05/11/2017 Sunday Politics South

Good morning, everyone,

and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is your guide to everything

that's happening in the world

of politics this Sunday morning.

On today's show:

Theresa May's right-hand man

Damian Green has denied claims that

police found pornography

on a computer in his office in 2008.

He says the allegations by a former

police chief are "political smears."

With claims of sexual harassment

at Westminster growing by the day,

can either Theresa May

or Jeremy Corbyn do anything to get

to grips with a scandal

threatening to engulf

the entire political class?

We'll ask a minister and senior

member of the Shadow Cabinet.

And some on the left of politics

have been gathering to mark 100

Future rail journeys direct

from Dorset could be faster

but there'll be fewer

of them

and they won't stop

at smaller stations.

Passengers are not happy.

So there's plenty of

explosive political news

to get you in the mood

for bonfire night -

and with me as usual,

three journalists who know quite

a bit about parliamentary plots -

if rather less about

gunpowder and treason.

It's Tom Newton Dunn,

Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

So what are the big political

stories making the news this Sunday?

Well, the papers are brimming

with further allegations against MPs

in the sexual harassment scandal,

which according to one newspaper has

left Westminster frozen in fear.

First Secretary of State Damian

Green, already under

investigation over allegations -

which he strongly denies -

of propositioning a female activist,

is the subject of new claims that

police discovered pornography

on a computer in his Westminster

office in 2008.

Mr Green denies the allegation,

made by former senior

police officer Bob Quick,

saying it is "completely untrue,"

and adding that he is the victim

of disreputable "political smears."

Michael Fallon, who resigned

as Defence Secretary this week

over his past behaviour,

is also subject to fresh claims

he lunged at a female journalist

in 2003 after a lunch.

Labour is facing questions

over its handling of sexual

misconduct allegations.

This morning Shadow Cabinet minister

Dawn Butler refused to be drawn

on whether Jeremy Corbyn knew

about alleged misconduct by MP

Kelvin Hopkins when he was promoted

to the Shadow Cabinet.

And there is a reminder that normal

political life goes on,

with reports that the Cabinet has

agreed to put housing at the heart

of Philip Hammond's upcoming Budget.

Well, let's hear from

Home Secretary Amber Rudd now -

she was on the Andrew Marr Show

earlier talking about the claims

against her Cabinet colleague Damian

Green.

Absolutely not. I think it is

something that will take place in

terms of clearing out Westminster of

that sort of behaviour, and I think

that Westminster afterwards,

including the Government, will be

better for it. When we are confident

that men and women can work any

respectful environment and people on

the receiving end of abuse of power

can come forward. That will be a

positive thing.

Let's see what our panel make of

this fairly explosive week. Good

morning to all of you. Starting with

you, Steve. Not a party political

issue but the Tories are in

Government. How much harder for them

is it an Labour?

Always harder when

you are in Government because it

makes governing almost impossible.

And the wider context is a Prime

Minister who lost her overall

majority a few months ago and

actually that is the context of

everything. When you are having to

deal with the scandal of such

unpredictability, where the

terms are so imprecise, it is a

"lunge", a resignation issue, to use

that term, and nightmare. I don't

think it is fatal. Scandals rarely

bring down governments, but it makes

governing for Theresa May a form of

political health.

Isabel Oakeshott,

Damian Green has denied all

allegations made against him, but

there are more this morning. He is

being investigated by the Cabinet

Office at the moment. If Theresa May

were to effectively lose her Deputy

Prime Minister, has serious without

the?

I think very serious indeed. I

think it is very significant and

strange he was not defended in the

Home Secretary Amber Rudd in that

clip we saw today, she didn't say I

am certain he will survive, and I am

beginning to feel that Damian may

not survive this. We don't know

whether it is the last of the

allegations that may come out in

relation to him. It seems to me that

the allegations were previously of a

rather minor order, but this seems

to have escalated. And I think one

of the big problems for Theresa May,

and there are the many at the

moment, for months we have been

saying that this Government has no

bandwidth to do anything except

Brexit and right now she can't even

do Brexit. What is the point of it

all?

It is important to make clear

not only that Damian Green denies

all of these allegations, but the

computer mentioned was in a shared

office so there is no reason it

would definitely be his

# No guarantee it would definitely

be his. But we have had two MPs on

television this morning, Anna

Soubry, saying he should stand down.

There is an awful lot going on here.

