16/02/2018

Download Subtitles

Transcript

0:00:06 > 0:00:09Tonight, the government has announced that Oxfam will not bid

0:00:09 > 0:00:12for any new funding from DifD until it is satisfied

0:00:12 > 0:00:20that the charity meets high ethical standards.

0:00:21 > 0:00:24So has the relationship between the government and aid

0:00:24 > 0:00:24charities been too close and too casual?

0:00:24 > 0:00:27And can Oxfam ever recover?

0:00:27 > 0:00:29It was the long shadow over the US election.

0:00:29 > 0:00:32Now a grand jury indicts 13 Russian nationals

0:00:32 > 0:00:34for interfering in the campaign, and it's clear the allegation

0:00:34 > 0:00:37is they gunned for Hillary Clinton before the vote, and since then

0:00:37 > 0:00:40they've been sowing discord about the Trump presdiency.

0:00:40 > 0:00:43The defendants allegedly conducted what they called

0:00:43 > 0:00:48information warfare against the United States,

0:00:48 > 0:00:49with the stated goal of spreading distrust towards the candidates

0:00:49 > 0:00:57and the political system in general.

0:00:57 > 0:00:59What if the government gave everyone £10,000 a year instead of state

0:00:59 > 0:01:01benefits and tax reliefs?

0:01:01 > 0:01:04Thomas Paine's age old idea of a citizen's dividend is back.

0:01:04 > 0:01:06The former Labour leader Ed Miliband is flirting with the idea

0:01:06 > 0:01:14of a basic universal income.

0:01:24 > 0:01:26"The Russians made a sinister and systematic attack

0:01:26 > 0:01:28on our political system," said the Republican speaker

0:01:28 > 0:01:31of the House of Representatives, following the charges

0:01:31 > 0:01:34against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies.

0:01:34 > 0:01:36One of those charged, Yevgeny Prigozhin, is said to be

0:01:36 > 0:01:39nicknamed Putin's chef, a reference to his closeness

0:01:39 > 0:01:47to the Russian president.

0:01:48 > 0:01:50However, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman called the allegations

0:01:50 > 0:01:52of interference in the US elections, "absurd".

0:01:52 > 0:01:55What is clear from the indictment is that the alleged interference,

0:01:55 > 0:01:57which involved hundreds of people in a spider's web of online

0:01:57 > 0:02:00activity going back for years, was not only designed to damage

0:02:00 > 0:02:02Hilary Clinton's presidential campaign,

0:02:02 > 0:02:05but it didn't stop after Donald Trump reached the White House -

0:02:05 > 0:02:06his presidency became the target.

0:02:06 > 0:02:09A little earlier this evening, this is what the US deputy

0:02:09 > 0:02:12Attorney General had to say.

0:02:12 > 0:02:15On September 13, 2017, soon after the news media reported

0:02:15 > 0:02:19that the special counsel's office was investigating evidence that

0:02:19 > 0:02:22Russian operatives had used social media to interfere with

0:02:22 > 0:02:25the 2016 election, one defendant allegedly wrote, "We had a

0:02:25 > 0:02:31slight crisis here at work. The FBI have posted our activity.

0:02:31 > 0:02:33The FBI have busted our activity.

0:02:33 > 0:02:35So I got preoccupied with covering tracks,

0:02:35 > 0:02:38together with my colleagues."

0:02:38 > 0:02:40And Trump tweeted tonight that Russia started

0:02:40 > 0:02:42the anti-US campaign long before he announced he would

0:02:42 > 0:02:45run for president.

0:02:45 > 0:02:47He said:

0:02:47 > 0:02:49"Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014,

0:02:49 > 0:02:51long before I announced that I would run for President.

0:02:51 > 0:02:53The results of the election were not impacted.

0:02:53 > 0:02:56The Trump campaign did nothing wrong - no collusion!"

0:02:56 > 0:02:58I'm now joined down the line from Washington by Niall Stanage,

0:02:58 > 0:03:00White House columnist at The Hill.

0:03:00 > 0:03:02And Anne Applebaum, Washington Post columnist and Professor at the LSE

0:03:02 > 0:03:04Institute of Global Affairs.

