31/01/2018 Newsnight

He might have thought out sourcing

public services did not work for the

taxpayer, but another profit warning

shows it may be doesn't work for

private companies either.

Capita

says it needs to streamline its

business and get it debt down, the

latest in a spate of knocks to the

whole outsourcing industry. We'll

take a long hard look at when

outsourcing helps and when it should

be avoided.

After decades of horrific violence

in Afghanistan the International

criminal Court is considering a war

crimes investigation. But could

justice, much like peace, proved

elusive in this war-torn country?

They don't want what

is sometimes called

low hanging fruit, basically.

The foot soldiers who carry out,

most directly, the nasty activities.

So you've got to apprehend those

people, and that's not so

straightforward.

And should we require

explicit consent before sex?

A new app seems to think so.

We'll talk to a barrister

about what consent is,

and how we get it.

Hello there.

Has outsourcing had its day?

For decades now, it has been

a mantra within government,

that virtually any activity is best

put out to the market -

running trains, prisons,

construction projects, anything.

For a long time, some have

thought that the private

contractors coin it in,

at the expense of the workers,

and the taxpayers.

But the news that a huge

private contractor, Capita,

has had to make a profit warning,

and has seen its share

price plummet today,

weeks after Carillion went bust,

raises the question -

does sub-contracting

work for anybody at all?

Capita is in a different place

to Carillion, it is taking action

that Carillion didn't,

to prevent itself becoming another

sad business casualty,

but it's problems are just

the latest to lead to a rethink

about the activity on the border

of the public and private sectors.

These are difficult times

for believers in the private

delivery of public services.

It's not just the demise

of Carillion, other contracting

companies face financial challenges.

Train franchises

are struggling, too.

Virgin Stagecoach pulling out

of its east coast contract.

In Haringey, the Labour council has

been rocked by division over

a public private partnership

for redeveloping social housing

and other public assets.

Is the game up for contracting?

These corporations, Mr Speaker,

need to be shown the door.

We need our public services

provided by Public employees

with a public service ethos,

and a strong public oversight.

It is commonly framed as binary.

Private sector, all good or all bad.

But in reality, when you think

of all the things that go

on inside an organisation,

it's an argument about

where you draw a line.

The line between what

you buy in from outside

and what you keep in-house.

It applies as much in the private

sector as the public.

Some areas are relatively clear-cut.

Few organisations will want

to maintain their own lifts.

It's a specialist task,

lift servicing companies will likely

be better at lift maintenance.

Unless you're a lift company,

lift maintenance is not your thing,

so it's one to contract out.

Government should absolutely

consider outsourcing in instances

where the thing that it wants to buy

is already being bought

by lots of other people.

So particularly if that's

goods like, you know,

pencils, or even catering,

a service but lots

of people are buying.

Similarly if it's really easy

to measure the performance then

Government is going to be able

to have a good idea whether or not

the provider it is paying has

delivered that service well.

And similarly, is there going to be

any reputation risk for Government?

In those instances Government should

absolutely be looking to outsource.

Sometimes you need

private expertise.

When Ken Livingstone introduced

a congestion charge to London

it was a formidable logistical task.

Capita made it happen.

And another advantage

was that Capita could be

penalised for any screw ups,

of which there were a few.

Risk was transferred.

But what about core activities?

Do we expect Government to outsource

the role of Government?

The big questions are about

the delivery of complex services,

so whether it's prisons,

or probation, or adoption,

Government is the only organisation

buying those services.

And there's not a proper market,

it's really difficult

to measure performance,

and if they go wrong the

Government's likely to get blamed.

I think that is where

the debate needs to be

about whether outsourcing

is right or not.

One challenge is that contracts

are hard to draw up and monitor.

You can argue about the definition

of an egg in a catering

contract if you want to.

The second challenge

is the companies which win

contracts are often the ones

who bid unrealistically.

With awkward consequences.

Firstly, Government is focused

on price rather than quality,

or value for money.

And as a result these firms bid very

low, but have become quite

overstretched and fragile,

which means they are more

likely to collapse.

