20/03/2018 Newsnight

Facebook faces the wrath

of regulators and customers

in multiple countries.

Its reputation has sunk,

along with its share price,

and a business plan based on liberal

sharing of data may be under threat.

Is the Cambridge Analytica

scandal a watershed moment

in our relation with Facebook,

and other Silicon Valley giants?

I don't know whether Cambridge

Analytica had a significant effect

on the Trump election.

I don't know whether they had

a significant effect on Brexit.

I do know that the systems that have

been developed by Facebook give this

capability and make this

something that is possible

to happen in the future.

We'll hear from Senator John

Kennedy, no relation,

who thinks data is the new oil.

Also tonight, John Sweeney dusts

down an old KGB handbook to find out

why the Russians might have used

a London based professor

as an alleged conduit

between Trump and the Kremlin.

International conferences and

seminars are great for recruiting.

Stuffed with clever academic

scientists and business people,

they're the perfect place to,

quote, "Get information"

and influence foreigners.

And shared parental leave...

Men are apparently,

generously still leaving

the bigger share to women.

But are fathers secretly just dying

to give up the office for the nappy?

For me, it's really a family time,

quality time, you know.

So, it's very good.

I love it, actually.

Yeah.

We'll ask if men really

think it's so great,

why aren't more doing it?

Hello.

The controversial political data

intelligence firm Cambridge

Analytica has suspended its chief

executive.

More on that soon.

But Facebook is not having

a great week either.

It's the biggest corporate crisis

since Volkswagen's diesel deceit.

That inaugurated a significant

decline in diesel sales,

does this mark the same for Facebook

or even other tech giants?

In the US, the Federal Trade

Commission is reported

to be investigating.

Here, the Information Commissioner's

Office said it's applying

for a warrant get access

to Cambridge Analytica; and told

Facebook to drop its own audit

of the controversial political

data intelligence firm.

It was a sign that the authorities

here - as elsewhere -

are not going to let Facebook act

as though this is a little local

difficulty, that can be dealt

with via an in-house memo telling

people to wash the coffee cups.

Authorities across the West have

are shocked at the way Facebook let

app developers harvest data,

and then break all the rules

by passing it onto others.

And not tell anyone

when they discovered

rules had been broken.

How should we describe Facebook's

attitude to the date of its users at

the time Cambridge Analytica had

taken possession of so much of it?

Permissive, certainly. But in fact

is the goal. App developers could

make better apps could use on

Facebook if they could get the data.

Kellas? Well, yes. At that time apps

didn't just hoover up the user 's

data but could access the user 's

friends. That did stop in 2015. Is

the fact we might have given consent

defence for Facebook?

I think

legally it is possible we might have

given Facebook permission to do

whatever they want with that data

but Facebook actually removed some

of these access points around 2014

and Mark Zuckerberg went on stage

and said people were surprised this

happened. I'm friends with you and

now you're upset because an app

surprises you. It is kind of clear

that the

that the legal...

What's clear is

that the Cambridge Analytica affair

has hit a nerve, igniting an

international indignation at the

power of the company. One German

court found Facebook's default

consent settings breached European

law. The company faces potential

punishment and, crucially, a threat

to pieces of its business model.

So

what's been happening up until now

is the lax control from Facebook has

allowed the advertisers to really

focus their advertising, to really

make it specific to users by

accessing the data that perhaps

under a controlled environment they

wouldn't necessarily have access to.

I think with the increased

regulation, we're going to see an

ending or certainly a much stricter

control of that, which will impact

the amount that advertisers are

going to be able to access

information, and therefore the

amount they are going to be able to

centre their advertising. That is

certainly going to make Facebook a

little less attractive for

advertisers.

Let's be fair, there is

no direct evidence as yet that

Cambridge Analytica's use of

Facebook data actually had any very

big effect. Of course, Cambridge

Analytica would love you to believe

it has magical powers of persuasion,

as indeed most of its vocal critics

do, but does Chris Rogers yesterday

we learned the Conservative Party

has spent four times more on

Facebook than the Labour Party in

the run-up to last year's

collection. The Conservatives spend

millions on the best political

marketing research consultants but I

think it is fair to say, to put it

charitably, its campaign was not

regarded as among the best in

British election history. It was a

lesson in how the biggest brains

don't always get what they want.