0:03:04 > 0:03:10Good evening. The level of detail in the indictment is quite

0:03:10 > 0:03:16extraordinary.It is, absolutely, Kirsty, that is the big takeaway

0:03:16 > 0:03:21from this. Some of the allegations are not that surprising given what

0:03:21 > 0:03:26is in the ether. But it is as if the prosecutors have been building a

0:03:26 > 0:03:30jigsaw puzzle and have suddenly whipped away a cover to show just

0:03:30 > 0:03:34how much they know. In that sense it is very dramatic and a very big

0:03:34 > 0:03:43story.On page 23 of the indictment it talks about November the 12th in

0:03:43 > 0:03:462016, at the same time defendants and their co-conspirators organise a

0:03:46 > 0:03:54rally in New York called Trump is not my president. They held a rally

0:03:54 > 0:03:59in Charlotte, North Carolina against Trump. So they were putting together

0:03:59 > 0:04:03rally ideas and posters and the unwitting American public was

0:04:03 > 0:04:10following along.Yes, as they were doing that by fictional social media

0:04:10 > 0:04:15accounts. The overall effort here is clearly to increase discord, to sow

0:04:15 > 0:04:21dissent among the American people, and to use hot button social issues

0:04:21 > 0:04:28to do so.What about the involvement of a particular character, allegedly

0:04:28 > 0:04:33called Putin's chef?I am not an expert on the Russian side of this,

0:04:33 > 0:04:37but clearly somebody who is that much intimately connected with the

0:04:37 > 0:04:43Russian president is a problem because it typifies that this is a

0:04:43 > 0:04:47Russian lead and directed operation. It seems clear this is not some

0:04:47 > 0:04:51freelancing effort, given the number of people involved and the amount of

0:04:51 > 0:04:59money involved, $1.5 million a month at one stage.I want your reaction

0:04:59 > 0:05:05to these indictments tonight.I think the indictments are an

0:05:05 > 0:05:12extraordinary insight into how the Russians think, how they think about

0:05:12 > 0:05:16disinformation, US elections, and it should offer us some really useful

0:05:16 > 0:05:19background for how they think in other countries and how they act in

0:05:19 > 0:05:23other elections because we know they do that as well. One of the

0:05:23 > 0:05:29extraordinary thing is watching the US election campaign was the way in

0:05:29 > 0:05:35which Russian messaging and

0:05:36 > 0:05:39which Russian messaging and tramp messages were acting hand. Hashed

0:05:39 > 0:05:45out and narratives that started in sputnik and on TV would appear out

0:05:45 > 0:05:49of the President's mouth a few days later. We never knew what the

0:05:49 > 0:05:54connection was. We do not know what tied them together, but we see the

0:05:54 > 0:05:57Russians were studying the US very closely and were looking for

0:05:57 > 0:06:02explosive, divisive issues and they were acting in concert with the

0:06:02 > 0:06:07Trump campaign.And the unwitting collusion of the American people in

0:06:07 > 0:06:12this as well, the way they organised it, that is their modus operandi

0:06:12 > 0:06:16anyway, but I wonder how it fits into the overall picture about

0:06:16 > 0:06:21possible Russian interference. Given that it is still going on, does that

0:06:21 > 0:06:27in itself as per Donald Trump's tweaked let him off the hook?No, I

0:06:27 > 0:06:32do not think he is let off the hook at all. It is true the report says

0:06:32 > 0:06:36there is no evidence any of the Americans named in this indictment

0:06:36 > 0:06:40knew they were collaborating with Russians. But this does not address

0:06:40 > 0:06:44the overall question of what the Trump campaign knew. Did they know

0:06:44 > 0:06:49this extraordinary campaign was going on? How could they not know?

0:06:49 > 0:06:53There were all kinds of connections between different kinds of Russians

0:06:53 > 0:06:57and members of the campaign is all through 2016 and that was happening

0:06:57 > 0:07:01at the same time millions of Russians were putting millions of

0:07:01 > 0:07:06dollars into affecting the campaign and increase democratic

0:07:06 > 0:07:09disillusionment in the United States. How is it possible they were

0:07:09 > 0:07:16not aware of one another? We do not have the answer to that told.And we

0:07:16 > 0:07:20now have a Trump presidency and Hillary Clinton would be perfectly

0:07:20 > 0:07:26right to say this possibly did actually affect the outcome of the

0:07:26 > 0:07:32election that she has some evidence on her hands with these indictments

0:07:32 > 0:07:38now.We certainly have evidence of what the Russians were doing. As the

0:07:38 > 0:07:44previous speaker was saying, it is in detail. This is what is

0:07:44 > 0:07:50unexpected about the indictment. The PayPal accounts, the bank accounts,

0:07:50 > 0:07:55the particular incidents described. We now know exactly what the Russian

0:07:55 > 0:07:58operation looked like in the United States and how it worked.The detail

0:07:58 > 0:08:03is extraordinary and a slip-up of one of the defendants who allegedly

0:08:03 > 0:08:08said online to a friend what they were doing and how they were trying

0:08:08 > 0:08:17to cover their tracks. It is like some strange thriller.Absolutely.

