0:00:11 > 0:00:16He might have thought out sourcing public services did not work for the
0:00:16 > 0:00:21taxpayer, but another profit warning shows it may be doesn't work for
0:00:21 > 0:00:23private companies either.Capita says it needs to streamline its
0:00:23 > 0:00:28business and get it debt down, the latest in a spate of knocks to the
0:00:28 > 0:00:33whole outsourcing industry. We'll take a long hard look at when
0:00:33 > 0:00:36outsourcing helps and when it should be avoided.
0:00:36 > 0:00:40After decades of horrific violence in Afghanistan the International
0:00:40 > 0:00:45criminal Court is considering a war crimes investigation. But could
0:00:45 > 0:00:51justice, much like peace, proved elusive in this war-torn country?
0:00:51 > 0:00:53They don't want what is sometimes called
0:00:53 > 0:00:54low hanging fruit, basically.
0:00:54 > 0:00:57The foot soldiers who carry out, most directly, the nasty activities.
0:00:57 > 0:00:59So you've got to apprehend those people, and that's not so
0:00:59 > 0:01:05straightforward.
0:01:05 > 0:01:07And should we require explicit consent before sex?
0:01:07 > 0:01:09A new app seems to think so.
0:01:09 > 0:01:11We'll talk to a barrister about what consent is,
0:01:11 > 0:01:14and how we get it.
0:01:34 > 0:01:35Hello there.
0:01:35 > 0:01:36Has outsourcing had its day?
0:01:36 > 0:01:38For decades now, it has been a mantra within government,
0:01:38 > 0:01:41that virtually any activity is best put out to the market -
0:01:41 > 0:01:43running trains, prisons, construction projects, anything.
0:01:43 > 0:01:45For a long time, some have thought that the private
0:01:45 > 0:01:48contractors coin it in, at the expense of the workers,
0:01:48 > 0:01:49and the taxpayers.
0:01:49 > 0:01:51But the news that a huge private contractor, Capita,
0:01:51 > 0:01:54has had to make a profit warning, and has seen its share
0:01:54 > 0:01:56price plummet today, weeks after Carillion went bust,
0:01:56 > 0:01:57raises the question - does sub-contracting
0:01:57 > 0:01:58work for anybody at all?
0:01:58 > 0:02:01Capita is in a different place to Carillion, it is taking action
0:02:01 > 0:02:03that Carillion didn't, to prevent itself becoming another
0:02:03 > 0:02:05sad business casualty, but it's problems are just
0:02:05 > 0:02:08the latest to lead to a rethink about the activity on the border
0:02:08 > 0:02:10of the public and private sectors.
0:02:10 > 0:02:12These are difficult times for believers in the private
0:02:12 > 0:02:15delivery of public services.
0:02:15 > 0:02:18It's not just the demise of Carillion, other contracting
0:02:18 > 0:02:20companies face financial challenges.
0:02:20 > 0:02:28Train franchises are struggling, too.
0:02:31 > 0:02:33Virgin Stagecoach pulling out of its east coast contract.
0:02:33 > 0:02:36In Haringey, the Labour council has been rocked by division over
0:02:36 > 0:02:38a public private partnership for redeveloping social housing
0:02:38 > 0:02:39and other public assets.
0:02:39 > 0:02:40Is the game up for contracting?
0:02:40 > 0:02:42These corporations, Mr Speaker, need to be shown the door.
0:02:42 > 0:02:45We need our public services provided by Public employees
0:02:45 > 0:02:53with a public service ethos, and a strong public oversight.
0:02:53 > 0:02:56It is commonly framed as binary.
0:02:56 > 0:03:00Private sector, all good or all bad.
0:03:00 > 0:03:03But in reality, when you think of all the things that go
0:03:03 > 0:03:05on inside an organisation, it's an argument about
0:03:05 > 0:03:07where you draw a line.
0:03:07 > 0:03:09The line between what you buy in from outside
0:03:09 > 0:03:12and what you keep in-house.
0:03:12 > 0:03:14It applies as much in the private sector as the public.
0:03:14 > 0:03:17Some areas are relatively clear-cut.
0:03:17 > 0:03:20Few organisations will want to maintain their own lifts.
0:03:20 > 0:03:23It's a specialist task, lift servicing companies will likely
0:03:23 > 0:03:28be better at lift maintenance.
0:03:28 > 0:03:30Unless you're a lift company, lift maintenance is not your thing,
0:03:30 > 0:03:33so it's one to contract out.
0:03:33 > 0:03:38Government should absolutely consider outsourcing in instances
0:03:38 > 0:03:40where the thing that it wants to buy is already being bought
0:03:40 > 0:03:45by lots of other people.
0:03:45 > 0:03:47So particularly if that's goods like, you know,
0:03:47 > 0:03:49pencils, or even catering, a service but lots
0:03:49 > 0:03:51of people are buying.
0:03:51 > 0:03:54Similarly if it's really easy to measure the performance then
0:03:54 > 0:03:58Government is going to be able to have a good idea whether or not
0:03:58 > 0:04:01the provider it is paying has delivered that service well.
0:04:01 > 0:04:04And similarly, is there going to be any reputation risk for Government?
0:04:04 > 0:04:07In those instances Government should absolutely be looking to outsource.
0:04:07 > 0:04:11Sometimes you need private expertise.
0:04:11 > 0:04:13When Ken Livingstone introduced a congestion charge to London
0:04:13 > 0:04:14it was a formidable logistical task.
0:04:14 > 0:04:22Capita made it happen.
0:04:23 > 0:04:25And another advantage was that Capita could be
0:04:25 > 0:04:28penalised for any screw ups, of which there were a few.
0:04:28 > 0:04:29Risk was transferred.
0:04:29 > 0:04:30But what about core activities?
0:04:30 > 0:04:38Do we expect Government to outsource the role of Government?