Certainly, if they are indeed these

Svengali like super geniuses who can

make people believe things just by

targeted Facebook advertising, then

it kind of raises this question, why

haven't we seen that technique being

used by other people? Particularly

by people who sell stuff online

audio brand rather than trying to

market an election every four years.

How is the Amazon is not trying to

do custom advertising to you in

order to sell you a dishwasher?

But

the damage is done, a corner has

been turned, data is being taken

more seriously, the company is being

taken is less trustworthy.

I don't know whether Cambridge

Analytica had a significant affect

on the Trump election if they had a

significant effect on Brexit. I do

note that the systems that have been

developed by Facebook give this

capability make this something that

is possible to happen in the future,

and that is I think what is more

important. Not the specific event

but just happened but what the

implications are for our democracy

in the future, because the abilities

of these things will only get

better. Big data analysis is getting

more refined. The amount of

information there is getting

greater, so it means the likelihood

of being able to affect things is

increasing.

Mark Zuckerberg has been strangely

quiet on the whole affair. It's as

though data was some obscure data

area of law even in 2015 and data

was Facebook's business after all.

But it feels like the company is

leaving its teen years now and being

expected to take responsibility like

an adult.

That is the Facebook side of it.

Tonight, more revelations -

this time regarding the role

Cambridge Analytica claims to have

played in Donald Trump's

election as US President.

Chris Cook is with me.

Bring us up to date on developments.

We have to be clear, because of

Channel 4 News's excellent

reporting, we know they had an

undercover reporter talked to

various Cambridge Analytica

executives who claimed to have had a

critical effect on the election of

Donald Trump, to have the power to

spread anonymously. They also talked

about, talked in a way that made

some people draw the collusion that

-- conclusion that had been

collusion between the Trump campaign

and a supposedly independent

election group, which is not allowed

under US law. Cambridge Analytica

denies all these things that their

own executive have said and that is

why they suspended their chief

executive this evening.

Let's talk

about the British investigation,

maybe not the one Facebook is most

terrified of, because the American

side is probably a big deal for

them. The information Commissioner

is on the case, how effective will

that be?

The thing to know about the

information Commissioner is it is

not the world's most frightening

regulator at all. Fundamentally as

two functions. It does data

protection, which is why we are

talking about it tonight and Freedom

of information. These are two things

that are both real hassles the

government. So there is quite a

strong incentive for central

government not to give it too much

money because if they do they know

it will come straight for them.

Think of all the data that NHS and

schools and local authorities hold,

as well as the hassle and hatred in

Whitehall for Freedom of

information. There really is no game

for them in giving it a lot of

money. So even where it has

sufficient powers, and it has quite

good powers and data protection, it

doesn't have the bandwidth or

capacity to really take on big cases

and monthly it is a real scaredy-cat

when it comes to taking on big

things. We will seek what it does.

Thank you.

Earlier I spoke to

Senator John Kennedy.

He is the Republican Senator

for Louisiana and serves

on the Senate Judiciary committee -

a committee that Facebook officials

will give evidence to tomorrow.

I started by asking whether it was

Cambridge Analytica that delivered

President Trump the election.

Well, you can't quantify it.

I mean, you can't really

say the President of

the United States became President

of the United States or a senator

became a senator because of

one particular factor.

Campaigns are not like that.

There's a lot going on.

People have a multitude of reasons

for voting as they do.

And I just don't

think that you can...

I mean, I have had

consultants pitch me all

the time in campaigns saying

you know, we have won this

election for this candidate.

We have won it for that candidate.

And, you know, you smile politely,

but it doesn't work

that way.

There's no way to quantify

or evaluate what they are saying.

Your question is can

they have an impact?

Sure, they can have an impact.

How measurable it is

is another issue.

Hillary Clinton would say

it was such a fine election, so

narrow, and impact means that they

changed the course of history.

They got Donald Trump elected.

And that is a big thing.

I don't agree with that.

I'm not prepared to say that.

I don't think anybody can say that.

Do I personally believe that

Cambridge Analytica elected Donald

Trump through their activities?

No.

I don't.

Do I believe that Russia influenced

the outcome of the election?

Influenced, perhaps.

Determined?

That's a whole different story.

OK, let's talk about Facebook,

which is obviously a much

bigger company and a more

important global player than

Cambridge Analytica.

A lot of people are just

saying, look uninstall

Facebook if you don't want your data

passed around like that, just get

rid of it.

The company has lost trust

and people should uninstall it.

Do you think that is a piece

of consumer advice you would give?