0:08:18 > 0:08:22some strange thriller.Absolutely. I am not even sure... It is amazing

0:08:22 > 0:08:27the FBI got those details where you have an alleged Russian conspirator

0:08:27 > 0:08:31e-mail in a family member literally saying the FBI are on to us and we

0:08:31 > 0:08:35are now trying to cover our tracks. Just in terms of the sheer

0:08:35 > 0:08:40compelling nature of the story that is a remarkable thing and it builds

0:08:40 > 0:08:46this broader picture of nefarious activity and that is what further

0:08:46 > 0:08:49adds to the narrative about alleged collusion.Thank you both very much

0:08:49 > 0:08:51indeed.

0:08:51 > 0:08:53Tonight the pressure on Oxfam has intensified,

0:08:53 > 0:08:56with the government announcement that the charity will not bid

0:08:56 > 0:08:58for any new government funding until they prove they can meet

0:08:58 > 0:09:00the high standards expected of the Department for International

0:09:00 > 0:09:01Development's partners.

0:09:01 > 0:09:03The International Development Secretary, Penny Mordaunt,

0:09:03 > 0:09:07said that it was clear that Oxfam has a long way to go to regain

0:09:07 > 0:09:10the trust of the British public, their staff and the people

0:09:10 > 0:09:11they aim to help.

0:09:11 > 0:09:15It comes on the day when the charity said it will set up an independent

0:09:15 > 0:09:17commission to investigate past and present allegations

0:09:17 > 0:09:19of exploitation by staff.

0:09:19 > 0:09:22In a moment, we'll be discussing the implication

0:09:22 > 0:09:25of the ban on bidding, not least for the delivery

0:09:25 > 0:09:27of future aid to those in need around the globe.

0:09:27 > 0:09:32But first here's David Grossman.

0:09:32 > 0:09:38Charities cannot afford to be slow in showing us the work they do.

0:09:38 > 0:09:43Their fundraising depends on showcasing the lives they change.We

0:09:43 > 0:09:49cannot reach them without you. It all starts with you.In the past we

0:09:49 > 0:09:54may have rather trusted their own accounts too much. After all, we can

0:09:54 > 0:09:59hardly go and see for ourselves. But that trust appears to be drying up.

0:09:59 > 0:10:05I would like more outrage. This has all been going on for a long time.

0:10:05 > 0:10:09The intelligence agency warned in 1999 that paedophiles were finding

0:10:09 > 0:10:15safe, happy homes in our foreign aid sector. And yet nothing has been

0:10:15 > 0:10:23done about this until the Times investigation last week.How ripe is

0:10:23 > 0:10:29the misconduct within the charity and the sector at large?Oxfam needs

0:10:29 > 0:10:34to fully clarified delegations with maximum transparency.Tonight it

0:10:34 > 0:10:38deepened. The young aid worker employed by Oxfam for the first time

0:10:38 > 0:10:43in the Haiti disaster in 2010 has told the BBC she was assaulted by a

0:10:43 > 0:10:48more senior, male colleague.He pinned me up against the wall, he

0:10:48 > 0:10:53was groping me and grabbing me. He was kissing me and I was trying to

0:10:53 > 0:10:58shove him off.A torrid week of scandals for Oxfam has ended with a

0:10:58 > 0:11:02blunt statement from the International Development Secretary.

