fail and the country will face
0:17:07 > 0:17:14serious economic problems. So they need to try and keep coming and this
0:17:14 > 0:17:18parish has done a lot of damage to their international reputation.
0:17:18 > 0:17:24Ironically like some of the other plans that have gone wrong, the
0:17:24 > 0:17:30Yemen war, this has been quite self-defeating, this purge. It has
0:17:30 > 0:17:33badly damaged investor confidence in Saudi Arabia and who would want to
0:17:33 > 0:17:39put their money into such a system is this that treats businessmen in
0:17:39 > 0:17:45this way. So it is an attempt to try to rectify the self-inflicted wound
0:17:45 > 0:17:52that they have, that Mohammed bin Soliman has done to the Saudi
0:17:52 > 0:17:57economy.How secure is Mohammed bin Salman, you say he has made a number
0:17:57 > 0:18:05of mistakes and locking up so many princes in the Ritz-Carlton?Where
0:18:05 > 0:18:10does this leave him now? Well the problem is the anti-corruption drive
0:18:10 > 0:18:17is backfiring on multiple levels. As with his other projects. It is not
0:18:17 > 0:18:20going to get anywhere near as much money as planned, it is difficult to
0:18:20 > 0:18:27get back foreign assets put up and the valuable assets are outside of
0:18:27 > 0:18:30the kingdom and he has made little progress getting hold of those.
0:18:30 > 0:18:36There's one problem but the other is that the Royal Family who should be
0:18:36 > 0:18:41his allies, and helping him, have now been eliminated and are all in
0:18:41 > 0:18:46shock. And now Saudi Arabia is a revenge culture and all the Royal
0:18:46 > 0:18:49Family have been affected by what has happened because they're all
0:18:49 > 0:18:53intermarried and now they will want revenge against Mohammed bin
0:18:53 > 0:18:58Sandman. There is a history to this in Saudi Arabia, King Faisal was
0:18:58 > 0:19:02murdered by his cousin in revenge killings. And we have already seen
0:19:02 > 0:19:08signs of the Royal Family wanting to take revenge. Mohammed bin Sandman
0:19:08 > 0:19:11is good at locking them up, he did that before the Ritz-Carlton, we
0:19:11 > 0:19:16knew that there was a Saudi programme to arrest Saudi dissidents
0:19:16 > 0:19:22in the West for a couple of years before this.
0:19:23 > 0:19:28before this. A number of people have been disappeared for a long time. So
0:19:28 > 0:19:32he's trying to keep the Royal Family down but they could strike back at
0:19:32 > 0:19:40any time.Another problem...Really briefly. He has undermined his
0:19:40 > 0:19:43legitimacy, the Saudi government for a long time has presented the Royal
0:19:43 > 0:19:48Family as the the Troubles to the country and this has been the
0:19:48 > 0:19:52government message. And now the Royal Family have been treated like
0:19:52 > 0:19:58criminals, that is harmful to the regime.Thank you so much. And if
0:19:58 > 0:20:02Waleed bin Talal would like to come on the programme we would welcome
0:20:02 > 0:20:04them at any time.
0:20:04 > 0:20:07Most people go through sporadic phases of respecting the House
0:20:07 > 0:20:09of Lords, or hating it, depending on whether it's last
0:20:09 > 0:20:11important vote aligned with their own opinion.
0:20:11 > 0:20:14So be ready for a lot of discussion about the constitutional role
0:20:14 > 0:20:16of the Lords, now it has started debating the EU Withdrawal bill.
0:20:16 > 0:20:19Its Brexit discussions got going today; lots of peers are down
0:20:19 > 0:20:22to speak, and of course, there are fears by some Brexiteers,
0:20:22 > 0:20:25that the Lords could try simply to delay or thwart the whole thing.
0:20:25 > 0:20:28So - will they?
0:20:28 > 0:20:30Our political editor Nick Watt has been investigating
0:20:30 > 0:20:38what the anti-Brexit peers are up to.
0:20:41 > 0:20:44It's a gilded palace whose grand halls and corridors have echoed down
0:20:44 > 0:20:48the ages to the footsteps of monarchs and aristocrats
0:20:48 > 0:20:53as they shaped our island story.