It is not just a pretty awful sexual

harassment scandal. There are also

without a doubt MPs, police

officers, going about settling

scores. For me I have to say for our

pretty discredited police officer

Bob Quick, to make accusations

against serving Cabinet minister, to

suggest he should go for extreme

pornography on computers he may or

may not have known, it may be

extremely distasteful but it is

alarming for democracy to have

ex-police officers like this coming

in and trying to play with

democracy. Some politicians are also

meeting claims, some for the right

reasons to get the allegations out

there and so on but others for their

own agendas and all of this puts the

Prime Minister in an unbelievably

hard situation. I agree with Steve

and Isabel, she desperately needs

two show leadership in all this, but

every way she could turn there are

incredible downfalls, people blaming

her for trying to get to the bottom

of all this. It is very people who

she is relying on for her

leadership, the very Tory MPs the

support she can't lose.

It is not

just the Tory party and of course

Jeremy Corbyn will be making a

speech later today where this will

inevitably and there are accusations

about how the senior leadership in

the Labour Party have handled this.

What about that situation?

Yes, but

the Government is much harder

because you are meant to be doing

10,000 other things at the same

time. This is about a deregulated

work environment. For all those who

say, I hate the way Britain is too

regulated, this is what happens in a

deregulated work environment. The

House of Commons has no HR or

whatever, MPs, advisors, so, MPs

actually don't have much power but

they do have power over who the

point and how to treat them. I think

this is the way forward in terms of

the practical outcome, but it is

across the political spectrum.

But

it is unclear what it will be. Can

the party sort this out?

I'm not

sure I entirely agree, Steve, you

cannot regulate all human

interaction and a lot of these

stories have been about interactions

between politicians and journalists

alike, who have gone out for lunch,

chosen to drink, presumably to

create an informal atmosphere, and

at what point is a step towards

somebody to say goodbye, a peck on

the cheek or whatever, a lunge? You

can't regulate that sort of thing.

Throughout the programme will come

back to some of these things and how

they might be regulated.

Now, the Home Secretary has

also today been talking

about what she calls the "moral

duty" of social media companies

to stop child sexual exploitation,

ahead of a meeting with her US

counterparts this week.

We're joined now by the Home Office

minister Sarah Newton -

she's in our Truro studio.

Thanks very much for coming in to

speak the first night. I want to

talk to you about the Government's

efforts to tackle child pornography,

but let's pick up on some of the

sexual harassment issues at

Westminster first. Two of your

parliamentary colleagues this

morning saying they think the first

Secretary of State Damian Green

should step down whilst being

investigated. Do you agree?

Look, he

has vigorously denied these

accusations, and the Cabinet Office

is investigating these accusations,

so we do have processes for when

ministers have these accusations

made against them so they are

properly investigated. And that is

what is going on at the moment.

Is

that process people can be confident

in? He is effectively being

investigated by Jeremy Heywood, one

of his colleagues.

This is a tried

and tested process that has stood

the test of time, and it is

important...

Has it? Surely what we

are learning is it has not stood the

test of time and that in fact

allegations like this have been

swept under the carpet and ignored

for years and years in Westminster,

exactly what we are learning right

now.

I think you are conflating two

things they are, and what we really

do need to do is look at the whole

range of allegations people have

been making, and make sure

Parliament is a safe place for

people to work, a respectful

environment for people who have been

subjected to harassment or bullying

or inappropriate behaviour, so that

they feel confident to come forward

knowing they will be listened to,

that there will be an open and

transparent and fair to everyone

concerned process for getting to the

bottom of it, and that is exactly

what the Prime Minister and the

Leader of the Cows have set out,

Prime Minister's meeting with all

the leaders of the parties tomorrow

to set out a proper process so we

can modernise the work environment

at Westminster -- leader of the

House have set out.

You think Damian

Green should remain in the Cabinet

well being investigated?

That will

be down to Sir Jeremy Heywood. If he

thinks the misdemeanours have a

basis, that he should stand aside,

that will be the recommendation. I

will not second the inquiry on what

Sir Jeremy Heywood finds.

You were

in the Whips' Office yourself for a

year. And much has been said this

week of the whips being in receipt

of a lot of information about bad

behaviour, and instead of reporting

it to authorities they were using it

as ammunition. Was that your

experience?

Absolutely not. I was at

the Whips' Office up to 2015 and,

yes, I heard about the rumours of a

black spreadsheet, and I can

certainly say I never saw such a

thing. How I went about my business

as a whip is really twofold. It is

quite a technical job in many ways,

about of the Government through the

House, working with the House

authorities, the opposition. Also...

Did you ever hear rumours of these

people's bad behaviour?

Sorry?

Did

you ever hear rumours of MPs

misbehaving, sexual harassment,

allegations are that?