0:11:02 > 0:11:05Oxfam will no longer bid for government aid contracts.Clearly

0:11:05 > 0:11:10Oxfam have a long way to go before they can regain the trust of the

0:11:10 > 0:11:15British public, their staff and the people they aim to help. The actions

0:11:15 > 0:11:17and attitude of the organisation over the coming weeks will be

0:11:17 > 0:11:24critical.The Oxfam scandal has cast a spotlight on the whole sector,

0:11:24 > 0:11:29where the government with big aid budgets rely too heavily on how the

0:11:29 > 0:11:33NGOs spend those budgets and whether this close relationship has

0:11:33 > 0:11:38deflected necessary scrutiny.This is not about the charity, it is

0:11:38 > 0:11:45about the people they are trying to help. By withdrawing from bidding

0:11:45 > 0:11:50for future contracts, that might mean Oxfam can help fewer people in

0:11:50 > 0:11:56the future. Throughout this process whatever Oxfam has done wrong, I

0:11:56 > 0:12:00very much hope this is a temporary period whilst they sort themselves

0:12:00 > 0:12:07out.But this has happened before. The charity kids company collapsed

0:12:07 > 0:12:10in 2015 amid allegations of financial impropriety and questions

0:12:10 > 0:12:15about how many people they help.It was not that the government saved

0:12:15 > 0:12:21the company, it was that the company did the government's work.The

0:12:21 > 0:12:24charity received tens of millions of pounds of public money. The

0:12:24 > 0:12:28journalist who wrote the first critical article says it was a very

0:12:28 > 0:12:34tough story to break.Nobody wanted to hear the story, people had

0:12:34 > 0:12:38invested too much into kids company and their reputation rose and fell

0:12:38 > 0:12:42with kids company, so the did not want it pulled down. This was

0:12:42 > 0:12:46whether they were politicians or pop stars or whether it was business

0:12:46 > 0:12:53people. They wanted kids company to keep going because it made them look

0:12:53 > 0:12:57good.This perhaps explains why it took so long for the allegations

0:12:57 > 0:13:02against Oxfam to come to light. For 75 years the charity has been

0:13:02 > 0:13:06harnessing the British public enthusiasm to help those in need.

0:13:06 > 0:13:12Whether that enthusiasm survives this scandal will decide how well

0:13:12 > 0:13:12the charity survives.

0:13:12 > 0:13:14the charity survives.

0:13:14 > 0:13:16I'm now joined by Imogen Wall, an independent aid worker

0:13:16 > 0:13:17and former UN spokesperson.

0:13:17 > 0:13:20She runs an online support forum for aid workers.

0:13:20 > 0:13:22Also with me is Martin Bell, a Unicef UK ambassador since 2001.

0:13:22 > 0:13:25He's also a former war correspondent and former MP.

0:13:25 > 0:13:28On the line from South Africa we've got Ian Birrell,

0:13:28 > 0:13:30a contributing editor to the Mail on Sunday and former advisor

0:13:30 > 0:13:34and speechwriter for David Cameron.

0:13:34 > 0:13:42Good evening. If I can come to you first. How bad is it for Oxfam that

0:13:42 > 0:13:46the government has said going forward there will be no future

0:13:46 > 0:13:51contracts until they are sure of that ethical stance?It is pretty

0:13:51 > 0:13:54damning for Oxfam, although I have to question why it is the government

0:13:54 > 0:14:00feels Oxfam is not good enough for new contracts, but it is worthy of

0:14:00 > 0:14:04continuing to hold the contracts it has held and they are worth millions

0:14:04 > 0:14:09of pounds.

0:14:10 > 0:14:14of pounds.Let me put that to Martin Bell. Oxfam is engaged in so many

0:14:14 > 0:14:18different contracts around the world, is Ian Wright that if we take

0:14:18 > 0:14:23the chance of them getting future contracts away now, we should really

0:14:23 > 0:14:28be probing the contracts that they have now?

0:14:28 > 0:14:33Oxfam is in so much trouble it has two and suffer itself. I have been a

0:14:33 > 0:14:40Unicef ambassador for 17 years. I have seen wonderful people, national

0:14:40 > 0:14:44and international staff, doing life-saving work on some of the most

0:14:44 > 0:14:48difficult corners of the world. I can only hope that this appalling

0:14:48 > 0:14:53scandal does not affect those people helped by aid agencies doing such

0:14:53 > 0:14:59great work.With your professional hat on, looking at that indictment

0:14:59 > 0:15:04of Oxfam from penny Mordaunt, she is saying there needs to be radical

0:15:04 > 0:15:07change, the time it takes for that to come out, what will happen to

0:15:07 > 0:15:12Oxfam?We will see in the coming days. We are very far from the end

0:15:12 > 0:15:17of this. What is clear and very unfortunate, and I think David have

0:15:17 > 0:15:22no choice, they manage public money and the right to demand an element