0:20:53 > 0:20:58Now as the UK embarks on a new journey, the Elysium Fields
0:20:58 > 0:21:01of the House of Lords are serving as the last redoubt of pro-Europeans
0:21:01 > 0:21:05determined to challenge Brexit.
0:21:05 > 0:21:09If you were to delve into the minds of the 800 or so peers sitting
0:21:09 > 0:21:11across the river in one of the world's largest Parliamentary
0:21:11 > 0:21:16chambers, you would find deep misgivings about Brexit.
0:21:16 > 0:21:18Most peers would say that reversing Brexit is the last
0:21:18 > 0:21:22thing on their minds.
0:21:22 > 0:21:27But one told me privately, of course I'm trying to obstruct Brexit.
0:21:27 > 0:21:31It was just over a century ago that peers ended up relinquishing
0:21:31 > 0:21:34many of their powers after a seismic battle with the elected
0:21:34 > 0:21:39chamber over David Lloyd George's People's Budget.
0:21:39 > 0:21:43Today's peers have been warned that if they overstep the mark on Brexit,
0:21:43 > 0:21:48they could revive the people versus peers battle.
0:21:48 > 0:21:51One veteran would be delighted if a challenge to the government
0:21:51 > 0:21:55over Brexit led to the demise of the House of Lords.
0:21:55 > 0:21:58This place is a complete anachronism.
0:21:58 > 0:22:00You know, we send young men and women abroad
0:22:00 > 0:22:03to fight for democracy, we haven't even got it
0:22:03 > 0:22:04in our own country.
0:22:04 > 0:22:06The House of Lords as it presently is...
0:22:06 > 0:22:08How do you become a Lord?
0:22:08 > 0:22:10There's only two ways of doing it.
0:22:10 > 0:22:13One is that you're a friend of the Prime Minister and the other
0:22:13 > 0:22:14is your great-grandmother slept with a king.
0:22:14 > 0:22:17I'm not entirely sure which of those provides the better peers.
0:22:17 > 0:22:18It is an anachronism.
0:22:18 > 0:22:20We need an elected second chamber.
0:22:20 > 0:22:23Though that is not the battle we should be fighting at this stage.
0:22:23 > 0:22:26So a more subtle game is being mapped out in the House of Lords.
0:22:26 > 0:22:29I understand that for the last few months pro-European peers
0:22:29 > 0:22:36from the four main groups, the Conservatives, Labour,
0:22:37 > 0:22:39Liberal Democrats and the nonparty crossbenchers, have been talking
0:22:39 > 0:22:42about how they can use the bill to assert the overall authority
0:22:42 > 0:22:46of Parliament and even to change the nature of Brexit.
0:22:46 > 0:22:52These pro-European peers hope to amend the bill in four ways.
0:22:52 > 0:22:56Firstly, challenge the use of so-called Henry VIII clauses,
0:22:56 > 0:22:59powers taken by ministers to put thousands of EU regulations into UK
0:22:59 > 0:23:05law without a full vote.
0:23:05 > 0:23:08Second, to remove any mention of the Brexit date
0:23:08 > 0:23:11of the 29th of March 2019, potentially turning the two-year
0:23:11 > 0:23:19transition period into an extension of the Article 50 negotiations.
0:23:20 > 0:23:23Then to have a go at reintroducing amendments, rejected by MPs,
0:23:23 > 0:23:31to keep the UK in the single market and the customs union.
0:23:31 > 0:23:34But the highest hopes rest on tightening a rebel amendment
0:23:34 > 0:23:37passed in the House of Commons that would give Parliament a meaningful
0:23:37 > 0:23:42vote on the final stage, whatever the outcome.
0:23:42 > 0:23:47That would mean a vote even if there is no deal.
0:23:47 > 0:23:51One peer is so concerned about the proposed transition phase
0:23:51 > 0:23:57she hopes to see an extension of the Article 50 negotiations.
0:23:57 > 0:24:03If we have extended Article 50 rather than going into this
0:24:03 > 0:24:05transition where we have left with no way back, then
0:24:05 > 0:24:09there would still be the option of protecting the national interest
0:24:09 > 0:24:12if it turns out that the consequences of where we are heading
0:24:12 > 0:24:14are far more dangerous and damaging than people might
0:24:14 > 0:24:19previously have realised.