Well, certainly transparency

is something we need to talk about.

But before we look for remedies,

we have to understand the problem.

And here's the problem.

Facebook is an

extraordinary company.

But it is no longer a company.

It is a country.

It is huge.

It is breathtakingly powerful.

Data is the new oil.

And Facebook's behaviour leaves

something to be desired.

I mean, some of their

recent behaviour is

getting into the

foothills of creepy.

I don't want to see the

United States Congress just start

regulating, I would prefer to have

first a frank and candid discussion

with the social media CEOs

at the table with us,

in front of God and country

and the American public.

And anybody else wants to watch,

and let us talk frankly

about these issues.

We tried it once before.

In the Judiciary Committee.

Facebook and the other social media

companies sent their lawyers.

I don't know what they

paid their lawyers.

But they did their job because they

didn't say a damn thing.

They dodged, they weaved,

they stalled, they re-stalled,

but they would not confront

the issue.

Sorry to interrupt you,

but tomorrow Facebook

officials say they're going to brief

the Senate and house judiciary

committees with the latest.

Again, I don't expect

it is going to be

Mark Zuckerberg who's

going to come talking to you.

How are you going to make something

different next time so it isn't just

again you listening to a bunch

of lawyers saying we can't

answer that question?

Well I don't have the authority to

make anybody come to the judiciary.

But our chairman does.

We have subpoena power.

I would refer not to see

us get to that point.

I don't even know if the chairman

is willing to have a hearing.

I certainly hope he does.

We have had one hearing,

we need to have another.

And I would very respectfully

and politely but

firmly, suggest to Mr Zuckerberg

that he needs to come to talk to us.

And subpoena him if he doesn't

accept the invitation?

We're not there yet.

We're not even to

the subpoena stage.

Let's give him the benefit

of the doubt and ask

him to come politely.

I mean, he is a smart

guy, obviously.

He invented Facebook.

My aim in all this is not

to trash Facebook.

I think Facebook has

done wonderful things.

It has brought a lot

of people together and

helped spread democracy.

It was critical in the Arab Spring

in terms of people being able to

communicate with each other.

In many ways it brings

us closer together.

But also in other ways it

brings us further apart.

Can I just ask one last one.

You are talking about this

as a Facebook problem.

Is that your view or do

you think this is a

bigger, tech giant problem?

I think it is bigger.

I'm talking about Facebook

because the Cambridge

Analytica issue had

to do with Facebook.

But you can make the same argument

for Twitter, Google, the

other social media companies.

I mean, let me say it again.

I'm proud of them,

they are American companies.

But they're not American

companies, they're not even

companies any more.

They are countries.

They are breathtakingly powerful.

They know more about me than me.

They know more about you than you.

And we need to talk about

the socio-, economic and cultural

problems that their size presents.

And the American people,

I don't know about

the folks in the UK, but

the American people

expect us to address

these issues and by God,

I

plan on doing that.

We can do it the hard

way or the easy way.

Senator John Kennedy,

thanks very much.

Thanks for talking to us.

Facebook has not succeeded

in knocking Russia off the news.

It is only 16 days since the nerve

gas attack on the Skripals,

but today saw the 23 Russian embassy

staff leave the country.

Spies, diplomats -

call them whatever you want.

Today, in front of the long lenses

of the gathered press,

the Russians and their families

climbed onto a bus, taken off

to Stansted Airport,

and were basically booted out

of the country and

taken back to Moscow.

If they were hoping to creep out

the back door of the country

without being noticed, they failed.

As the Russian state owned

Ilyushin aircraft headed home,

the British government said they had

no plans for further

sanctions - for now.

Mark Urban is with me.

The other development is the OPCW

have started the deliberations.

They

are the international watchdog. They

are now in the UK, more of them

coming and their director-general

said at least three weeks. They are

going to verify the Porton Down

scientists diagnosis that this was a

new generation Russian nerve agent.

Whether they are going to have the

exact forensic fix on it as having

come from a Russian factory is a

different matter. It may not resolve

the argument one way or the other.

These Russian diplomat left today.

Any more?

Well the National Security

Council meeting today, we thought

there might be a task force on going

after Russian money and that kind of

thing but apparently not even that.