0:15:22 > 0:15:26of accountability, but that Oxfam are not alone in this. Every agency

0:15:26 > 0:15:32in the aid sector has a problem that we work in a sector that attracts

0:15:32 > 0:15:39the vulnerable, sorry, that supports vulnerable people.It attracts

0:15:39 > 0:15:43predators.So you have to have a safeguard. Every agency has faced

0:15:43 > 0:15:49this. Oxfam have been found out but they have been hung out to dry.That

0:15:49 > 0:15:52is possibly quite terrifying for a lot of people to hear that we, with

0:15:52 > 0:15:55our best endeavours, support a variety of charities, and you're

0:15:55 > 0:16:00telling that this literally is the tip of the iceberg, what is going to

0:16:00 > 0:16:07happen?Hopefully wholesale reform will happen.Without scandal? People

0:16:07 > 0:16:12are just quietly changing things? No, they are not. That is the

0:16:12 > 0:16:18problem. For many years activists have been warned.An activist on

0:16:18 > 0:16:22Newsnight said that last year she talked about sexual violence to aid

0:16:22 > 0:16:28workers and Oxfam was by no means the worst.They are really not. They

0:16:28 > 0:16:33have had opportunities to reform themselves. It needs to come. We

0:16:33 > 0:16:36need an interagency process. You can solve the problem of Oxfam but the

0:16:36 > 0:16:41predators will get jobs elsewhere. We have seen that is what happened.

0:16:41 > 0:16:47How damaging you think this is to the global aid effort?I think it is

0:16:47 > 0:16:51pretty damaging because it is highlighting problems that these are

0:16:51 > 0:16:55organisations that paint themselves as saviours of the poor, paint

0:16:55 > 0:17:01themselves as do-gooders and see themselves as being so morally above

0:17:01 > 0:17:04criticism, and suddenly people are seeing them for what they are, which

0:17:04 > 0:17:13is people interested in earning my and people proclaiming...Can I just

0:17:13 > 0:17:17put to you what Martin Bell was saying? He has been an ambassador

0:17:17 > 0:17:20for Unicef are many years and has seen the good work done. You

0:17:20 > 0:17:24wouldn't doubt, presumably, that individual aid programmes, people

0:17:24 > 0:17:28going with their best endeavours to help those in need, you're not

0:17:28 > 0:17:32entirely cynical about this, are you?I'm pretty cynical. I've seen

0:17:32 > 0:17:38too much of it. Let's look at Hay tee. What did the UN there? They

0:17:38 > 0:17:42took cholera there and killed several thousand people and put

0:17:42 > 0:17:46hundreds of thousands more into a state of disease. Then they denied

0:17:46 > 0:17:50it. They covered up. That is typical of what goes on. A.D. Was a complete

0:17:50 > 0:17:58mess from start to finish. -- high tea.I want to bring in Martin.

0:17:58 > 0:18:01Particularly when you are talking about the government giving money to

0:18:01 > 0:18:06particular aid charities, do you think there has been too cosy and

0:18:06 > 0:18:11casually relationship between the government and the charities who it

0:18:11 > 0:18:17funds aid programmes through?I think the government and charities

0:18:17 > 0:18:23are close and they have to be. If Ian had been where I had been, if

0:18:23 > 0:18:27you are holding the hands of a nine-year-old child in Yemen who has

0:18:27 > 0:18:33been bombed out of her home and is being given care by Unicef, you have

0:18:33 > 0:18:37a different view of it. I think the idea that because there is a

0:18:37 > 0:18:44scandal, all aid agencies are tarnished. Just connect with my

0:18:44 > 0:18:47experience. Wonderful people doing wonderful things out there.What

0:18:47 > 0:18:53about the question of governance? Are aid agencies and the governance

0:18:53 > 0:18:56to close?They work closely together. What we are seeing right

0:18:56 > 0:19:00now is the capacity the government has told them to account when

0:19:00 > 0:19:05needed. That is a powerful thing. There is no question it is a club

0:19:05 > 0:19:10and there have been long discussions about how to bring more particularly

0:19:10 > 0:19:15local organisations into that community, and to this collection of

0:19:15 > 0:19:21agencies.That interesting. What you are saying is, and we know the

0:19:21 > 0:19:26government only funds through big agencies and it is funnelled out...