0:24:19 > 0:24:22Brexit-supporting MPs believe unelected peers
0:24:22 > 0:24:25should tread with care.
0:24:25 > 0:24:28I would hope very much that the wisdom that sits in the House
0:24:28 > 0:24:31of Lords will know that fighting the people's voice would not be
0:24:31 > 0:24:35the way forward and that they should not be thwarting the process of this
0:24:35 > 0:24:39bill, but discussing it with them, kicking around the issues as we have
0:24:39 > 0:24:42done in the Commons, raising those concerns and then
0:24:42 > 0:24:45sending it back to the House of Commons so that we can take it
0:24:45 > 0:24:52through to Royal Assent.
0:24:52 > 0:24:55The scene is set for a very British showdown
0:24:55 > 0:24:57in the riverside Royal Palace.
0:24:57 > 0:24:59Peers are determined to carry out their constitutional obligation
0:24:59 > 0:25:01to revise legislation.
0:25:01 > 0:25:03Even if that involves a fight.
0:25:03 > 0:25:06The mood on the red benches suggests peers will be
0:25:06 > 0:25:13choosing their battles with care.
0:25:14 > 0:25:18And Nick joins me now. It has been a busy day on the Brexit front not
0:25:18 > 0:25:24least because of the much discussed speech in the opening day.There
0:25:24 > 0:25:28were high expectations of punchy interventions this afternoon in the
0:25:28 > 0:25:32House of Lords and so it proved when Lord Bridges, a Brexit minister
0:25:32 > 0:25:37until just before the general election, stood up. This is what the
0:25:37 > 0:25:43remain supporting pier had to say. All that we hear day after day are
0:25:43 > 0:25:48conflicting, confusing voices. If this continues and ministers cannot
0:25:48 > 0:25:53agree amongst themselves on the future relationship the government
0:25:53 > 0:26:00wants, how come this Prime Minister possibly negotiate a clear, precise
0:26:00 > 0:26:05terms of the future relationship with the EU. My fear is we will get
0:26:05 > 0:26:10meaningless waffle in a political declaration in October. The
0:26:10 > 0:26:14implementation period will not be a bridge to a clear destination, it
0:26:14 > 0:26:20will be a gangplank into thin air. The significance of that
0:26:20 > 0:26:24intervention, Lord Bridges are saying publicly what many ministers
0:26:24 > 0:26:29are saying privately that there is a real potential danger to the UK
0:26:29 > 0:26:34negotiating position because Theresa May and the Cabinet have not yet
0:26:34 > 0:26:39been able to pinpoint the precise and exact nature of what they're
0:26:39 > 0:26:44asking for, the future relationship to be.Well the other story today,
0:26:44 > 0:26:49this leaked document on the economic impact of leaving. All scenarios not
0:26:49 > 0:26:54particularly good I suppose you would say. And that has caused
0:26:54 > 0:26:59problems.So another insight into the knees in government and that
0:26:59 > 0:27:04spilled into the open after that leak. Now the Brexit minister
0:27:04 > 0:27:08earlier today in House of Commons said to MPs that civil service
0:27:08 > 0:27:14forecasts are as he said, always wrong. But now this evening Doctor
0:27:14 > 0:27:19Philip Lee, a Justice Minister, has done a series of tweets in which he
0:27:19 > 0:27:23has said you cannot just dismiss the evidence and then look what he said
0:27:23 > 0:27:28in his second tweet. He said if these figures turn out to be
0:27:28 > 0:27:34anywhere near correct there would be serious questions over whether a
0:27:34 > 0:27:38government could legitimately leave the country along a path when the
0:27:38 > 0:27:40evidence and the rational consideration indicate would be
0:27:40 > 0:27:50damaging. This shows the Prime Minister's challenge. And he is a
0:27:50 > 0:27:57minister in the government is a neighbouring MP of Theresa May and
0:27:57 > 0:28:00he has never before being an MP but it is important to save the
0:28:00 > 0:28:03government is saying the scenarios being examined either known
0:28:03 > 0:28:10scenarios and that report did not model the government's preferred
0:28:10 > 0:28:14option, of Opus book option. But of course they have not outlined yet
0:28:14 > 0:28:17what they want.