Maybe you get the sense that perhaps

we feel the diplomatic advantage is

with us. Today Donald Trump

congratulated President Putin on his

election victory. And you look at

these 23 and you see the British do

not want to get into any further

tit-for-tat. I understand the 23 is

not all of them. It was said in the

British statement that it was

undeclared. So we're not sure of the

numbers but some appear to have

stayed. You look at the expulsion of

the Brits from Moscow, I can tell

you 23 is more than that of

intelligence people the Brits had in

Russia. So they do not want to get

into any further tit-for-tat and

that also is a measure of how the

diplomatic advantage might not still

be with the UK in this.

Now, I hesitated to call

the Russians that were sent home

today "spies", despite the fact

others have, not just

because it is there is perhaps no

clear line that defines

a spy at all.

Intelligence gathering is done

by many who are not living

under diplomatic cover.

And crucially, the Russian state has

long been known to make use

of people who aren't even Russians.

In the twilight zone

of spying and networking,

John Sweeney has been

looking at how this works,

focusing on one mysterious

professor, said to be

a London-based conduit

between President Trump

and the Russians.

Highgate Cemetery has always been

a place of intrigue for Russians.

The Tomb of Karl Marx stands

sentinel over those of other

socialists dignitaries.

And this is also the resting place

of former KGB officer

Alexander Litvinenko,

believed to have been

poisoned by Russian spies.

A reminder, as if one

were needed this week,

that Cold War espionage

is alive and well.

There's an old KGB handbook

which details the tricks Russian

intelligence got up to in the bad

old days of the Cold War.

The gossip is these techniques

are still very much in use.

Lessson one; when targeting

the enemy, don't use a Russian

if you can find someone from a third

country who will do your

dirty work for you.

This is a strange tale

of the connections between three

men; the first Maltese,

the second Russian,

the third German.

We begin with the links

between the Russian state

and the election campaign

of a certain American

reality TV star.

During the American election,

Trump advisors were offered e-mails

from inside Hillary Clinton's

campaign - e-mails

hacked by Russian spies.

The FBI has launched

a major investigation.

This is Trump advisor

George Papadopoulos.

He pleaded guilty to making false

statements about contacts he'd had

with the Russian government.

And Papadopoulos admitted to the FBI

that a mystery Maltese Professor

was the go-between between him

and the Russians.

The Russians will use third

country nationals as really

mostly access agents,

to use the proper term,

meaning they're out there spotting

and assessing for targets

for Russian intelligence.

Particularly people who might not

want to talk to a Russian,

would be put off by talking

to a Russian for security

or personal reasons.

Someone who's a third country

national can be a lot better

person to be the face

of Russian intelligence.

Papadopoulos admitted to the FBI

the professor told him

that the Russians possessed dirt

on Hillary Clinton in the form

of thousands of e-mails.

That he wanted to introduce

Papadopoulos to a contact

and that his contacts

were in the Russian Ministry

of Foreign Affairs.

The Maltese Professor

was this man, Joseph Mifsud.

He was known as a diplomat

but Professor Mifsud's career had

began as an academic

here in Valletta, at

the University of Malta.

He resigned in 2007 under

something of a cloud.

He then moved through a series

of academic institutions,

touting his expertise in diplomacy,

presenting as an ambassador,

but this is not true.

Maltese journalist Jurgen Balzan has

checked out the facts.

There's no evidence of him,

of Mifsud being an ambassador

or deployed in some Maltese foreign

ministry office abroad.

The man who never was an ambassador

moved to the London Academy

of Diplomacy in 2013; an obscure

outfit whose degrees were awarded

by the University of East Anglia

and the University of Stirling.

Here he is with a Russian

Ambassador, a real one, that is.

So why would a minor academic

working in British universities be

of interest to the Russians?

He is a very typical kind

of character in this world,

on the fringes of academia,

think-tankery and governments.

He looks nonthreatening,

he's a hanger on, he's

at all the parties.

He's a wannabe, not a real player.

In a strange way, that can actually

help the Russians because again,

the threat perception

of the Maltese,

-- drops considerably.

He is Maltese which is not

associated a lot with threats

of any kind, frankly,

he can get along in a lot of places.

Mifsud had a fiance based in Ukraine

according to BuzzFeed.

The woman says she hasn't seen

or heard of the professor

for months, but she's left

holding the baby.

Weeks ago she gave birth

to their daughter.

He got about a bit for business too.

We've tracked some of the movements

of our humble professor.

In London, he met Boris Johnson

and junior minister Tobias Ellwood.

At the University in Rome,

he worked with two former

Italian foreign ministers.