0:04:38 > 0:04:40The big questions are about the delivery of complex services,
0:04:40 > 0:04:42so whether it's prisons, or probation, or adoption,
0:04:42 > 0:04:47Government is the only organisation buying those services.
0:04:47 > 0:04:50And there's not a proper market, it's really difficult
0:04:50 > 0:04:53to measure performance, and if they go wrong the
0:04:53 > 0:04:54Government's likely to get blamed.
0:04:54 > 0:04:57I think that is where the debate needs to be
0:04:57 > 0:05:00about whether outsourcing is right or not.
0:05:00 > 0:05:08One challenge is that contracts are hard to draw up and monitor.
0:05:09 > 0:05:12You can argue about the definition of an egg in a catering
0:05:12 > 0:05:14contract if you want to.
0:05:14 > 0:05:16The second challenge is the companies which win
0:05:16 > 0:05:18contracts are often the ones who bid unrealistically.
0:05:18 > 0:05:19With awkward consequences.
0:05:19 > 0:05:21Firstly, Government is focused on price rather than quality,
0:05:21 > 0:05:26or value for money.
0:05:26 > 0:05:29And as a result these firms bid very low, but have become quite
0:05:29 > 0:05:31overstretched and fragile, which means they are more
0:05:31 > 0:05:32likely to collapse.
0:05:32 > 0:05:35The second problem is that Government has not put a huge amount
0:05:35 > 0:05:40of work into overseeing and managing these contracts well.
0:05:40 > 0:05:44Which means that when these organisations do collapse Government
0:05:44 > 0:05:46is often taken unawares, or doesn't have anything set up
0:05:46 > 0:05:48to pick up the pieces.
0:05:48 > 0:05:50So is it less a question about public or private
0:05:50 > 0:05:53being better, and more a question of how effectively each
0:05:53 > 0:05:54manages the other?
0:05:54 > 0:05:57I'm now joined by Professor Mariana Mazzucato, Director of the Institute
0:05:57 > 0:05:59for Innovation and Public Purpose at UCL, and Julian Glover,
0:05:59 > 0:06:02who is Associate Editor of the Evening Standard and formerly
0:06:02 > 0:06:09advised David Cameron's government on transport.
0:06:09 > 0:06:20Good evening. We can start with where it goes wrong. What would you
0:06:20 > 0:06:24highlight where outsourcing goes wrong?We use this word partnership.
0:06:24 > 0:06:27Where it goes wrong is we don't define what a good partnership. If
0:06:27 > 0:06:36you talk to a biologist they would say ecosystems candy
0:06:36 > 0:06:40say ecosystems candy parasitic or bionic. We can change the contracts.
0:06:40 > 0:06:42There has also been this self-effacing prophecy that the more
0:06:42 > 0:06:47we outsource the brains of Government to the public sector,
0:06:47 > 0:07:01there has also been a lower tolerance on it. You make it
0:07:01 > 0:07:05conditional in terms of increasing the quality. You should also
0:07:05 > 0:07:07maintain direction. You should have a sense of what kind of system you
0:07:07 > 0:07:14want.You would keep the strategy in-house?Yes.And you want the
0:07:14 > 0:07:18brains to be able to buy the services in-house?Yes, but there is
0:07:18 > 0:07:20also a question of profits. The recent debate has been that these
0:07:20 > 0:07:25companies are not profitable. Often when they are not profitable, the
0:07:25 > 0:07:31question is, is there a risk reward relationship? There should be. They
0:07:31 > 0:07:35are not taking risks. They are often assuming that the public sector
0:07:35 > 0:07:38continues to actually take on both in the beginning the high-level
0:07:38 > 0:07:42risk, but also then bails them out when things go wrong. Often the
0:07:42 > 0:07:47reward, even when it is there, is not actually justified.Julian, you
0:07:47 > 0:07:52are in the Department for Transport. You had all of those problems with
0:07:52 > 0:07:55the East Coast and West Coast franchises. Trying to write a
0:07:55 > 0:08:03contract for something that would be run by the public.A lot of the
0:08:03 > 0:08:07problems of these contracts in different areas are linking to the
0:08:07 > 0:08:10Government. The capability of Government knowing what it has to be
0:08:10 > 0:08:15to be a good customer. If you want a hospital run in one place without
0:08:15 > 0:08:19any changes, long period of time, it isn't a bad idea to sign a lock in
0:08:19 > 0:08:23contract for that period. Trouble is, a few years and you decide to
0:08:23 > 0:08:29shift. If you hand over a motorway to the private sector, the public
0:08:29 > 0:08:34sector has done a good job with the makers, but as soon as you make a
0:08:34 > 0:08:37choice it's an issue. The Government doesn't know what it wants. It
0:08:37 > 0:08:41changes its mind. Doing things with a private contract is a good idea.
0:08:41 > 0:08:50But you wanted diversity -- but you want a big diversity. Government
0:08:50 > 0:08:53centralising decisions will always be difficult. When things were just
0:08:53 > 0:08:56run through the centre, when it took three months to get a telephone
0:08:56 > 0:08:58through the post office, that wasn't good. Direct organisations didn't
0:08:58 > 0:09:03have a good reputation of maintaining and building houses.
0:09:03 > 0:09:10Outsourcing is the problem, it is knowing what you want.But they
0:09:10 > 0:09:15underbid. Virgin stagecoach underbid for the East Coast Railway and they
0:09:15 > 0:09:20couldn't make it work.They overbid. They were running things well.
0:09:20 > 0:09:25Passenger satisfaction figures came out, 90% for virgin route on the
0:09:25 > 0:09:29east coast. The people losing out is the company, which is burning
0:09:29 > 0:09:33through its bond on East Coast. They had to pay a lot of money to win the
0:09:33 > 0:09:37contract.But they race to get the contract. They win the contract.