The second problem is that

Government has not put a huge amount

of work into overseeing and managing

these contracts well.

Which means that when these

organisations do collapse Government

is often taken unawares,

or doesn't have anything set up

to pick up the pieces.

So is it less a question

about public or private

being better, and more a question

of how effectively each

manages the other?

I'm now joined by Professor Mariana

Mazzucato, Director of the Institute

for Innovation and Public Purpose

at UCL, and Julian Glover,

who is Associate Editor

of the Evening Standard and formerly

advised David Cameron's

government on transport.

Good evening. We can start with

where it goes wrong. What would you

highlight where outsourcing goes

wrong?

We use this word partnership.

Where it goes wrong is we don't

define what a good partnership. If

you talk to a biologist they would

say ecosystems candy

say ecosystems candy parasitic or

bionic. We can change the contracts.

There has also been this

self-effacing prophecy that the more

we outsource the brains of

Government to the public sector,

there has also been a lower

tolerance on it. You make it

conditional in terms of increasing

the quality. You should also

maintain direction. You should have

a sense of what kind of system you

want.

You would keep the strategy

in-house?

Yes.

And you want the

brains to be able to buy the

services in-house?

Yes, but there is

also a question of profits. The

recent debate has been that these

companies are not profitable. Often

when they are not profitable, the

question is, is there a risk reward

relationship? There should be. They

are not taking risks. They are often

assuming that the public sector

continues to actually take on both

in the beginning the high-level

risk, but also then bails them out

when things go wrong. Often the

reward, even when it is there, is

not actually justified.

Julian, you

are in the Department for Transport.

You had all of those problems with

the East Coast and West Coast

franchises. Trying to write a

contract for something that would be

run by the public.

A lot of the

problems of these contracts in

different areas are linking to the

Government. The capability of

Government knowing what it has to be

to be a good customer. If you want a

hospital run in one place without

any changes, long period of time, it

isn't a bad idea to sign a lock in

contract for that period. Trouble

is, a few years and you decide to

shift. If you hand over a motorway

to the private sector, the public

sector has done a good job with the

makers, but as soon as you make a

choice it's an issue. The Government

doesn't know what it wants. It

changes its mind. Doing things with

a private contract is a good idea.

But you wanted diversity -- but you

want a big diversity. Government

centralising decisions will always

be difficult. When things were just

run through the centre, when it took

three months to get a telephone

through the post office, that wasn't

good. Direct organisations didn't

have a good reputation of

maintaining and building houses.

Outsourcing is the problem, it is

knowing what you want.

But they

underbid. Virgin stagecoach underbid

for the East Coast Railway and they

couldn't make it work.

They overbid.

They were running things well.

Passenger satisfaction figures came

out, 90% for virgin route on the

east coast. The people losing out is

the company, which is burning

through its bond on East Coast. They

had to pay a lot of money to win the

contract.

But they race to get the

contract. They win the contract.

They have been overgenerous. Then

they are strapped trying to make up

the money on the little changes to

the contract.

I fundamentally

disagree with the point that

Government is inevitably almost,

because of its DNA, a bad client, or

isn't going to be deficient. That is

what you are saying. That is part of

the problem. An ideological problem.

There are many periods in history

where Government has functioned

extremely well. It has been both

ambitious, bold, and efficient. And

other periods come in recent

history, it hasn't been. That's not

just because things have changed.

I

disagree.

There has been a narrative

which has often convinced, also

civil servants themselves, that

Government failures are even worse

than market failures. So, the gavel,

don't explore, don't take risks,

don't invest. When you start

investing, the machinery of

Government, it also going to be

quite hard...

I spent five years

working in the Department for

Transport. Working on projects.

Trying to get things happening. I

didn't find that culture. I found a

lot of investment from the Treasury,

not just borrowed money. Most things

happened before 2010, things like

the M25, signed by the Labour Party,

lots of the rail contracts, as well.

The enthusiasm was for the

Government to spend money and do

things. But you cannot...

But you

have to have the capacity. Capacity

is the result of investment...