0:28:17 > 0:28:20More than a million homes in the UK use a wood
0:28:20 > 0:28:21burning stove or real fire.
0:28:21 > 0:28:22Sales are booming.
0:28:22 > 0:28:25And we're not just talking rural folks here, who may
0:28:25 > 0:28:26not have natural gas.
0:28:26 > 0:28:28We are talking city dwellers who perhaps want to feel
0:28:28 > 0:28:30a connection to a more rustic life.
0:28:30 > 0:28:33One might even say it has become something of an interior design fad.
0:28:33 > 0:28:34But diesel cars were a fad too.
0:28:34 > 0:28:37And stoves might be getting that diesel stigma.
0:28:37 > 0:28:40On the day that Britain was among the EU countries to be reprimanded
0:28:40 > 0:28:42for breaking clean air rules, and on the day that London
0:28:42 > 0:28:45hit its pollution limit for the whole year -
0:28:45 > 0:28:47at least on one measure - the government opened a consultation
0:28:47 > 0:28:51on the domestic burning of solid fuels.
0:28:51 > 0:28:53It worries that stoves are adding to local air pollution.
0:28:53 > 0:28:55The Mayor of London is also concerned.
0:28:55 > 0:29:03David Grossman has been looking at the data.
0:29:04 > 0:29:07Really not that long ago, you could taste the air
0:29:07 > 0:29:10in our cities, you could cough up black globs of it.
0:29:10 > 0:29:14That is, if it didn't choke you to death.
0:29:14 > 0:29:17If you looked at his x-ray, you would see plenty...
0:29:17 > 0:29:22Tens of thousands did die.
0:29:22 > 0:29:25The days when massive structures like this belched out black smoke
0:29:25 > 0:29:28into our towns and cities are fortunately long gone.
0:29:28 > 0:29:33They were closed and the air quality improved.
0:29:33 > 0:29:36This one is now being turned into luxury flats.
0:29:36 > 0:29:38But the Environment Secretary has identified another threat
0:29:38 > 0:29:40to the air that we breathe.
0:29:40 > 0:29:42On a much smaller scale.
0:29:42 > 0:29:47People who burn wood in their stoves and fireplaces.
0:29:47 > 0:29:50This may come as something of a surprise to lots of people,
0:29:50 > 0:29:55and others, sat in front of their fires this evening.
0:29:55 > 0:29:57You might think burning wood and coal at home
0:29:57 > 0:30:00was a problem of the past, a problem of the 1950s and 1960s.
0:30:00 > 0:30:03But it is something that has returned under the radar.
0:30:03 > 0:30:06If you go into WH Smiths and pull one of these home style
0:30:06 > 0:30:10magazines off the shelves, you will find pictures of people
0:30:10 > 0:30:12in their lounges with wood burners.
0:30:12 > 0:30:15And it is something that has crept back in.
0:30:15 > 0:30:18In the last five to ten years, over 1.2 million wood stoves have
0:30:18 > 0:30:23been sold in the UK.
0:30:23 > 0:30:26And now somewhere between 30 and 40% of the particle pollution
0:30:26 > 0:30:31in our cities is coming from wood burning at home.
0:30:31 > 0:30:34A fire like this may look and feel great.
0:30:34 > 0:30:37But its impact may be much bigger than many realise.
0:30:37 > 0:30:42The permitted emissions of particulates for the wood-burning
0:30:42 > 0:30:45stove are actually six times greater than for an HGV lorry.
0:30:45 > 0:30:47Tell me what this is?
0:30:47 > 0:30:54A poster about air pollution.
0:30:54 > 0:30:57The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has talked about banning stoves.
0:30:57 > 0:30:59The government says it isn't planning to do that,
0:30:59 > 0:31:02making an enemy of so many voters may not be politically prudent.
0:31:02 > 0:31:03But what else could they do?
0:31:03 > 0:31:06Ultimately what we need from the government is a new clean
0:31:06 > 0:31:08air plan which will bring down emissions to safe levels
0:31:08 > 0:31:11across a whole range of sources.
0:31:11 > 0:31:18So covering wood-burning, covering cars.