0:19:26 > 0:19:32What you're saying is that it is too for a divot. They have to be more

0:19:32 > 0:19:36particular and pick smaller charities which it ollie spatter?

0:19:36 > 0:19:43Yeah. And help develop into agency policing systems. I was in the field

0:19:43 > 0:19:48for ten years. 95% of aid workers and local staff. They are not

0:19:48 > 0:19:53internationals. That is the stereotype.What about the big

0:19:53 > 0:19:57salaries Ian talks about?They are not that big, trust me! Certainly

0:19:57 > 0:20:03not for Oxfam.Ian, if you don't think that aid in itself delivered

0:20:03 > 0:20:10by charities is a good thing, how would you sort a lot of the global

0:20:10 > 0:20:13issues that we feel everywhere in the world, those of us who have

0:20:13 > 0:20:21more, have a duty to help those who have less?I'm very committed to

0:20:21 > 0:20:24help the world's poor but the way to do it is not with patronising

0:20:24 > 0:20:28Westerners going in there and telling them how to solve their

0:20:28 > 0:20:32problems their services. Not by propping up dictators. And not get

0:20:32 > 0:20:38caught doing harm. Is what we have seen often. There is an unholy

0:20:38 > 0:20:42Trinity going on whereby there is a shared deal going on with the

0:20:42 > 0:20:45government and much of the media, and with the aid groups. They all

0:20:45 > 0:20:51portray this image that they are the saviours of the world. The facts do

0:20:51 > 0:20:54not fit this. That is why there is such resentment against it in many

0:20:54 > 0:20:59parts of the world.Martin, everybody is hearing this, people

0:20:59 > 0:21:04who perhaps give to different charities, should the public, for

0:21:04 > 0:21:08example with Oxfam, withhold the money until Oxfam gets a clean bill

0:21:08 > 0:21:15of health?I think that is reasonable. Oxfam now has to answer

0:21:15 > 0:21:20for itself. But that all NGOs and aid agencies should be tarnished, if

0:21:20 > 0:21:25Ian and anybody could come with me to the eastern Congo, there are no

0:21:25 > 0:21:27dictators, there was no government, there was nobody there helping the

0:21:27 > 0:21:31people accept Unicef and other agencies. Should they be left

0:21:31 > 0:21:36without help? I don't believe so. Thank you all very much. With

0:21:36 > 0:21:39regards to recent allegations made against Adam Smith International,

0:21:39 > 0:21:45the ordination -- organisation have denied any wrongdoing.

0:21:45 > 0:21:47What would you do with £10,000 a year guaranteed income?

0:21:47 > 0:21:50A new report says we have to rethink radically the value of work,

0:21:50 > 0:21:53and how we contribute to society, before the machines take over

0:21:53 > 0:21:55swathes of our lives, and just as we face a vastly

0:21:55 > 0:21:57increasing ageing population and the prospect of much

0:21:57 > 0:21:59less stable employment.

0:21:59 > 0:22:03Would it be better to give everyone a basic income and do away with many

0:22:03 > 0:22:05state benefits and tax reliefs?

0:22:05 > 0:22:07Today, the Royal Society for the Encouragement of the Arts,

0:22:07 > 0:22:09Manufacture and Commerce rebooted the idea of a Universal Basic

0:22:09 > 0:22:13Income, described by Thomas Paine more than 250 years ago

0:22:13 > 0:22:21as a "citizen's dividend".

0:22:21 > 0:22:23From its Enlightenment origins, Universal Basic Income has been an

0:22:23 > 0:22:26idea that crosses the political divide, mentioned in the writings

0:22:26 > 0:22:31of Thomas Paine and John Stewart Mill.

0:22:31 > 0:22:34The first thing that we must do you tonight...

0:22:34 > 0:22:36By the 1960s, both Martin Luther King and Richard

0:22:36 > 0:22:40Nixon were on board.

0:22:40 > 0:22:43One of the big attractions for modern politicians is that it

0:22:43 > 0:22:46proposes getting rid of one of the most hated aspects

0:22:46 > 0:22:47of the welfare state.

0:22:47 > 0:22:50You still don't get this, do you, Mr Blake?

0:22:50 > 0:22:55This is an agreement between you and the state.

0:22:55 > 0:22:56The Ken Loach polemic, I, Daniel Blake,

0:22:56 > 0:22:59struck a chord in its portrayal of the dehumanisation process of

0:22:59 > 0:23:03bureaucratic assessment.