0:09:37 > 0:09:42They have been overgenerous. Then they are strapped trying to make up
0:09:42 > 0:09:46the money on the little changes to the contract.I fundamentally
0:09:46 > 0:09:50disagree with the point that Government is inevitably almost,
0:09:50 > 0:09:54because of its DNA, a bad client, or isn't going to be deficient. That is
0:09:54 > 0:09:59what you are saying. That is part of the problem. An ideological problem.
0:09:59 > 0:10:02There are many periods in history where Government has functioned
0:10:02 > 0:10:06extremely well. It has been both ambitious, bold, and efficient. And
0:10:06 > 0:10:10other periods come in recent history, it hasn't been. That's not
0:10:10 > 0:10:16just because things have changed.I disagree.There has been a narrative
0:10:16 > 0:10:19which has often convinced, also civil servants themselves, that
0:10:19 > 0:10:23Government failures are even worse than market failures. So, the gavel,
0:10:23 > 0:10:27don't explore, don't take risks, don't invest. When you start
0:10:27 > 0:10:31investing, the machinery of Government, it also going to be
0:10:31 > 0:10:35quite hard...I spent five years working in the Department for
0:10:35 > 0:10:38Transport. Working on projects. Trying to get things happening. I
0:10:38 > 0:10:42didn't find that culture. I found a lot of investment from the Treasury,
0:10:42 > 0:10:50not just borrowed money. Most things happened before 2010, things like
0:10:50 > 0:10:53the M25, signed by the Labour Party, lots of the rail contracts, as well.
0:10:53 > 0:10:56The enthusiasm was for the Government to spend money and do
0:10:56 > 0:11:02things. But you cannot...But you have to have the capacity. Capacity
0:11:02 > 0:11:06is the result of investment...I believe in a diversity of places
0:11:06 > 0:11:10doing interesting things. I worry about the idea. I sat on the fourth
0:11:10 > 0:11:14floor, very good people, I worry about them being in charge of
0:11:14 > 0:11:18everything and planning everything. Would you go down the journey Corbyn
0:11:18 > 0:11:24route? And say, what is wrong with bringing this or in-house, we don't
0:11:24 > 0:11:26need private sector involvement in the NHS, we don't need private
0:11:26 > 0:11:33people redeveloping our council houses, let's do it differently?No.
0:11:33 > 0:11:35What you should be doing is thinking about the problem at hand, which is
0:11:35 > 0:11:40very different to the Department for Transport. Getting the different
0:11:40 > 0:11:44people at the table. The public sector should be there directing the
0:11:44 > 0:11:47show when we are talking about public services. If the private
0:11:47 > 0:11:53sector does want a bit of the game it has proved capable first. It has
0:11:53 > 0:11:57to have capacity itself. We are often talking about public sector
0:11:57 > 0:12:01capacity. But from the recent examples there is a inefficiency.
0:12:01 > 0:12:05But also what kind of risks they will take morte kind of investments,
0:12:05 > 0:12:10getting the contract and the deal is right which will produce public
0:12:10 > 0:12:17value. That is what they should be fighting for.There has been an
0:12:17 > 0:12:21argument about Haringey. The redevelopment. Do you have an
0:12:21 > 0:12:23opinion on that?Note. CHUCKLES
0:12:23 > 0:12:29Julian, would you go far with the more ideological right-wing approach
0:12:29 > 0:12:32that says Government is a very good, carry on, carry on sub contracting
0:12:32 > 0:12:38as far as we have been?I would go both directions. Government should
0:12:38 > 0:12:42be involved in some areas, and more controlling, maybe suburban transit.
0:12:42 > 0:12:45But don't forget the overground railway in North and East London
0:12:45 > 0:12:48which everybody loves is a myriad of private contracts working together.
0:12:48 > 0:12:55But well specified contracts because they are directed. In other areas
0:12:55 > 0:12:58there should be more competition, less state direction. We shouldn't
0:12:58 > 0:13:04assume all of the activities that the state has some guided, moral
0:13:04 > 0:13:07principle. The danger of thinking any private activity is somehow not
0:13:07 > 0:13:13as well-meaning for the public good as something...But there is a
0:13:13 > 0:13:18complete lack transparency...A group of people doing things for the
0:13:18 > 0:13:24growing interest can enhance things for the well-being is a good thing
0:13:24 > 0:13:27for Government.We have the performance targets, the efficiency
0:13:27 > 0:13:34gains of all of the different public sector activities. Carillion,
0:13:34 > 0:13:38capita, they have refused to provide the data. We should get them to
0:13:38 > 0:13:44provide the data.Point made. Thank you both.
0:13:44 > 0:13:46BBC management took something of a pummelling today at a hearing
0:13:46 > 0:13:48of a committee of MPs.
0:13:48 > 0:13:50Pay is the issue, but when Carrie Gracie spoke to the MPs
0:13:50 > 0:13:53about her experience - remember she had resigned as China
0:13:53 > 0:13:56editor as a protest at the lack of pay equality with male
0:13:56 > 0:13:58counterparts - the issue was not just money but the conduct
0:13:58 > 0:14:00of the BBC as an employer.
0:14:00 > 0:14:02Our business editor Helen Thomas watched the proceedings -
0:14:02 > 0:14:09as did a lot of other people in this building.
0:14:09 > 0:14:15The BBC resisted publishing the salaries of its top-paid staff.
0:14:15 > 0:14:19Today, the corporation's management, pay and culture was picked over
0:14:19 > 0:14:23in the most public of settings.
0:14:23 > 0:14:26I have said I don't want any more money.
0:14:26 > 0:14:29I'm not a fiscal liability to the BBC.
0:14:29 > 0:14:32This trying to throw money at me to resolve the problem...
0:14:32 > 0:14:34This will not resolve my problem.