0:31:18 > 0:31:20With regards to wood-burning in particular, there are some simple
0:31:20 > 0:31:21things that we can do.
0:31:21 > 0:31:24So burning wet fuel, burning wet wood or wet coal is much
0:31:24 > 0:31:25more damaging than dry wood.
0:31:25 > 0:31:28So we can restrict the sales of wet wood to discourage
0:31:28 > 0:31:29people from doing it.
0:31:29 > 0:31:34And we need to do more to get the information and advice out
0:31:34 > 0:31:35there so people know that they shouldn't
0:31:35 > 0:31:36be burning wet wood.
0:31:36 > 0:31:39And they should always try it out first to protect their family's
0:31:39 > 0:31:40health and their neighbours' health.
0:31:40 > 0:31:43But it could be argued that the problem has been caused
0:31:43 > 0:31:46by too much green legislation rather than not enough.
0:31:46 > 0:31:48We were after all encouraged into diesel cars because
0:31:48 > 0:31:50they emitted less CO2.
0:31:50 > 0:31:58And wood-burning became attractive partly because green levies made
0:32:00 > 0:32:02more conventional fuel more expensive.
0:32:02 > 0:32:04No one can blame taxpayers or consumers for these things,
0:32:04 > 0:32:06they're responding either to government incentives or even
0:32:06 > 0:32:09just government advice.
0:32:09 > 0:32:13People try to trust the government on these areas for good or ill.
0:32:13 > 0:32:15Really the problem comes in when the government
0:32:15 > 0:32:17tells them one thing, incentivising the wrong way,
0:32:17 > 0:32:18often using taxpayers money.
0:32:18 > 0:32:20And then changes its mind when the evidence changes.
0:32:20 > 0:32:22Which I suppose is good, but then ends up lumping taxpayers
0:32:22 > 0:32:24and consumers with the cost.
0:32:24 > 0:32:25And always with unintended consequences, always taxpayers
0:32:25 > 0:32:28and consumers who end up bearing the brunt of it.
0:32:28 > 0:32:30The government has so far only launched a consultation
0:32:30 > 0:32:33and since they say they will not be banning wood-burning
0:32:33 > 0:32:35in hearths or stoves, their options seem limited.
0:32:35 > 0:32:43Beyond perhaps educating us to use cleaner, drier fuel.
0:32:45 > 0:32:48Here with me are journalist and wood burning stove owner Harry Wallop
0:32:48 > 0:32:54and the Green party's Caroline Russell.
0:32:54 > 0:33:01What is better about fire heat, Harry, than radiator heat?It is
0:33:01 > 0:33:06obvious, the reason why a man has been rubbing sticks together has
0:33:06 > 0:33:10been because it is warming and comforting and for any of us who
0:33:10 > 0:33:14live in a house that was built before the war, all our sitting
0:33:14 > 0:33:19rooms, the focus point is the fire and the horrid and for an urban
0:33:19 > 0:33:26dweller, in these uncertain times, a wood-burning stove is a little dash
0:33:26 > 0:33:30of rural comfort.It is trouble, buying the wood, lighting the wood
0:33:30 > 0:33:36with the kindling, it is not like turning on a boiler.I love chopping
0:33:36 > 0:33:45wood, but I forage for it.You have an open fire, Caroline.I do, but I
0:33:45 > 0:33:52do not use it. Michael Gove wants nothing more than first in the
0:33:52 > 0:33:55discussing how much Harry likes to drink his cocoa and put his slippers
0:33:55 > 0:34:02on and sit in front of the fire. Today we have had the main pollution
0:34:02 > 0:34:05breach in Brixton, I met parents down there who were telling me how
0:34:05 > 0:34:10worried they are about the impact of air pollution on the lives of their
0:34:10 > 0:34:16children.Can we really believe these figures that fires are causing
0:34:16 > 0:34:2340%...Fires are making a contribution, fires produce small
0:34:23 > 0:34:27particles, tiny particles which are so small when you breathe them in,
0:34:27 > 0:34:33they get into your lungs and those other particles that cause cancer,
0:34:33 > 0:34:36cause cardiovascular problems and really make the lives of people
0:34:36 > 0:34:42miserable. If you're living with COPD, this particle pollution makes
0:34:42 > 0:34:46your life a misery.They don't give out the same pollution as diesel, it
0:34:46 > 0:34:54is a specific set of particles. Burning wood in London has been
0:34:54 > 0:35:01illegal since 1956 with the clean air act. It is clap back again...