0:23:03 > 0:23:06Universal Basic Income would simply do away

0:23:06 > 0:23:07with that altogether.

0:23:07 > 0:23:10Everyone gets paid the same sum of money each

0:23:10 > 0:23:12year, no strings attached.

0:23:12 > 0:23:16Some on the libertarian right like it, because the government

0:23:16 > 0:23:20would be less involved in our lives and it could lead them to shut

0:23:20 > 0:23:21existing programmes.

0:23:21 > 0:23:24Some on the left like it because it seen as a way of

0:23:24 > 0:23:27universalising benefit and empowering workers, even as

0:23:27 > 0:23:32automation undermines their position.

0:23:32 > 0:23:35Have a few more days off a week to study, take up yoga or

0:23:35 > 0:23:37help elderly relatives - who could argue with that?

0:23:37 > 0:23:40Of course, some may choose not to work at all.

0:23:40 > 0:23:41That is one criticism.

0:23:41 > 0:23:43The main problem though is expense.

0:23:43 > 0:23:46In the most extreme version, where the

0:23:46 > 0:23:48allowance is enough to live off, that is hundreds

0:23:48 > 0:23:51of billions of pounds a year.

0:23:51 > 0:23:53So most UBI proposals are for a halfway house.

0:23:53 > 0:23:57Smaller amounts, or even one large, one-off payment.

0:23:57 > 0:24:01Today's report envisages 10,000 a year.

0:24:01 > 0:24:04But the thing that unites all the proposals is that they

0:24:04 > 0:24:06envisage giving billions of pounds to millions of people who currently

0:24:06 > 0:24:14manage without state help. Will voters buy that?

0:24:18 > 0:24:22With me now a man who is flirting with the idea of Universal Basic

0:24:22 > 0:24:28Income, former Labour leader Ed Miliband. You have sort of half

0:24:28 > 0:24:33tongue in cheek described the idea of a universal income as a trust

0:24:33 > 0:24:38fund for all. The problem is that people actually do have trust funds

0:24:38 > 0:24:44and get it as well. It is indiscriminate.This yeah, but they

0:24:44 > 0:24:47pay it back through taxation. I'm attracted that this because it

0:24:47 > 0:24:52speaks to the can of society we want to be. Do we trust in people? Do we

0:24:52 > 0:24:57believe that if we get rid of a complex, intrusive, demeaning means

0:24:57 > 0:25:03tested system, and replace it with a flat rate payment, people will do

0:25:03 > 0:25:06extraordinary things? I personally think they probably would. Some of

0:25:06 > 0:25:11it would be caring, for elderly relatives, kids. Some would be

0:25:11 > 0:25:15voluntary. The interesting thing is the evidence is, on the point about

0:25:15 > 0:25:20work, the evidence is so far in the work that has been done on this, the

0:25:20 > 0:25:22pilots, it hasn't led to the diminishing of work, people doing

0:25:22 > 0:25:29nothing.There will be less work? Because of technology. Exactly. That

0:25:29 > 0:25:33is another reason why this is interesting. We are entering an era

0:25:33 > 0:25:38were be can't be certain of this scale. We know technology will be

0:25:38 > 0:25:43incredibly disruptive. A welfare system built on a job for life, the

0:25:43 > 0:25:48welfare system we sort of have, doesn't really feel fit for purpose.

0:25:48 > 0:25:54And therefore, this could be, this is kind of right, has got

0:25:54 > 0:25:57attractions in any case. But in particular for the very people

0:25:57 > 0:26:03chopping and changing their jobs, that world, it could be appropriate.

0:26:03 > 0:26:09Do you think that by and large people want to work?Yes I do.Nick

0:26:09 > 0:26:13Boles, the former Minister of skills, says mankind is hard-wired

0:26:13 > 0:26:17for work, we gain satisfaction from it. The point is there won't be work

0:26:17 > 0:26:27for all, we're kidding ourselves. That may be true to an extent. We

0:26:27 > 0:26:30don't know. People have predicted the end of work before. The

0:26:30 > 0:26:36interesting thing on this point about what evidence we have, it's

0:26:36 > 0:26:40not overwhelming, but Alaska, they have got a fund, a smaller

0:26:40 > 0:26:46version...They are doing well in Finland.Yes, but Alaska has been

0:26:46 > 0:26:52going for a decade. Work has gone up. In a way this is a bet on human