0:14:34 > 0:14:36My problem will be resolved by an acknowledgement that my work
0:14:36 > 0:14:41was of equal value to the men who I served alongside
0:14:41 > 0:14:43as an international editor.
0:14:43 > 0:14:44We have a toxic work atmosphere.
0:14:44 > 0:14:46It is going to get worse.
0:14:46 > 0:14:47We have women leaving.
0:14:47 > 0:14:51The credibility of management is diminished and damaged.
0:14:51 > 0:14:54You know, they are stumbling towards a kind of Greek tragedy
0:14:54 > 0:14:57where they make happen of their own worst fears.
0:14:57 > 0:15:01We are not in the business of producing toothpaste
0:15:01 > 0:15:03or tyres at the BBC.
0:15:03 > 0:15:04Our business is truth.
0:15:04 > 0:15:07We can't operate without the truth.
0:15:07 > 0:15:10If we're not prepared to look at ourselves honestly,
0:15:10 > 0:15:13how can we be trusted to look at anything else?
0:15:13 > 0:15:17I need to be there alongside the other great BBC women,
0:15:17 > 0:15:21also belittled, their work also marginalised,
0:15:21 > 0:15:24helping the BBC to sort it out, and the BBC management need to
0:15:24 > 0:15:27stop treating us as some kind of enemy,
0:15:27 > 0:15:29putting up a kind of fortress with the Emperor and his sons
0:15:29 > 0:15:31behind the fortress wall.
0:15:31 > 0:15:32No.
0:15:32 > 0:15:37This is a BBC that belongs to all of us.
0:15:37 > 0:15:40BBC bosses stressed their commitment to equality, and their plans
0:15:40 > 0:15:45for an improved approach.
0:15:45 > 0:15:50The equality, and equality particularly with women,
0:15:50 > 0:15:53has been something I've felt very, very strongly about
0:15:53 > 0:15:56and wanted to fix.
0:15:56 > 0:15:58So, how is it possible, when there is only five
0:15:58 > 0:16:00international editors, for one to be inadvertently
0:16:00 > 0:16:01underpaid for years?
0:16:01 > 0:16:04Well, the answer is, that's wrong.
0:16:04 > 0:16:05Yes, but how is it possible?
0:16:05 > 0:16:08It's not like there are hundreds all round the world and you
0:16:08 > 0:16:10lose track of who's doing what.
0:16:10 > 0:16:13What we are doing, going forward, is saying we want to make sure
0:16:13 > 0:16:15that we keep these things regularly under review, we're upfront
0:16:15 > 0:16:18about it, so that we don't get the point where the band
0:16:18 > 0:16:21between someone who is a low pay editor, if we are taking
0:16:21 > 0:16:24the editor's say, and the top pay editor is not justifiable.
0:16:24 > 0:16:30The purpose of approvals has been very much about controlling cost,
0:16:30 > 0:16:34not about ensuring equality or ensuring fairness,
0:16:34 > 0:16:38and that's been a mistake.
0:16:38 > 0:16:41Was there anybody, then, responsible for looking
0:16:41 > 0:16:47at the equity across people's pay?
0:16:47 > 0:16:49I think that would have been done within news.
0:16:49 > 0:16:50So who...
0:16:50 > 0:16:53And I think we're accepting that it wasn't done within news.
0:16:53 > 0:16:56Is there any differential which is justifiable?
0:16:56 > 0:17:02We think there is, and I think that this is based on...
0:17:02 > 0:17:06Obviously not based on gender at all.
0:17:06 > 0:17:12It's based on the status of the job, how often it's on the air,
0:17:12 > 0:17:15how interested the audience are.
0:17:15 > 0:17:18Straight ahead, please.
0:17:18 > 0:17:21BBC management spoke about their detailed plans
0:17:21 > 0:17:24to do things better.
0:17:24 > 0:17:27How they intend to address the specific grievances
0:17:27 > 0:17:33of BBC women was less clear.
0:17:33 > 0:17:40Helen is with me now.
0:17:40 > 0:17:46Helen, dramatic testimony, actually. People were absolutely gripped by
0:17:46 > 0:17:55it. Did we have much news from Carrie Gracie?We did. It was
0:17:55 > 0:18:00dramatic, emotional, passionate. She says she's been offered nearly
0:18:00 > 0:18:05£100,000 in back pay. She'd been told she'd been inadvertently
0:18:05 > 0:18:10underpaid. She had a lower salary for her first three years... Years
0:18:10 > 0:18:18as China editor because she was in development. As a very experienced
0:18:18 > 0:18:23China editor, you could see that grated. She talked about a breakdown
0:18:23 > 0:18:28in trust and BBC management, and she was hinting at a collective
0:18:28 > 0:18:33blindness or incompetence in the management of this issue, and
0:18:33 > 0:18:37overall how the BBC treats some of its staff. She was saying she wants
0:18:37 > 0:18:43to stand up and fight for some more junior women who perhaps can't.The
0:18:43 > 0:18:48BBC pre-empted a lot of this, coming out with their own report and doing
0:18:48 > 0:18:52interviews yesterday. Did we learn much news from the BBC's answer to
0:18:52 > 0:18:57their questions?I think the main message was, yes, there may have
0:18:57 > 0:19:03been mistakes in individual cases, but there was no systemic gender
0:19:03 > 0:19:09discrimination, and that the BBC's processes and framework around pay
0:19:09 > 0:19:15are being totally overhauled. We got clarity on one thing. In management
0:19:15 > 0:19:20size, the jobs of China editor and north America editor are not
0:19:20 > 0:19:23directly equivalent, so they should not necessarily be paid the same,
0:19:23 > 0:19:29but as you heard, in some cases the disparity in these jobs had got too
0:19:29 > 0:19:35large.An interesting question is how many employers, what sectors,
0:19:35 > 0:19:39have so many people whose pay is set by individual negotiation and
0:19:39 > 0:19:45discretion on the part of managers, as opposed to people on a scale
0:19:45 > 0:19:51where the pay kind of sick is a structure.I think this industry is
0:19:51 > 0:19:54kind of unusual, but a lot of industries will be looking at this
0:19:54 > 0:20:00and how it is handled. Certainly other media companies, but sectors
0:20:00 > 0:20:04where there is discretion over bonuses, flexibility over how you
0:20:04 > 0:20:11retain people, pay hikes or invented job titles to justify them. I think
0:20:11 > 0:20:16there are lessons for companies everywhere. One is that your gender
0:20:16 > 0:20:20pay gap, that percentage figure, tells you very little about this
0:20:20 > 0:20:24other issue, which is equal pay for people in the same jobs. A lawyer
0:20:24 > 0:20:30said to me this week that we are moving towards a world with more pay
0:20:30 > 0:20:35transparency, and many companies will be thinking, how confident am I
0:20:35 > 0:20:40that my handle on relative pay would stand up to a bit more scrutiny?