I

believe in a diversity of places

doing interesting things. I worry

about the idea. I sat on the fourth

floor, very good people, I worry

about them being in charge of

everything and planning everything.

Would you go down the journey Corbyn

route? And say, what is wrong with

bringing this or in-house, we don't

need private sector involvement in

the NHS, we don't need private

people redeveloping our council

houses, let's do it differently?

No.

What you should be doing is thinking

about the problem at hand, which is

very different to the Department for

Transport. Getting the different

people at the table. The public

sector should be there directing the

show when we are talking about

public services. If the private

sector does want a bit of the game

it has proved capable first. It has

to have capacity itself. We are

often talking about public sector

capacity. But from the recent

examples there is a inefficiency.

But also what kind of risks they

will take morte kind of investments,

getting the contract and the deal is

right which will produce public

value. That is what they should be

fighting for.

There has been an

argument about Haringey. The

redevelopment. Do you have an

opinion on that?

Note.

CHUCKLES

Julian, would you go far with the

more ideological right-wing approach

that says Government is a very good,

carry on, carry on sub contracting

as far as we have been?

I would go

both directions. Government should

be involved in some areas, and more

controlling, maybe suburban transit.

But don't forget the overground

railway in North and East London

which everybody loves is a myriad of

private contracts working together.

But well specified contracts because

they are directed. In other areas

there should be more competition,

less state direction. We shouldn't

assume all of the activities that

the state has some guided, moral

principle. The danger of thinking

any private activity is somehow not

as well-meaning for the public good

as something...

But there is a

complete lack transparency...

A

group of people doing things for the

growing interest can enhance things

for the well-being is a good thing

for Government.

We have the

performance targets, the efficiency

gains of all of the different public

sector activities. Carillion,

capita, they have refused to provide

the data. We should get them to

provide the data.

Point made. Thank

you both.

BBC management took something

of a pummelling today at a hearing

of a committee of MPs.

Pay is the issue, but when

Carrie Gracie spoke to the MPs

about her experience -

remember she had resigned as China

editor as a protest at the lack

of pay equality with male

counterparts - the issue was not

just money but the conduct

of the BBC as an employer.

Our business editor Helen Thomas

watched the proceedings -

as did a lot of other people

in this building.

The BBC resisted publishing

the salaries of its top-paid staff.

Today, the corporation's management,

pay and culture was picked over

in the most public of settings.

I have said I don't

want any more money.

I'm not a fiscal

liability to the BBC.

This trying to throw money at me

to resolve the problem...

This will not resolve my problem.

My problem will be resolved

by an acknowledgement that my work

was of equal value to the men

who I served alongside

as an international editor.

We have a toxic work atmosphere.

It is going to get worse.

We have women leaving.

The credibility of management

is diminished and damaged.

You know, they are stumbling

towards a kind of Greek tragedy

where they make happen

of their own worst fears.

We are not in the business

of producing toothpaste

or tyres at the BBC.

Our business is truth.

We can't operate without the truth.

If we're not prepared to look

at ourselves honestly,

how can we be trusted to look

at anything else?

I need to be there alongside

the other great BBC women,

also belittled,

their work also marginalised,

helping the BBC to sort it out,

and the BBC management need to

stop treating us as

some kind of enemy,

putting up a kind of fortress

with the Emperor and his sons

behind the fortress wall.

No.

This is a BBC that

belongs to all of us.

BBC bosses stressed their commitment

to equality, and their plans

for an improved approach.

The equality, and equality

particularly with women,

has been something I've felt very,

very strongly about

and wanted to fix.

So, how is it possible,

when there is only five

international editors,

for one to be inadvertently

underpaid for years?

Well, the answer is, that's wrong.

Yes, but how is it possible?

It's not like there are hundreds

all round the world and you

lose track of who's doing what.

What we are doing, going forward,

is saying we want to make sure

that we keep these things regularly

under review, we're upfront

about it, so that we don't get

the point where the band

between someone who is a low pay

editor, if we are taking

the editor's say, and the top pay

editor is not justifiable.

The purpose of approvals has been

very much about controlling cost,

not about ensuring equality

or ensuring fairness,

and that's been a mistake.