If anybody had

brought a complaint to me about the

behaviour of one of the MPs who were

in my flock, I would take that

really seriously, but bull-mac, that

didn't happen.

You said nobody

brought you a complaint. Did you

hear rumours? -- but no, that didn't

happen.

About the members of my

flock? Absolutely not.

Is that the

MPs you were specifically in charge

of?

I did not have that experience

at all.

Let's move on and talk about

the Home Secretary's trip to

Washington this week, where she will

urge tech companies to go further

and faster on online child abuse. We

have heard a lot from this

Government urging these companies to

do something. One specific ideas of

what they could do, do you have a

clear idea of what you are asking

from tech companies?

Absolutely

right. As you know, this horrendous

crime of child sexual exploitation

and grooming is constantly evolving

as the opportunities for the

perpetrators arise. They are now

using live streaming, different

sorts of platforms, which are

largely controlled by the big

companies in America. What we really

want them to do is to step up and

use their huge expertise, used the

huge money they have got, to help

find technological solutions to read

their sites and rid the opportunity

of these paedophiles to be able to

groom young people. We need the

politicians in America to exert

pressure, as well as other

companies, because these are global

problems. We are not going to solve

this problem in the UK alone. We

have made a lot of progress, working

with Facebook and other companies as

well, but we really need to keep one

step ahead of the technology, one

step ahead of the perpetrators, who

are using these opportunities to

commit horrendous crimes.

It was back in 2014 Theresa May for

the Internet companies to do more in

terms of child abuse online and we

have not seen significant action,

and it does not appear these kind of

calls from the Government actually

make difference.

Well, at the moment we are seeing

the police being able to make about

400 arrests per month, about 500

children being safeguarded. The

Government itself is investing a lot

of money in new technology like the

project Arachnid, and making sure

the police have the specialist

resources they need to go

undercover, and absolutely find

these perpetrators and bring them to

justice, but we do need to

constantly have the engagement and

support of the companies themselves

to invest in further technologies to

prevent this from happening. As you

say, we have made progress but we

need to see yet more.

Sarah Newton,

thank you very much for speaking to

us today.

Michael Fallon's decision

to resign this week,

saying his past conduct with women

fell short of the standard expected

of the Armed Forces, led

to something of a minor reshuffle.

And the Prime Minister took

Westminster by surprise

when she announced his replacement,

former Chief Whip and relative

newcomer to the ministerial

ranks, Gavin Williamson.

Here he is speaking on the day

of his appointment.

It's an immense privilege to have

been appointed Secretary

of State for Defence,

and what we need to be doing

is continuing to focus

on countering Daesh,

making sure that our national

security is at the forefront

of everything that we do,

and we have some of the world's

greatest armed services,

and it's such a privilege to be able

to work with them.

Gavin Williamson, who you saw there,

arrives at the Ministry of Defence

at a challenging time

for UK defence.

The Government has promised

an above-inflation increase

in spending every year

but the Ministry of Defence

is already committed to finding

£20 billion of savings

over the next ten years.

The Cabinet Office is currently

conducting a security review

which will look at military

capabilities and funding up to 2022,

while there are continuing

reports of shortages

of manpower and equipment.

And if Labour were to win power,

questions persist over

what a Jeremy Corbyn premiership

would mean for defence budget

and the traditional cornerstones

of UK defence policy

like Trident and Nato.

Well we're joined now

by the Shadow Defence

secretary, Nia Griffith.

Well we're joined now

by the Shadow Defence

secretary, Nia Griffith.

Let's talk about defence spending

first. Would Labour commit to the

same thing this Government has which

is an above inflation increase in

spending every year?

We've been

absolutely clear about that. First

and foremost we'd meet our

commitment of spending at least 2%

of GDP on defence as is our Nato

commitment and we would match the

Government's year-on-year 0.5%

increase above inflation. This is

really important. Labour's always

had a good strong track record of

spending on defence.

Jeremy Corbyn

seems to have a different view.

Speaking at a protest in 2010 he

said Labour wanted to fight all the

cuts except those in the Armed

Forces where we want to see a few

more cuts taking place. He doesn't

seem committed to defence spending?

In the manifesto for this year's

election, 2017, he and John

McDonnell have been absolutely clear

we support the exact words I've been

using now, at least 2% of the spend

of GDP spent on defence.

Jeremy

Corbyn's changed his mind on that?

He's been very clear about that and

it was in our manifesto this year.

You criticised the Government on

whether they meet their 2%

commitment on defence. You saying

they were fiddling the figures

because they were including

pensions. You would strip that out

and snake sure there's 2% spending

on defence which doesn't include

pensions?