0:35:01 > 0:35:05Greenhouse gas emissions are low, you're talking about gas given away
0:35:05 > 0:35:10more carbon dioxide.We are talking about public health, we are talking
0:35:10 > 0:35:16about particles that are causing lung problems that are stunting lung
0:35:16 > 0:35:20growth in children, causing cancer, this is a public health situation.
0:35:20 > 0:35:25The point is that the government has been avoiding doing what it is meant
0:35:25 > 0:35:32to be doing to clean up our air, if they are meant to comply and they
0:35:32 > 0:35:35have not.I want to bring Harry back in, you have heard the case against
0:35:35 > 0:35:39Harry, so what do you think... This is a middle-class thing, a lot of
0:35:39 > 0:35:44people, no one in a tower block and have a big fire, a wood-burning
0:35:44 > 0:35:48stove, they cannot have a wood-burning stove.First of all, it
0:35:48 > 0:35:57is not illegal. Mine is cleared by DEFRA, so
0:35:57 > 0:36:00DEFRA, so though the figures are that a particular matter is caused
0:36:00 > 0:36:02by burning wood in the home, we think only a small percentage of
0:36:02 > 0:36:07this comes from wood-burning stoves, most are open fires that are legal.
0:36:07 > 0:36:11Those are worst. I have spent the day with a thermal monitor which
0:36:11 > 0:36:14measures these dangerous particles and it is true that a wood-burning
0:36:14 > 0:36:21stove gives out more than often a busy street in London. Wood-burning
0:36:21 > 0:36:25stove is micrograms per what ever, thank you very much, and a busy
0:36:25 > 0:36:30street can be less, but you go onto the tube in London, that is
0:36:30 > 0:36:37alarmingly high. There are so many worse threats to our health than a
0:36:37 > 0:36:42wood-burning stove.It is a nice smell in a village, but that is the
0:36:42 > 0:36:46same as the particles, when you smell that. You will still be
0:36:46 > 0:36:51breathing those in. Do you think that the government should ban
0:36:51 > 0:36:54these, that effectively the middle-class hobby of having these
0:36:54 > 0:37:02fires, just makes it hard to ban, even though the logic says
0:37:02 > 0:37:05different.They should be focusing on the big picture of public health
0:37:05 > 0:37:11and transport, that is whether absolute focus should be. In terms
0:37:11 > 0:37:14of these would fires, yes, they are absolutely a problem and they need
0:37:14 > 0:37:20to deal with them and they need... Ban them or not? Make sure that
0:37:20 > 0:37:25anyone who has a wood-burning stove has one that is compliant, even the
0:37:25 > 0:37:30compliant ones are more polluting than a diesel car. This is a health
0:37:30 > 0:37:34issue for the people who are enjoying the fires as well as for
0:37:34 > 0:37:39the people who are breathing the smoke outside in the street.Thank
0:37:39 > 0:37:42you both very much indeed.
0:37:42 > 0:37:45It's that time of year when we start planning our summer holidays -
0:37:45 > 0:37:46or so the advertisers seem to think.
0:37:46 > 0:37:49Undoubtedly many of you are partial to a cruise.
0:37:49 > 0:37:52A tour of the Med aboard a huge floating hotel is all very well,
0:37:52 > 0:37:54but for sheer style, it can't compete with the golden
0:37:54 > 0:37:56age of the ocean liner, which is celebrated
0:37:56 > 0:37:59in a new exhibition at the V&A in London.
0:37:59 > 0:38:02Of course, there was maritime tragedy, too, not least
0:38:02 > 0:38:04the passenger ships sent to the bottom by German U-boats
0:38:04 > 0:38:06in the Second World War.
0:38:06 > 0:38:09But in that era, you could actually sail from Britain to New York in
0:38:09 > 0:38:10a breathless three-and-a-half days.
0:38:10 > 0:38:12Who better to recall it, than our Deck Quoits
0:38:12 > 0:38:20Correspondent, Stephen Smith.
0:38:26 > 0:38:28Going anywhere nice for your holidays?