In Riyadh, he was at the think

tank run by former head

of Saudi intelligence,

Prince Turki Al-Faisal.

A source said he'd

regularly visited Moscow.

None of this, of course, is evidence

of him being a Russian asset.

But there's no denying

the benefits of networking.

Here's another nugget

from that old KGB handbook.

International conferences and

seminars are great for recruiting.

Stuffed with clever academics,

scientists and business people,

they are the perfect place to,

quote, get information.

And influence foreigners.

In 2016, the professor was in Moscow

for a Kremlin-backed

Valdai conference.

To his left is Ivan Timofeev,

who works at a think tank linked

to the Russian ministry

of foreign affairs.

Democracy is such

a political regime.

Which is most vulnerable in

comparison with every other kind...

The Washington Post says it is aware

of e-mails suggesting

Mifsud put the Trump team

in contact with Timofeev.

Also at the Valdai conference

we meet German-born Swiss-based

multimillionaire Dr Stephan Roh.

Stephan Roh, on the left,

is the third man.

He's a lawyer with close links

to Professor Mifsud.

Stephan and his Russian born

wife Olga have homes

in Switzerland, Monaco,

London, and Hong Kong.

And then there's this castle

in Scotland, and buying it made

Stephan and Olga the Baron

and Baroness of Inchdrewer.

In 2014 Stephan Roh became

a visiting lecturer

at the London Academy of Diplomacy.

He buys the private university

in Rome where Mifsud

is part of the management.

And Mifsud becomes a consultant

at Roh's legal firm.

In a way we always were in my family

very achievements oriented.

Here is Olga Roh, on the left,

in Fox's reality TV show,

Meet the Russians.

She's extraordinarily well

connected, running an upmarket dress

company in London's Mayfair.

Among her customers,

Britain's Prime Minister.

Here's Theresa May meeting

the Queen, in an Olga Roh coat.

Most intriguing are Stephan's

business interests,

which appear extensive.

Newsnight can reveal

the story of one.

In the autumn 2005 I received this

phone call from a Dr Stephan Roh

showing interest in the company

and explained very briefly

that he was involved or intended

to be involved with some technology

transfer from Russia to Europe.

And he would like to do

this through my company.

Dr John Harbottle is a British

nuclear scientist who ran

a nuclear consultancy,

Severnvale Nuclear Services Ltd.

He specialised in the effects

of radiation on fuel materials

in reactors in Britain,

France and the United States.

So what did Dr Roh want from him?

He explained that he would

like to acquire my company

but he wanted to retain my services

on the technical side

because he was a lawyer and had no

technical background at all.

Dr Roh bought the nuclear

consultancy, then invited

Dr Harbottle on an all expenses paid

trip to a conference, in Moscow.

But the nuclear scientist was alert

to the danger that visitors

to Moscow can be targeted,

or even honey-trapped, into

compromising situations.

I smelt a rat, you know.

It didn't sound as if it rang true.

And I decided that I wasn't

going to go to this meeting.

So Dr Harbottle declined to go.

Shortly afterwards, he was fired.

Under Dr Harbottle, the company's

turnover had been £42,000 a year.

Within three years,

Severnvale Nuclear was turning over

more than $43 million a year under

Stephan Roh, with

just two employees.

On the face of it, it could be

a legitimate business,

highly successful in a short

space of time.

However, my concerns are that it's

only got two employees,

neither of which are experts

in the field of a consultancy.

So it could be money-laundering.

Up from that, it could be a way

of obtaining nuclear capability

for the Russian energy sector

within Russia, it needs improvement.

Dr Roh didn't respond to repeated

attempts to contact him.

The case of Stephan Roh

and Severnvale Nuclear

and of Joseph Mifsud

and Team Hillary's e-mails raises

big questions about these types

of international characters

and their links

to the Russian state.

The essential tradecraft used

by Russian intelligence today

is very similar to that used

in the Cold War, indeed it's

overwhelmingly similar.

So you can draw lines from the late

KGB to the present day with a lot

of ease and accuracy.

Professor Mifsud too did not

respond to Newsnight's

attempts to contact him.

But has always denied

that he is a spy.

When approached by Italian

newspaper la Republica,

he said, "Secret agent?

I never got a penny

from the Russians.

My conscience is clean.

All I've done is to foster

relationships between official

and nonofficial sources."

Three years ago, the Government

introduced shared parental leave,

which gave couples the option

of splitting 50 weeks

of leave entitlement

between mother and father.