Was there anybody, then,

responsible for looking

at the equity across people's pay?

I think that would have

been done within news.

So who...

And I think we're accepting that it

wasn't done within news.

Is there any differential

which is justifiable?

We think there is, and I think

that this is based on...

Obviously not based

on gender at all.

It's based on the status of the job,

how often it's on the air,

how interested the audience are.

Straight ahead, please.

BBC management spoke

about their detailed plans

to do things better.

How they intend to address

the specific grievances

of BBC women was less clear.

Helen is with me now.

Helen, dramatic testimony, actually.

People were absolutely gripped by

it. Did we have much news from

Carrie Gracie?

We did. It was

dramatic, emotional, passionate. She

says she's been offered nearly

£100,000 in back pay. She'd been

told she'd been inadvertently

underpaid. She had a lower salary

for her first three years... Years

as China editor because she was in

development. As a very experienced

China editor, you could see that

grated. She talked about a breakdown

in trust and BBC management, and she

was hinting at a collective

blindness or incompetence in the

management of this issue, and

overall how the BBC treats some of

its staff. She was saying she wants

to stand up and fight for some more

junior women who perhaps can't.

The

BBC pre-empted a lot of this, coming

out with their own report and doing

interviews yesterday. Did we learn

much news from the BBC's answer to

their questions?

I think the main

message was, yes, there may have

been mistakes in individual cases,

but there was no systemic gender

discrimination, and that the BBC's

processes and framework around pay

are being totally overhauled. We got

clarity on one thing. In management

size, the jobs of China editor and

north America editor are not

directly equivalent, so they should

not necessarily be paid the same,

but as you heard, in some cases the

disparity in these jobs had got too

large.

An interesting question is

how many employers, what sectors,

have so many people whose pay is set

by individual negotiation and

discretion on the part of managers,

as opposed to people on a scale

where the pay kind of sick is a

structure.

I think this industry is

kind of unusual, but a lot of

industries will be looking at this

and how it is handled. Certainly

other media companies, but sectors

where there is discretion over

bonuses, flexibility over how you

retain people, pay hikes or invented

job titles to justify them. I think

there are lessons for companies

everywhere. One is that your gender

pay gap, that percentage figure,

tells you very little about this

other issue, which is equal pay for

people in the same jobs. A lawyer

said to me this week that we are

moving towards a world with more pay

transparency, and many companies

will be thinking, how confident am I

that my handle on relative pay would

stand up to a bit more scrutiny?

Thank you.

What's the economic

effect of Brexit?

There is an official assessment -

it's made the news in the last two

days, as it was leaked to the online

news service Buzzfeed, and it offers

a Whitehall view of the economic

effects of different Brexit

scenarios - all negative compared

to staying in the EU.

An awkward conclusion.

The government has experimented

with different ways

of trying to shrug it off.

One response was -

"Those civil servants -

they get up to all sorts

of mischief".

Then, "It's just preliminary

and incomplete,

move along, nothing to see".

But - after saying that they

wouldn't publish the analysis,

today the government

said they would.

Let me start with

the terms of the motion.

We will provide the analysis

to the Select Committee

for exiting the European Union,

and all members, on a strictly

confidential basis.

This means we will provide a hard

copy of the analysis to the chair

of the EU Select Committee,

and a confidential reading room

will be available

to all members and peers

to see a copy of this analysis once

those arrangements can be made.

Well, that may or may not change

people's minds when it comes -

but without waiting,

we now have a little more

from the leaked document.

Buzzfeed have released a line

on what it says about the estimated

effect of reducing EU immigration.

Alberto Nardelli, Buzzfeed's Europe

Editor, is with us -

he received the leaked document.

So what is the line on immigration?

I think the point on immigration in

the analysis is that it shines the

light on one of the other conundrums

this government is facing. It shows

that under different potential

policy scenarios, on the one hand

the number of people from the EU

arriving in the UK would be reduced

from about 90,000 to 40,000 a year.