0:26:52 > 0:26:56nature.There is a bigger fundamental question about whether

0:26:56 > 0:27:00it would necessarily be a bad thing if people worked less, if they do

0:27:00 > 0:27:05different things, because there will be an ageing population. Perhaps

0:27:05 > 0:27:09there are different ways we should be running our lives?I totally

0:27:09 > 0:27:12agree with you.The ageing population is another aspect of

0:27:12 > 0:27:17this. Anyway your language has changed. When you are special

0:27:17 > 0:27:24adviser to Gordon Brown you talked about tax credits.I was in short

0:27:24 > 0:27:27trousers!That must have looked very weird in Parliament. You talk about

0:27:27 > 0:27:34tax credits. They are means tested. You have changed your mind?May be a

0:27:34 > 0:27:42bit. I'm still a defender of tax credits.But they are means tested.

0:27:42 > 0:27:45Yeah. The liberating thing for me is I'm not thinking what should we do

0:27:45 > 0:27:51tomorrow. I'm thinking five, ten, 15 years ahead, what system should we

0:27:51 > 0:27:57be designing? What is the system that will be fit for purpose?You

0:27:57 > 0:28:01talk about labour being the party that supports crafters. It is more

0:28:01 > 0:28:08like the grifters.That is where we part company. The notion that people

0:28:08 > 0:28:11will take this money and lay around, I don't buy that.Who will pay for

0:28:11 > 0:28:20it? What the RSA are saying is it will cost 14 billion a year.In the

0:28:20 > 0:28:23big scheme of things that is small change. In the big scheme of things,

0:28:23 > 0:28:29if you are thinking about a 20 year, 15 year enterprise, and I think we

0:28:29 > 0:28:33should pilot this...It has been piloted in Scotland.Exactly. We

0:28:33 > 0:28:40should be doing it here. The government has Cook corporate tax

0:28:40 > 0:28:43over the past few years. You would save some money on some of the means

0:28:43 > 0:28:48tested benefits. It would have an outlay. But if it worked, if it had

0:28:48 > 0:28:53the liberating power that many advocates think it could have, I

0:28:53 > 0:28:58think it would be worth it.You think there would be retraining?

0:28:58 > 0:29:03Starting businesses. They are saying in the report today that Mrs

0:29:03 > 0:29:06Thatcher said up the enterprise allowance, which gave people a

0:29:06 > 0:29:12certain amount of money. People may set up businesses. Middle-class

0:29:12 > 0:29:16people taken for granted that they have money to fall on.You have been

0:29:16 > 0:29:21very critical of people like Mike Ashley at Sports Direct. The idea

0:29:21 > 0:29:25that people are very wealthy and get this 10,000, I suppose they give

0:29:25 > 0:29:35more back in tax. In a moral sense, should everybody get this money?

0:29:35 > 0:29:39Yeah, because they are citizens. This is the point. We have more or

0:29:39 > 0:29:45less got universal child benefit. This is what Thomas Paine advocated.

0:29:45 > 0:29:47Recognition of citizenship. Particularly as technology takes off

0:29:47 > 0:29:51and the danger is greater inequality. The idea that every

0:29:51 > 0:29:54citizen should have a stake in the growing wealth of the country I

0:29:54 > 0:30:01think is attractive.Thank you very much indeed.

0:30:01 > 0:30:07Two papers in front of us. That story, no more money for Oxfam, say

0:30:07 > 0:30:10ministers. Charity warned it must regain public trust. On the

0:30:10 > 0:30:14right-hand side, 13 Russians charged over the Trump plot. The Financial

0:30:14 > 0:30:20Times, Russians charged with interfering in US election. They

0:30:20 > 0:30:31have also got a piece on life in Riyadh jail. City access after

0:30:31 > 0:30:33Brexit.

0:30:33 > 0:30:34That's almost it for tonight.

0:30:34 > 0:30:37But before we go, the closest most of us will get

0:30:37 > 0:30:39to walking amongst the stars is a holiday in Los Angeles.

0:30:39 > 0:30:42Not so for Norishige Kanai and Mark Vande Hei.

0:30:42 > 0:30:45The two astronauts spent most of today on a so-called Space Walk,

0:30:45 > 0:30:48conducting maintenance on the outside of the

0:30:48 > 0:30:49International Space station.

0:30:49 > 0:30:57Talk about an office with a view. Goodnight.