Technically, the

Government would argue you are

allowed to include pensions by the

Nato rules. But we've been very

clear, really, when you're talking

about defence spending it should

mean defence. When you look at the

last year of the Labour Government

we spent 2.5% GDP on defence. We are

very much committed to looking at

what we need in our defence budget

and looking to the problems they

have now where they can't meet the

commitments they've made.

You would

sprip pensions out of those figures.

In order to live up to these

commitments you have to find an

extra billion for the defence

budgets because we're not

calculating pensions anymore?

John

McDonnell is well aware of what they

are doing. Putting in the conflict

resolution money which Gordon Brown

kept separate. He is well aware of

the figures and the difficulties. We

are certainly very committed to a

defence budget that really does make

a difference.

I'm not clear whether

you're telling me it will be 2% 69

spending, excluding pensions?

We

want it to be 2% of GDP as in the

way Labour always calculate it had

up until 2010, not including

pensions.

A significant increase in

military spending?

We are talking

about making sure the spending we

need is there because, at the

current situation, we have with the

current Government, they are

overstretched. Even the very caution

National Audit Office says they are

at immense risk of not being able to

meet the expenditure commitment the

they have made. Others talk about a

black hole. You mentioned it that

£20 billion. There is a real issue

we have to address.

To you know what

it will cost, how muchedingsal funds

will have to be found?

We have to

rook at what are the needs at the

time as well as the facts we want to

make that 2% commitment not

including things which have just

been brushed in now by the

Conservative Government.

Let's move

on to a different aspect of defence.

There is a treaty banning nuclear

weapons opened at the UN for

signatories. 122 countries have

already signed it. Would an incoming

Labour Government sign that treaty?

The important point here is there

was an Is inned opportunity for

there to be observers from the UK.

There should have been at that

treaty talks.

That doesn't change

the calculation whether or not an

incoming Labour Government would

sign that treaty?

We are committed

to a strong multi-lateral disarming

programme. That's what we've seen

missing.

This is a multilateral

approach to try to get rid of

nuclear weapons. What you say you

want. Would a Labour Government sign

that treaty?

You we have to look at

how you go about things. We need toe

somebody clear we want to

de-escalate tensions across the

world. Work with other nuclear

partners to help stop the

proliferation of nuclear weapons. We

want to work with those countries

who feel very strongly about the

treaty so we can work together. We

have to do that in a multilateral

framework.

This is a multi-lateral

disarmament framework. Under the

auspice Is of the UN disto see how

else it could be organised. This is

a great opportunity for you, who

have been a lifelong campaigner for

disarmament.ment Labour Government

will be the first nuclear power to

do so, sign it and lead the way.

We

need to use our position to be

responsible and call for responsible

multi-lateral disarmamentment there

was progress made on this in the

eighties and nineties with

considerable amount of are heads put

to one side and destroyed. We need

to get back on the front foot there.

I don't see any presence by the UK

Government at the moment on that

aagain da. It is not helpful for the

nukes leer nations to be separated

from the non-nuclear nation in the

these debates.

That's why I don't

understand why you're not taking the

opportunity to say a Labour

Government would Take The Stand.

We

should wok together and we should

use our position as a nuclear power

to work for a multilateral

disarmament programme.

You were very

clear in your manifesto that the

Labour Party would keep Trident for

the meantime.

Abs will yously.

We

know throughout his life, Jeremy

Corbyn's long wanted to get rid of

it. He signed up to the manifesto

saying Trident would stay. Has he

changed his minds?

The important

thing is that was a manifesto

Jeremy, John McDonnell's agreed to.

We stood on it in 2017 because that

is the Labour Party position.

Absolutely. I'm asking if the Labour

Leader really believes in that

position?

He believes in democracy

in the party. That is the Labour

Party position. I don't see that

position changing at all. He has

said very clearly that he accepts

that is our Labour Party position.

And that is the manifesto we've

stood on and will continue to stand

on.

I'll need to ask questions about

sexual harassment in Westminster. It

is as much as inissue for the Labour

Party as the Conservative. It was

not clear listening to Dawn Butler,

your colleague on The Andrew Marr

Show this morning, she was asked

whether or not the leadership knew

about allegations by Kelvin Hopkins.

Do you know?

I absolutely do not

know at this moment in time. That's

why there has to be an

investigation. It is extremely

important to find out what the

allegations were, exactly what

happened, who was told and who told

what to whom. Then we will be in a

position to see what the situation

is. In the meantime, Kelvin Hopkins

has been suspended which is the

cricket thing to do.

Rosie Winterton

has been outspoken about what she

let the leadership know. If it is

the case the leadership did know

about these allegations should he

have been put into the Shadow

Cabinet?