0:20:40 > 0:20:42Thank you.
0:20:42 > 0:20:43What's the economic effect of Brexit?
0:20:43 > 0:20:47There is an official assessment - it's made the news in the last two
0:20:47 > 0:20:50days, as it was leaked to the online news service Buzzfeed, and it offers
0:20:50 > 0:20:52a Whitehall view of the economic effects of different Brexit
0:20:52 > 0:20:55scenarios - all negative compared to staying in the EU.
0:20:55 > 0:20:56An awkward conclusion.
0:20:56 > 0:20:57The government has experimented with different ways
0:20:57 > 0:20:59of trying to shrug it off.
0:20:59 > 0:21:01One response was - "Those civil servants -
0:21:01 > 0:21:03they get up to all sorts of mischief".
0:21:03 > 0:21:04Then, "It's just preliminary and incomplete,
0:21:04 > 0:21:05move along, nothing to see".
0:21:05 > 0:21:08But - after saying that they wouldn't publish the analysis,
0:21:08 > 0:21:09today the government said they would.
0:21:09 > 0:21:11Let me start with the terms of the motion.
0:21:11 > 0:21:14We will provide the analysis to the Select Committee
0:21:14 > 0:21:16for exiting the European Union, and all members, on a strictly
0:21:16 > 0:21:17confidential basis.
0:21:17 > 0:21:21This means we will provide a hard copy of the analysis to the chair
0:21:21 > 0:21:25of the EU Select Committee, and a confidential reading room
0:21:25 > 0:21:28will be available to all members and peers
0:21:28 > 0:21:35to see a copy of this analysis once those arrangements can be made.
0:21:35 > 0:21:38Well, that may or may not change people's minds when it comes -
0:21:38 > 0:21:40but without waiting, we now have a little more
0:21:40 > 0:21:41from the leaked document.
0:21:41 > 0:21:44Buzzfeed have released a line on what it says about the estimated
0:21:44 > 0:21:48effect of reducing EU immigration.
0:21:48 > 0:21:50Alberto Nardelli, Buzzfeed's Europe Editor, is with us -
0:21:50 > 0:21:58he received the leaked document.
0:21:59 > 0:22:05So what is the line on immigration? I think the point on immigration in
0:22:05 > 0:22:10the analysis is that it shines the light on one of the other conundrums
0:22:10 > 0:22:14this government is facing. It shows that under different potential
0:22:14 > 0:22:18policy scenarios, on the one hand the number of people from the EU
0:22:18 > 0:22:27arriving in the UK would be reduced from about 90,000 to 40,000 a year.
0:22:27 > 0:22:33But it provides a hit on the economy, and the problem the
0:22:33 > 0:22:36government has is that the upsides of Brexit, such as the trade deal
0:22:36 > 0:22:41with the United States, the value to GDP that this would provide, is far
0:22:41 > 0:22:46smaller than that hit. This issue cuts across this document.We knew
0:22:46 > 0:22:50the general economic effect was negative, but specifically, the
0:22:50 > 0:22:54benefit of going off and saying we can trade with the US, because we're
0:22:54 > 0:23:01not in the customs union or the single market, is offset by the fact
0:23:01 > 0:23:04that the immigration control you have the freedom to impose is going
0:23:04 > 0:23:10to more than wipe out the benefit? Exactly. If you look at this
0:23:10 > 0:23:15document, there is no scenario in which nontariff barriers, even if
0:23:15 > 0:23:21the UK were to stay in the single market through the European Economic
0:23:21 > 0:23:24Area, it would mitigate some of those losses, but there is no
0:23:24 > 0:23:30scenario in which all of those losses would be eliminated. This
0:23:30 > 0:23:37document doesn't aim to refight the referendum. It says, Britain is
0:23:37 > 0:23:41leaving be you. These are the upsides and downsides. This is what
0:23:41 > 0:23:47it looks like in terms of the impact on the economy. Now, ministers,
0:23:47 > 0:23:51decide what you want to do.Of all the things you have published out of
0:23:51 > 0:23:57it, and you haven't published it all, to protect your sources, all of
0:23:57 > 0:24:02them, the upside affect of a trade deal with the US is estimated at
0:24:02 > 0:24:07approximately zero, isn't it? That is how much bigger our economy is in
0:24:07 > 0:24:1615 years' time, 0.2% bigger.The document includes trade deals with
0:24:16 > 0:24:20China, New Zealand, the Gulf countries, the some of those would
0:24:20 > 0:24:27add about 0.2 to 0.4%.It is very little. Thank you.
0:24:27 > 0:24:30Well, here to talk about the implications of that report, I'm
0:24:30 > 0:24:33joined by two of the biggest beats from the Conservative jungle.
0:24:33 > 0:24:35Peter Bone was a founding member of the grassroots out!
0:24:35 > 0:24:36campaign.