A charter for new dads to take more

responsibility for rearing baby.

But some old habits have persisted.

Take up of the shared leave

scheme is very low -

about 3% of eligible couples.

The vast majority of

couples are sticking

to the traditional leave system -

maternity, with a side of paternity.

The subject has been analysed

by the House of Commons Women

and Equalities Committee -

we'll discuss it shortly,

but we went to Luton to speak

to parents about how they feel

about their roles in parenting...

We are equal parents.

It shouldn't be the mother

being at home looking

after the homestead all the time.

Getting time off from work,

spending time with the kids

at Easter holidays etc,

etc, so any more time

with the kids is a better thing.

Two weeks - it's not enough.

A man has every right to spend

time with their child

as much as a woman does.

Two weeks, it's not enough.

You can't bond with

a baby in two weeks.

It means that we get a little bit

of a break, as well,

and for a dad to actually be able

to spend time with their child,

it's one of the most

amazing things there is.

It's a very precious

thing, actually.

So, as you can see, I've

brought my two children

and my foster child as well,

so we are having really

quality time over here.

I do know of families

where the father's had

to go back so quickly.

But even a week, two

weeks after the birth,

it's such a process for the woman

to go through, that they need time,

that time to physically recover

and have that support.

So for the dad to be able

to take some of that load

would mean a lot for them,

and improve rates of things

like postnatal depression.

I've got three kids myself,

so I got two weeks off, you know,

it wasn't much time at all.

Clearly times have definitely

changed, you know, women are no

longer at home any more,

they're working full-time jobs,

looking after kids.

Dads do the same thing,

so times have definitely changed.

With me here is director of the

think tank Demos Polly Mackenzie,

stay at home dad and blogger

John Adams, and Kate Andrews from

the Institute of Economic Affairs.

Very good evening to you all. John,

you are a stay at home dad. You

weren't there for paternity as such,

is that right?

Not for shared

parental leave. When my first

daughter was born I took a month off

work to stay home with my wife and I

was needed at home. She had a very

hard birth, I had to be there to

keep the family running. When my

wife gave birth the second time, the

birth was straightforward but she

was re-hospitalised afterwards, very

high blood pressure and again I had

to take a month off so I could be at

home and keep the family running.

How old are your children now?

Nine

and five.

What is your day? CHUCKLES

My day these days involves getting

up, getting the children ready,

doing the school run and then when

they are actually at school I do a

little bit of freelance, and a bit

of money, then back to school,

picked this keeps up, sort out

after-school clubs. Today I had to

host a play date after school.

Are

there any other stay at home dads?

When you go to the school gates are

they all mothers are some other

guys?

No other men in my position,

no. You do see a lot of men on the

school run these days but you do not

see them in the playground like me,

twice a day.

I wonder whether,

Polly, we put too much emphasis on

the very first year. The mother has

an important role denim

breast-feeding and maybe we should

put more weight and the later years

and dads would be more useful to be

around?

One of the things you can do

with shared parental leave is that

six months of mum attempt then mum

can go back to work and dad can take

the second six months. I think it

would be great if more people did

that. But there is a huge amount of

work by John is talking about that

comes with parenting later on, which

is the child is sick and you have to

pick them up for the nursery has

closed and is the inset day or a

snow day. By default, it tends to be

the mum that picks that up, just as

it is the daughter who picks up care

for elderly parents, so all of that

kind of eats into the number of

hours that a woman tends to work and

that eats into the whole earnings

profile women having comparison with

men, which is how we have ended up

with the situation where women are

51% of the population but take the

third of wages.

You are getting

straight back to the gender pay gap

and all those issues. Is it a

problem, Kate? That men and women

are not splitting paternity in the

wake policymakers are nudging them

to?

It is only a problem if they are

not able to do so, if the policies

and flexible enough and individuals,

choices and partners can't have that

conversation between themselves. It

is important to increase paternity

pay. It might be a cost to the

taxpayer but it might be something

we want to prioritise. It shouldn't

affect small businesses because they

can reclaim that money from the

state. I much more concerned with

the government tries to bringing in

some intrusive policy to hit its own

targets, despite what people might

be telling us. In that respect, the

policies proposed today by forced

dad leave, forcing them to take time

off, threaten their benefits and the

time they can take off if men don't

take a certain proportion is deeply

concerning to me. I don't think it's

a liberal, I don't think it is

flexible or represents what couples

want.