But it provides a hit on the

economy, and the problem the

government has is that the upsides

of Brexit, such as the trade deal

with the United States, the value to

GDP that this would provide, is far

smaller than that hit. This issue

cuts across this document.

We knew

the general economic effect was

negative, but specifically, the

benefit of going off and saying we

can trade with the US, because we're

not in the customs union or the

single market, is offset by the fact

that the immigration control you

have the freedom to impose is going

to more than wipe out the benefit?

Exactly. If you look at this

document, there is no scenario in

which nontariff barriers, even if

the UK were to stay in the single

market through the European Economic

Area, it would mitigate some of

those losses, but there is no

scenario in which all of those

losses would be eliminated. This

document doesn't aim to refight the

referendum. It says, Britain is

leaving be you. These are the

upsides and downsides. This is what

it looks like in terms of the impact

on the economy. Now, ministers,

decide what you want to do.

Of all

the things you have published out of

it, and you haven't published it

all, to protect your sources, all of

them, the upside affect of a trade

deal with the US is estimated at

approximately zero, isn't it? That

is how much bigger our economy is in

15 years' time, 0.2% bigger.

The

document includes trade deals with

China, New Zealand, the Gulf

countries, the some of those would

add about 0.2 to 0.4%.

It is very

little. Thank you.

Well, here to talk about

the implications of that report, I'm

joined by two of the biggest beats

from the Conservative jungle.

Peter Bone was a founding member

of the grassroots out!

campaign.

That wasn't affiliated

to the official leave campaign

and had a stronger emphasis

on the need to cut immigration.

And Ken Clarke.

He is a passionate remainer,

a former cabinet minister

and of course Father of the House.

Good evening. Peter Bone, what do

you make of specifically the

immigration stuff, that they are

finding immigration as a negative?

You knew that.

We aren't only 132

days away from withdrawing from the

European Union, that is the good

news. On immigration, this is

Project Fear Mark two. We had

Project Fear before the referendum.

The British public listened to all

the arguments, the economic

arguments, and decided to vote

Leave. It Nigel Farage says there

will be a cost of immigration

reduction, but what do you think? We

will have a fairer immigration

system and the same rules and

regulations across the whole world.

We're not going to discriminate in

favour of the European Union. An

unemployed person from Romania or

somewhere could come into the

country now, where as a doctor or

nurse from India will have to go

through all the hoops. We will have

a fairer immigration system, and all

the parties can calibrate it how

they want.

Should we take these

figures are seriously? They have

been dismissed by a number of

Brexiteers. They say the immediate

forecasts following the referendum

did not...

It helps to understand

what they are. The present silly

debate we are having on Brexit is

made silly if anybody rejects any

expert that comes up with something

that doesn't fit their side of the

argument.

argument. Very high-powered people

have made a serious assessment on

the impact of the economy on the

things that

things that might change, because we

don't know exactly what we are going

to do with our economic

relationships or with immigration.

As a Cabinet minister, this is the

kind of thing I would expect to have

from the officials, giving me their

best expert objective assessment.

They may have restrictive models

that building all the facts. I might

be affected by the groupthink. Most

of the economic changes, leaving the

single market, leaving the customs

union, is going to damage our

economy. We are leaving one of the

richest multinational free-trade

agreements in the world. This is an

expert attempt to say that it is

going to affect the economy by about

this amount. Everybody has always

known will stop immigrants from the

EU, young people coming to take jobs

that British people will not take

for some reason, for example in the

entertainment industry. This is a

fair way of assessing what the

impact might be, the best estimate

anybody is likely to make. It should

be published to the public and the

Cabinet should be allowed to see it.

Peter, do you agree that everybody

should be allowed to see it and make

their own judgment?

There are

documents that have not been

completed. They never made it to the

Cabinet. They didn't even look at

what Theresa May is trying to

achieve, it didn't even look at that

model. If we are going to talk about

experts, let's talk about a

professor who says we are going to

be vastly better off. He has been

proved more right than the Treasury.

No, he hasn't.

The Treasury got it

totally wrong before.

He is the only

economist I know who thinks that we

will just open our tariff...

But is

he more right than the Treasury? He

said there wouldn't be a disaster

after the referendum.