0:24:36 > 0:24:38That wasn't affiliated to the official leave campaign
0:24:38 > 0:24:41and had a stronger emphasis on the need to cut immigration.
0:24:41 > 0:24:42And Ken Clarke.
0:24:42 > 0:24:44He is a passionate remainer, a former cabinet minister
0:24:44 > 0:24:46and of course Father of the House.
0:24:46 > 0:24:49Good evening. Peter Bone, what do you make of specifically the
0:24:49 > 0:24:53immigration stuff, that they are finding immigration as a negative?
0:24:53 > 0:25:01You knew that.We aren't only 132 days away from withdrawing from the
0:25:01 > 0:25:04European Union, that is the good news. On immigration, this is
0:25:04 > 0:25:13Project Fear Mark two. We had Project Fear before the referendum.
0:25:13 > 0:25:16The British public listened to all the arguments, the economic
0:25:16 > 0:25:23arguments, and decided to vote Leave. It Nigel Farage says there
0:25:23 > 0:25:30will be a cost of immigration reduction, but what do you think? We
0:25:30 > 0:25:33will have a fairer immigration system and the same rules and
0:25:33 > 0:25:38regulations across the whole world. We're not going to discriminate in
0:25:38 > 0:25:44favour of the European Union. An unemployed person from Romania or
0:25:44 > 0:25:47somewhere could come into the country now, where as a doctor or
0:25:47 > 0:25:52nurse from India will have to go through all the hoops. We will have
0:25:52 > 0:25:56a fairer immigration system, and all the parties can calibrate it how
0:25:56 > 0:26:01they want.Should we take these figures are seriously? They have
0:26:01 > 0:26:06been dismissed by a number of Brexiteers. They say the immediate
0:26:06 > 0:26:12forecasts following the referendum did not...It helps to understand
0:26:12 > 0:26:18what they are. The present silly debate we are having on Brexit is
0:26:18 > 0:26:21made silly if anybody rejects any expert that comes up with something
0:26:21 > 0:26:28that doesn't fit their side of the argument.
0:26:28 > 0:26:33argument. Very high-powered people have made a serious assessment on
0:26:33 > 0:26:39the impact of the economy on the things that
0:26:39 > 0:26:43things that might change, because we don't know exactly what we are going
0:26:43 > 0:26:47to do with our economic relationships or with immigration.
0:26:47 > 0:26:51As a Cabinet minister, this is the kind of thing I would expect to have
0:26:51 > 0:26:59from the officials, giving me their best expert objective assessment.
0:26:59 > 0:27:03They may have restrictive models that building all the facts. I might
0:27:03 > 0:27:12be affected by the groupthink. Most of the economic changes, leaving the
0:27:12 > 0:27:15single market, leaving the customs union, is going to damage our
0:27:15 > 0:27:21economy. We are leaving one of the richest multinational free-trade
0:27:21 > 0:27:26agreements in the world. This is an expert attempt to say that it is
0:27:26 > 0:27:31going to affect the economy by about this amount. Everybody has always
0:27:31 > 0:27:42known will stop immigrants from the EU, young people coming to take jobs
0:27:42 > 0:27:50that British people will not take for some reason, for example in the
0:27:50 > 0:27:54entertainment industry. This is a fair way of assessing what the
0:27:54 > 0:27:59impact might be, the best estimate anybody is likely to make. It should
0:27:59 > 0:28:04be published to the public and the Cabinet should be allowed to see it.
0:28:04 > 0:28:08Peter, do you agree that everybody should be allowed to see it and make
0:28:08 > 0:28:12their own judgment?There are documents that have not been
0:28:12 > 0:28:18completed. They never made it to the Cabinet. They didn't even look at
0:28:18 > 0:28:23what Theresa May is trying to achieve, it didn't even look at that
0:28:23 > 0:28:28model. If we are going to talk about experts, let's talk about a
0:28:28 > 0:28:33professor who says we are going to be vastly better off. He has been
0:28:33 > 0:28:40proved more right than the Treasury. No, he hasn't.The Treasury got it
0:28:40 > 0:28:47totally wrong before.He is the only economist I know who thinks that we
0:28:47 > 0:28:53will just open our tariff...But is he more right than the Treasury? He
0:28:53 > 0:28:59said there wouldn't be a disaster after the referendum.We are poorer
0:28:59 > 0:29:07since the referendum. Let me answer you. There is no doubt that large
0:29:07 > 0:29:10sections of the population are poorer now than they would have been
0:29:10 > 0:29:16if we had voted to remain, because it set off a devaluation, because it
0:29:16 > 0:29:20damaged confidence in British sterling assets, and that caused
0:29:20 > 0:29:24inflation. The real wages of many people are not keeping up with this
0:29:24 > 0:29:31inflation.The lowest unemployment for 40 years!The reason we need an
0:29:31 > 0:29:36analysis is to stop having slogans from Brexiteers, and all this
0:29:36 > 0:29:41nonsense to denounce any attempt to analyse...I think we have
0:29:41 > 0:29:45demonstrated that having a fewer number is doesn't necessarily
0:29:45 > 0:29:48resolve the argument! Thank you both.
0:29:48 > 0:29:50The past week has seen horrific violence in
0:29:50 > 0:29:51the Afghan capital Kabul.
0:29:51 > 0:29:53Indeed the country has seen horrific violence for much
0:29:53 > 0:29:54of the past 40 years.
0:29:54 > 0:29:57And during that time there's been very little real justice
0:29:57 > 0:29:58for any of the victims.
0:29:58 > 0:30:01No process of criminal trial for war crimes, nor a peace
0:30:01 > 0:30:02and reconciliation process either.
0:30:02 > 0:30:04But it is possible that the International Criminal Court's
0:30:04 > 0:30:06prosecutor could launch a formal war crimes investigation.