0:38:28 > 0:38:30Long before squabbles over sunbeds, this was the last word
0:38:30 > 0:38:33in getting away from it all.
0:38:33 > 0:38:35The ocean liner, racing in style between here and North America,
0:38:35 > 0:38:43was the acme of civilised travel.
0:38:49 > 0:38:52The ocean liner shaped the modern world in so many ways.
0:38:52 > 0:38:55Transporting millions of people to new lives but also becoming one
0:38:55 > 0:38:56of the great sort of aspirational leisure activities
0:38:56 > 0:38:58of the 20th century.
0:38:58 > 0:39:00For many people their first experience of the sort of modern
0:39:00 > 0:39:07world was often getting aboard a minor.
0:39:07 > 0:39:09world was often getting aboard a liner.
0:39:09 > 0:39:11The liner came to represent this idea of the future.
0:39:11 > 0:39:14You know, a future life but also the most modern technology
0:39:14 > 0:39:19that they had ever experienced.
0:39:19 > 0:39:22A new exhibition at the V&A celebrate the high watermark
0:39:22 > 0:39:24of the line between the wars.
0:39:24 > 0:39:28It recreates the grand staircase of a seagoing ballroom and opulent
0:39:28 > 0:39:34fittings from the salon of the French liner Normandy.
0:39:34 > 0:39:42The Normandy was one of the greatest objects ever created, really,
0:39:42 > 0:39:44the great French ship launched in 1935.
0:39:44 > 0:39:47I mean, she was a sort of floating fragment of France, a great sort
0:39:47 > 0:39:52of expression of statehood.
0:39:52 > 0:39:55And she had some of the most magnificent interiors anywhere.
0:39:55 > 0:39:57She was at the time equated with Versailles.
0:39:57 > 0:40:05Here is a metaphor come to life.
0:40:08 > 0:40:09A deck chair from the Titanic.
0:40:09 > 0:40:12A reminder of the old truce, worse things happen at sea.
0:40:12 > 0:40:14I name this ship Empress of Britain...
0:40:14 > 0:40:17In her day the Empress of Britain was the largest, fastest,
0:40:17 > 0:40:22most luxurious ship on the run from Britain to Canada.
0:40:22 > 0:40:30She was requisitioned as a troop carrier in the Second World War.
0:40:30 > 0:40:33But struck by a German bomber and then a torpedo in 1940.
0:40:33 > 0:40:35Some 40 lives were lost.
0:40:35 > 0:40:3778-year-old Neville Hart Ives was an infant travelling
0:40:37 > 0:40:41with his family on the ship.
0:40:41 > 0:40:44One of the crew saw me in the arms of my mother and realised
0:40:44 > 0:40:47she would not be able to go down the Jacob's ladder.
0:40:47 > 0:40:51And so he got a blanket, wrapped it around him and pushed me
0:40:51 > 0:40:55in in a papoose style arrangement.
0:40:55 > 0:40:58And went down the ladder.
0:40:58 > 0:41:05And I never knew the name of the chap who saved me.
0:41:05 > 0:41:07Until roundabout 2000, thereabouts, I bought a book on the Empress
0:41:07 > 0:41:12of Britain and there came a section were suddenly it became...
0:41:12 > 0:41:19Very emotional.
0:41:21 > 0:41:26Because I realised it was writing about me.
0:41:26 > 0:41:29The man who saved Neville has died but he is now in touch
0:41:29 > 0:41:32with his rescuer's family.
0:41:32 > 0:41:36Did you feel, you know, somebody up there is looking after me?
0:41:36 > 0:41:38I did feel that.
0:41:38 > 0:41:41I mean, for this man to have taken me on board and did
0:41:41 > 0:41:47what he did and put himself at risk, I think that is tremendous.
0:41:47 > 0:41:55Yeah.
0:42:01 > 0:42:03The reign of the ocean liner could not last.
0:42:03 > 0:42:05Airliners took their crown.
0:42:05 > 0:42:06That said, whoever saw long-haul air passengers looking
0:42:06 > 0:42:14as jolly as this lot?
0:42:26 > 0:42:33That's it for today, which all true republicans
0:42:33 > 0:42:36I will be back tomorrow, until then, good