We are poorer

since the referendum. Let me answer

you. There is no doubt that large

sections of the population are

poorer now than they would have been

if we had voted to remain, because

it set off a devaluation, because it

damaged confidence in British

sterling assets, and that caused

inflation. The real wages of many

people are not keeping up with this

inflation.

The lowest unemployment

for 40 years!

The reason we need an

analysis is to stop having slogans

from Brexiteers, and all this

nonsense to denounce any attempt to

analyse...

I think we have

demonstrated that having a fewer

number is doesn't necessarily

resolve the argument! Thank you

both.

The past week has seen

horrific violence in

the Afghan capital Kabul.

Indeed the country has seen

horrific violence for much

of the past 40 years.

And during that time there's been

very little real justice

for any of the victims.

No process of criminal trial

for war crimes, nor a peace

and reconciliation process either.

But it is possible that

the International Criminal Court's

prosecutor could launch a formal

war crimes investigation.

And today is an important

one in that process -

because it is the last day

on which victims can

make their submissions

to judges at the court,

saying why they think

there should be an inquiry.

That's whether they are accusing

the Taliban, the CIA

or Afghan officials.

Secunder Kermani has

been talking to victims

to hear their stories,

and their feelings

about obtaining justice.

Just to warn you, some

of the testimony in the film

is extremely graphic.

Hospital CCTV cameras captured

the moment a huge Taliban bomb

exploded on Saturday outside

a police compound across the road.

It had been hidden

inside an ambulance.

Over 100 people died.

It's just one of the many potential

crimes against humanity

committed in Afghanistan

by many different groups.

Now judges at the International

Criminal Court are beginning

to examine submissions from victims

here in Afghanistan.

They are deciding whether to

authorise an official investigation

into war crimes that could see

charges being levelled

against high-ranking Taliban

members, against CIA officials,

and leading figures

in the Afghan government.

32-year-old Samara worked

as a cook in an orphanage.

She was killed in another suicide

bombing by the Taliban

in Kabul last July.

Now, Samara's 17-year-old

daughter, Fatima, wants

the International Criminal Court

to bring charges

against the Taliban.

She's lost faith in

the Afghan authorities.

Fatima says she's not

afraid of reprisals.

But to get justice for Fatima's

mother, those responsible

would first need to be identified,

then somehow arrested.

You've got to catch the Taliban -

or you've got to catch

the individuals.

You've got to bring them

to The Hague, and you've got

to put them on trial,

and you need evidence,

and that evidence comes

in the form of documents,

it comes in the form

of witness statements,

and that gathering exercise,

for an institution that doesn't

have its own police force,

is incredibly problematic.

The proposed investigation

by the ICC would look at crimes

committed from May 2003.

That would cover some

prisoners taken from

Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay.

Many were initially held

at the Bagram detention centre,

just outside Kabul.

Campaign group Reprieve are making

submissions to the ICC

on behalf of three men.

When you look back at the kinds

of things that happened

to the prisoners detained

in Afghanistan, in Bagram,

in other secret facilities,

we're seeing all manner of abuses,

including Russian roulette

with guns, men held in stress

positions for days, doused

with freezing water,

attacks on their genitals...

Abuses that really destroy the men

both physically and psychologically,

and what's important to remember

here is that these abuses

were perpetrated at the behest

of the top commanders.

American officials have

described the proposed

investigation in Afghanistan

as "unwarranted and unjustified".

The United States isn't signed up

to the International Criminal Court,

and that's not all.

A Bush-era law passed by Congress

says that if any American personnel

are ever sent for trial at the ICC,

US authorities are allowed to use

all means necessary to free them.

That could, in theory,

mean military action.

The ICC prosecutor is also asking

to investigate allegations of abuse

by Afghan officials.

Perhaps the most high-ranking

alleged offender was

General Abdul Rashid Dostum.

The current Vice President has been

dogged by claims of human

rights abuses for decades.

He is currently in Turkey in de

facto exile after one

particularly grim allegation.