0:30:06 > 0:30:08And today is an important one in that process -
0:30:08 > 0:30:11because it is the last day on which victims can
0:30:11 > 0:30:13make their submissions to judges at the court,
0:30:13 > 0:30:15saying why they think there should be an inquiry.
0:30:15 > 0:30:17That's whether they are accusing the Taliban, the CIA
0:30:17 > 0:30:22or Afghan officials.
0:30:22 > 0:30:23Secunder Kermani has been talking to victims
0:30:23 > 0:30:25to hear their stories, and their feelings
0:30:25 > 0:30:26about obtaining justice.
0:30:26 > 0:30:29Just to warn you, some of the testimony in the film
0:30:29 > 0:30:37is extremely graphic.
0:30:39 > 0:30:42Hospital CCTV cameras captured the moment a huge Taliban bomb
0:30:42 > 0:30:49exploded on Saturday outside a police compound across the road.
0:30:49 > 0:30:53It had been hidden inside an ambulance.
0:30:53 > 0:30:55Over 100 people died.
0:30:55 > 0:30:57It's just one of the many potential crimes against humanity
0:30:57 > 0:30:59committed in Afghanistan by many different groups.
0:30:59 > 0:31:01Now judges at the International Criminal Court are beginning
0:31:01 > 0:31:04to examine submissions from victims here in Afghanistan.
0:31:04 > 0:31:06They are deciding whether to authorise an official investigation
0:31:06 > 0:31:08into war crimes that could see charges being levelled
0:31:08 > 0:31:10against high-ranking Taliban members, against CIA officials,
0:31:10 > 0:31:18and leading figures in the Afghan government.
0:31:27 > 0:31:2932-year-old Samara worked as a cook in an orphanage.
0:31:29 > 0:31:32She was killed in another suicide bombing by the Taliban
0:31:32 > 0:31:39in Kabul last July.
0:31:51 > 0:31:52Now, Samara's 17-year-old daughter, Fatima, wants
0:31:52 > 0:31:54the International Criminal Court to bring charges
0:31:54 > 0:31:58against the Taliban.
0:31:58 > 0:32:05She's lost faith in the Afghan authorities.
0:32:17 > 0:32:24Fatima says she's not afraid of reprisals.
0:32:36 > 0:32:38But to get justice for Fatima's mother, those responsible
0:32:38 > 0:32:45would first need to be identified, then somehow arrested.
0:32:45 > 0:32:48You've got to catch the Taliban - or you've got to catch
0:32:48 > 0:32:49the individuals.
0:32:49 > 0:32:53You've got to bring them to The Hague, and you've got
0:32:53 > 0:32:54to put them on trial, and you need evidence,
0:32:54 > 0:32:56and that evidence comes in the form of documents,
0:32:56 > 0:32:58it comes in the form of witness statements,
0:32:58 > 0:33:01and that gathering exercise, for an institution that doesn't
0:33:01 > 0:33:06have its own police force, is incredibly problematic.
0:33:06 > 0:33:09The proposed investigation by the ICC would look at crimes
0:33:09 > 0:33:14committed from May 2003.
0:33:14 > 0:33:15That would cover some prisoners taken from
0:33:15 > 0:33:20Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay.
0:33:20 > 0:33:22Many were initially held at the Bagram detention centre,
0:33:22 > 0:33:26just outside Kabul.
0:33:26 > 0:33:28Campaign group Reprieve are making submissions to the ICC
0:33:28 > 0:33:31on behalf of three men.
0:33:31 > 0:33:34When you look back at the kinds of things that happened
0:33:34 > 0:33:36to the prisoners detained in Afghanistan, in Bagram,
0:33:36 > 0:33:38in other secret facilities, we're seeing all manner of abuses,
0:33:38 > 0:33:40including Russian roulette with guns, men held in stress
0:33:40 > 0:33:43positions for days, doused with freezing water,
0:33:43 > 0:33:51attacks on their genitals...
0:33:51 > 0:33:55Abuses that really destroy the men both physically and psychologically,
0:33:55 > 0:33:57and what's important to remember here is that these abuses
0:33:57 > 0:34:05were perpetrated at the behest of the top commanders.
0:34:07 > 0:34:09American officials have described the proposed
0:34:09 > 0:34:16investigation in Afghanistan as "unwarranted and unjustified".
0:34:16 > 0:34:18The United States isn't signed up to the International Criminal Court,
0:34:18 > 0:34:22and that's not all.
0:34:22 > 0:34:26A Bush-era law passed by Congress says that if any American personnel
0:34:26 > 0:34:29are ever sent for trial at the ICC, US authorities are allowed to use
0:34:29 > 0:34:32all means necessary to free them.
0:34:32 > 0:34:40That could, in theory, mean military action.
0:34:43 > 0:34:48The ICC prosecutor is also asking to investigate allegations of abuse
0:34:48 > 0:34:54by Afghan officials.
0:34:54 > 0:34:57Perhaps the most high-ranking alleged offender was
0:34:57 > 0:34:59General Abdul Rashid Dostum.
0:34:59 > 0:35:01The current Vice President has been dogged by claims of human
0:35:01 > 0:35:03rights abuses for decades.
0:35:03 > 0:35:06He is currently in Turkey in de facto exile after one
0:35:06 > 0:35:12particularly grim allegation.
0:35:12 > 0:35:15In late 2016, Ahmad Ishchi, a political rival of Dostum's,
0:35:15 > 0:35:22says he was beaten and sodomised on his orders.
0:35:48 > 0:35:50Dostum refused to appear in court in Afghanistan.
0:35:50 > 0:35:57Ishchi believes the ICC should now step in.
0:36:18 > 0:36:22Dostum denies any wrongdoing.
0:36:22 > 0:36:24His spokesman says Ishchi was never raped.
0:36:24 > 0:36:26The judges of the International Criminal Court still need to decide
0:36:26 > 0:36:28whether to authorise a formal investigation, let
0:36:28 > 0:36:32alone level charges.