You basically think it is

about choice and as long as they are

freely choosing it doesn't matter if

there is some inequality or some

difference in the way people choose?

We want to make sure there is

equality in terms of being able to

take it, but of outcome is

absolutely fine.

Of course, as a

point of principle that is really

compelling but then you have the

reality, which is when a mum says to

her own employer, I want to take

time off work it's now brilliantly

really normal and OK and lots of

employers have on ramps and off

ramps to help people back. But if

the dad says I want to take six

months or even three months or even

six weeks, it's kind of, people know

they have legal obligations and feel

a bit awkward but it is not normal

lives. And actually a really

compelling thing about a daddy month

is it helps to have that

conversation. I think lots of men, I

would love to know what John Biggs,

don't feel empowered to have that

conversation with their employer.

They would love to do it but they

feel it's not what dads do.

Is that

correct?

I think it is right. I

would disagree with Kate, I don't

think it's a case of taking benefits

away from people, they take it or

don't. This issue of stand-alone

leave, it would basically put us all

on a level playing field, I think.

The crucial point here is it would

enable men to get involved with

their children from day one and if

you bond with your child from day

one there is reams of evidence and

involved father from the start they

can evolve with their start and have

better educational outcomes, better

mental health and, I lost my train

of thought...

Kate, there is a sort

of success breeds success if you get

dads to take time off because it is

probably easier for John, easy for

John if he wasn't the only man at

the play date?

Absolutely. As far as

I am concerned John is leading the

way on this. I said to him on and

off-screen how impressed I am by

that. I agree there is a cultural

problem but you don't change culture

organically and in a meaningful way

if you do it through false. I think

forcing couples, each individual to

take a certain amount of time off is

not the right way to go about it.

Nobody is proposing to force them,

it is use it or lose it.

Use it or

lose it, I think you're putting new

parents in a very difficult

situation where you are threatening

to take benefits away and time and

leave away when that could be

redistributed to the mother or the

father or to anybody who wants it.

Which is why shared parental leave

is a great thing. Why are we backing

away from there?

Becoming so

Draconian? The original plans we

wanted to put through were six weeks

for the mum, six weeks for the dad

that he couldn't give away and then

a big amount of shared parental

leave.

Why do you or anyone else in

no better for an individual couple?

It used to be 26 weeks for the mum

that she couldn't give away. We did

from 26 weeks the woman mum couldn't

give away, instead of taking it down

to two we give them am six weeks and

the dad to six weeks.

Who is getting

the raw deal? Bloom the

self-employed. You have framed it

very much as men are getting the

better deal because you looked at

this in the labour market rate. Is

there a privilege to looking after

the kids? Is it basically you are

getting a good deal now because you

have the kid time?

I think

ultimately, if you look at how much

time the majority of men spent with

their kids, I feel blessed, I really

do. There was a guy doing some

building work to how some years ago

in his 60s, stereotypical builder. I

was always around the house when he

was there an idle one day I would

have to explain to him why I was

there with my kids. I told him it's

me that looks after the kids, my

wife goes out to work and I did not

expect a positive reaction. He

stopped what he was doing and looked

away that said, I wish I could have

done what you don't because I never

saw my kids up.

The measure of

happiness, levels of women are hired

men, maybe this is a rather nice

thing to do? We talk about as if it

is a burden, after children?

This is

such an important point. When we

talk about the gender pay gap it's

how we can make women pursued the

same career trajectories of men and

there is never a conversation about

women having a healthy balance and

Mike are making choices that make

them happier. I think as long as

women can pursued the same career

trajectories we are in a good place.

We're not quite there yet. I think,

as has been pointed out my, it is

assumed women will take up the

household chores on childcare and I

think that is a bit of an unfair

assumption and there is more we

could do. Why is it that only going

to work and working 60, 70, 80 hours

a week is the right thing to do?

Kate is completely right and that.

The best thing from my perspective

is if we were to share both the joys

and burdens of family life. Changing

nappies is not massively fun but

playing with the baby is

extraordinary. Picking kids up and

going... There are wonderful things

but also sometimes I do feel like I

just want to stick to go to work

because I can sit down and have a

cup of coffee.

Sharing it more you

would enjoy it more.

It means we can

get away from the situation where

women don't have the money, they

don't have the pension savings

because they can share.

We are going

to leave it there. Thank you all

very much.

That is all we have time for this

evening. Emily will be here, but

until then, a very good night.