In late 2016, Ahmad Ishchi,

a political rival of Dostum's,

says he was beaten and sodomised

on his orders.

Dostum refused to appear

in court in Afghanistan.

Ishchi believes the ICC

should now step in.

Dostum denies any wrongdoing.

His spokesman says

Ishchi was never raped.

The judges of the International

Criminal Court still need to decide

whether to authorise a formal

investigation, let

alone level charges.

But this is a country where people

are desperate for some

kind of accountability

after years of violence.

It's not a modern problem,

establishing that a potential sexual

partner is happy to become

an actual one.

Fumbling a way through the flirting,

the come-ons or the rejections

is part of growing up.

But the issue of sexual

consent has never been

as charged as it is today.

In fact, an app has come along

to help would-be partners make

explicit their permission to proceed

in a contract.

The fact that it describes itself

as secured in the blockchain

will either inspire

confidence or scepticism.

But whether the app takes off,

is this kind of formal contracting

process seriously the answer

to the many cases of disputed

consent, or confused intentions?

What kind of consent should people

be comfortable with?

I'm joined by Kate Parker,

a barrister,

who has set up a charity called

The Schools Consent Project,

which sends lawyers into schools

to discuss issues relating

to consent and key sexual offences.

Good evening. Some of this is

motivated by what is happening in

Sweden. Maybe you can tell us. They

have passed a law which says

explicit consent is required.

It's

exactly that. I'm not a Swedish

lawyer. Their law has done a U-turn.

Originally it was that for a rape

prosecution or conviction it had to

be threats of violence. Obviously

there were lots of permutations to

that. That has now moved to a

position where there has to be

explicit, verbalised consent.

Failing that, a conviction will be

overturned.

What do you think of the

idea of a nap where you literally, I

think it involves a photo, you can

take various boxes. -- the idea of

an app.

I think that is problematic

in a number of ways. Anything that

purports to externalise and modify

consent, some hours possibly before

any sexual interaction takes place,

is a worry. Consent is a live thing.

It involves two human beings

checking in with each other.

It's a

process.

Exactly. You might give a

licence for one thing, and in actual

fact what happens in the bedroom

turns out to be something completely

different.

Exactly.

I think it is

unworkable. But trying to open up

conversations about consent, as my

charity does, is important.

You are

sceptical about explicit, requiring

explicit verbal consent, or not.

Because everybody just thinks of

conversations where people fumble

through very awkwardly, really.

From

a legal perspective, going back to

Sweden's law, it almost reverses the

standard of proof. There are

scenarios where you read somebody's

nonverbal cues and you are able to

understand that they are consenting.

The example, a couple who might have

been together 20 years is unlikely

to check in with one another that

explicitly and say, due consent to

this, that? -- do you consent. There

might be situations that do not

require verbalised consent.

You run

this schools project. What is your

advice to young people about how to

engage in this? It can just be so

awkward and embarrassing. There are

so many other things you are trying

to overcome.

Absolutely. There might

be alcohol involved, nervousness,

whatever it might be.

Exactly.

Communication, we say, is the

answer. That doesn't mean saying, do

you consent to this?

Exactly, we do

not want a turn-off, what is the

communication?

Something like does

this feel good to you? What do you

like? Opening up the channels of

communication is really important

with young people. Even just

discussing it in a classroom, so

they have some kind of pre-thinking

before they find themselves in these

scenarios. We think it's very

important.

Just put the other side,

99.9% of cases will be dealt with

perfectly finally on that kind of

basis. There will be .1% where there

will disputed consent. Maybe you do

just have to go the Swedish way,

because those ones are so awful that

you have to say, look, everybody

else has to go with explicit

consent, so we can deal with the

point 1% that are not.

Turning to

our law on consent, our law says a

person consent if she or he agrees

by Joyce and has the capacity to

make that choice. As I understand,

there is no agreement that it should

change. -- by choice and has the

capacity. Your own personal standard

might have to be higher than the

law.

Good etiquette.

Enthusiasm

rather than capacity, for example.

Thanks very much. That is all we

have time for this evening. Kirsty

will be back in this chair tomorrow.

Have a very good night.