0:36:32 > 0:36:35But this is a country where people are desperate for some
0:36:35 > 0:36:43kind of accountability after years of violence.
0:36:47 > 0:36:49It's not a modern problem, establishing that a potential sexual
0:36:49 > 0:36:51partner is happy to become an actual one.
0:36:51 > 0:36:54Fumbling a way through the flirting, the come-ons or the rejections
0:36:54 > 0:36:55is part of growing up.
0:36:55 > 0:36:58But the issue of sexual consent has never been
0:36:58 > 0:36:59as charged as it is today.
0:36:59 > 0:37:02In fact, an app has come along to help would-be partners make
0:37:02 > 0:37:07explicit their permission to proceed in a contract.
0:37:07 > 0:37:10The fact that it describes itself as secured in the blockchain
0:37:10 > 0:37:13will either inspire confidence or scepticism.
0:37:13 > 0:37:16But whether the app takes off, is this kind of formal contracting
0:37:16 > 0:37:18process seriously the answer to the many cases of disputed
0:37:18 > 0:37:25consent, or confused intentions?
0:37:25 > 0:37:27What kind of consent should people be comfortable with?
0:37:27 > 0:37:29I'm joined by Kate Parker, a barrister,
0:37:29 > 0:37:32who has set up a charity called The Schools Consent Project,
0:37:32 > 0:37:34which sends lawyers into schools to discuss issues relating
0:37:34 > 0:37:41to consent and key sexual offences.
0:37:42 > 0:37:48Good evening. Some of this is motivated by what is happening in
0:37:48 > 0:37:52Sweden. Maybe you can tell us. They have passed a law which says
0:37:52 > 0:37:56explicit consent is required.It's exactly that. I'm not a Swedish
0:37:56 > 0:38:07lawyer. Their law has done a U-turn. Originally it was that for a rape
0:38:07 > 0:38:10prosecution or conviction it had to be threats of violence. Obviously
0:38:10 > 0:38:17there were lots of permutations to that. That has now moved to a
0:38:17 > 0:38:22position where there has to be explicit, verbalised consent.
0:38:22 > 0:38:29Failing that, a conviction will be overturned.What do you think of the
0:38:29 > 0:38:35idea of a nap where you literally, I think it involves a photo, you can
0:38:35 > 0:38:43take various boxes. -- the idea of an app.I think that is problematic
0:38:43 > 0:38:50in a number of ways. Anything that purports to externalise and modify
0:38:50 > 0:38:54consent, some hours possibly before any sexual interaction takes place,
0:38:54 > 0:38:59is a worry. Consent is a live thing. It involves two human beings
0:38:59 > 0:39:05checking in with each other.It's a process.Exactly. You might give a
0:39:05 > 0:39:09licence for one thing, and in actual fact what happens in the bedroom
0:39:09 > 0:39:15turns out to be something completely different.Exactly.I think it is
0:39:15 > 0:39:17unworkable. But trying to open up conversations about consent, as my
0:39:17 > 0:39:25charity does, is important.You are sceptical about explicit, requiring
0:39:25 > 0:39:28explicit verbal consent, or not. Because everybody just thinks of
0:39:28 > 0:39:33conversations where people fumble through very awkwardly, really.From
0:39:33 > 0:39:37a legal perspective, going back to Sweden's law, it almost reverses the
0:39:37 > 0:39:43standard of proof. There are scenarios where you read somebody's
0:39:43 > 0:39:46nonverbal cues and you are able to understand that they are consenting.
0:39:46 > 0:39:50The example, a couple who might have been together 20 years is unlikely
0:39:50 > 0:39:53to check in with one another that explicitly and say, due consent to
0:39:53 > 0:40:02this, that? -- do you consent. There might be situations that do not
0:40:02 > 0:40:05require verbalised consent.You run this schools project. What is your
0:40:05 > 0:40:12advice to young people about how to engage in this? It can just be so
0:40:12 > 0:40:16awkward and embarrassing. There are so many other things you are trying
0:40:16 > 0:40:20to overcome.Absolutely. There might be alcohol involved, nervousness,
0:40:20 > 0:40:25whatever it might be.Exactly. Communication, we say, is the
0:40:25 > 0:40:31answer. That doesn't mean saying, do you consent to this?Exactly, we do
0:40:31 > 0:40:36not want a turn-off, what is the communication?Something like does
0:40:36 > 0:40:41this feel good to you? What do you like? Opening up the channels of
0:40:41 > 0:40:44communication is really important with young people. Even just
0:40:44 > 0:40:49discussing it in a classroom, so they have some kind of pre-thinking
0:40:49 > 0:40:52before they find themselves in these scenarios. We think it's very
0:40:52 > 0:40:59important.Just put the other side, 99.9% of cases will be dealt with
0:40:59 > 0:41:04perfectly finally on that kind of basis. There will be .1% where there
0:41:04 > 0:41:11will disputed consent. Maybe you do just have to go the Swedish way,
0:41:11 > 0:41:14because those ones are so awful that you have to say, look, everybody
0:41:14 > 0:41:19else has to go with explicit consent, so we can deal with the
0:41:19 > 0:41:25point 1% that are not.Turning to our law on consent, our law says a
0:41:25 > 0:41:30person consent if she or he agrees by Joyce and has the capacity to
0:41:30 > 0:41:36make that choice. As I understand, there is no agreement that it should
0:41:36 > 0:41:40change. -- by choice and has the capacity. Your own personal standard
0:41:40 > 0:41:45might have to be higher than the law.Good etiquette.Enthusiasm
0:41:45 > 0:41:49rather than capacity, for example. Thanks very much. That is all we
0:41:49 > 0:41:53have time for this evening. Kirsty will be back in this chair tomorrow.
0:41:53 > 0:42:01Have a very good night.