The real question is who

did know what when.

But what I'm

asking you is...

I am anot going to

speculate whether there was an if or

whatever. We need to know how that

information was transmitted. Was it

put in writing. What it made clear,

who was told what, when. Until we

have a full investigation it would

be inappropriate to comment. What is

absolute lie clear, we need to get

this right for the future. We must

have proper procedures so we deal

with incidents as and when they

occur. And we deal with them

prepperly in a way which gets to the

bottom of the issue and deals with

it properly.

Why should anyone have

confidence the Labour Party will

treat issues that seriously when,

firstly there's a question whether

they knew about Kelvin hop kips and

others have been dissuaded from

making complaints. Knots just Bex

Bailey. Monica Lennon said when she

was harassed at a party senior

figures in the Labour Party told her

it was her own fault. It seems as if

there hasn't been a culture within

Labour to make a complaint.

That's

why we're having a thorough review

of procedures. We brought in new

procedures in July. We need to

ensure there's a proper helpline

available. We are appointing an

independent organisation which will

deal with allegations first-hand so

nobody has to go to somebody they

think might know other people, be

friends with other people. They can

go somewhere completely confidential

and private. These are often things

you can't want to tell your cross

friends about. We will appoint that

organisation and make sure people

can go there and access to it is

made widely known. It is very, very

important when people come into a

job, they know if anything does

happen, they will be able to

complain. Whether they are ordinary

party members or working in

Westminster.

Thank you for talking

to us

For Thank you for talking to us some

on the left of politics,

this weekend wasn't just a chance

to mark the anniversary

of the failed gunpowder

plot here in Britain,

but also events in Russia 100 years

ago, when Bolshevik revolutionaries

led by Lenin seized power

and ushered in seven

decades of Communist rule.

For critics, that's something

to regret, not celebrate.

Elizabeth Glinka went to one event

in London to find out more.

The 7th November 1917.

Red Guards under the leadership

of Vladimir Lenin begin to occupy

Government buildings in Petrograd.

This uprising, known

popularly as Red October

because of the difference

in the Gregorian calendar,

was, in fact, a coup.

The winds of socialist change had

been blowing for some time.

The Tsars had resisted reform

and millions toiled in a state

of almost medieval surfdom.

Then war.

Nearly two million

Russians would die.

The revolution had really begun nine

months earlier in February 1917.

The world's first socialist

republic was declared.

October, well that

was the Bolsheviks

asserting their authority.

A hundred years on, as this

event at the TUC shows,

there's still plenty of people

who want to remember and even

celebrate those momentous events.

Mainly as an event in history,

this is an example of historical

development in action,

the ability of people to club

together and be able to affect

the discourse of history.

It was people's first attempt at

trying to build socialism.

Although there were many terrible

things that happened,

I think we have to try

and draw from experience.

Jeremy Corbyn's close friend

and adviser, Andrew Murray,

was chairing the opening session.

He didn't want to talk to us

but we did manage to speak

to the daughter of one of the most

famous Communists of all time.

TRANSLATION:

It's an historic moment

which opened up possibilities

for further changes

and allowed other people

to strive for a different world.

A world, which it seems,

some are still keen to push for.

We're growing, so there is obviously

a positive reflection.

There is a lot of negative

propaganda that comes

from the Cold War period.

It is harder to talk

to older people maybe.

But younger people

are quite receptive.

The events and discussions taking

place here today cover a whole range

of topics from women's

rights to the Third World

and the impact on British socialism.

But there's much less discussion

of the Russian Civil War,

the purges and the political

repression that would come later.

We wanted to have this conference

because we wanted to show it

in a positive light.

Whatever one's view of what happened

to the Soviet Union subsequently

the fact is it is important

to understand the process

of revolutionary change

for its own sake.

Red October would usher

in 70 years of communism.

The proletarite would rise,

find respect and security.

But the suppression of the peoples

of Eastern Europe, the forced labour

camps and the murder of hundreds

of thousands, if not millions

of people, make it difficult

for many to see that revolution

as something to celebrate.

That was Elizabeth Glinka reporting.

So is the centenary

of the Russian Revolution a cause

for celebration, or regret?

Well, to discuss this I'm

joined by former Labour

and Respect MP George Galloway,

and the journalist Peter Hitchens.

Good morning. Let me start with you

George Galloway. Is the October

revolution a cause for celebration?

With the, if not for the October

revolution, we'd been conducting

this interview in German. Though the

truth is this interview wouldn't be

taking place and we probably

wouldn't be alive for a variety of

reasons. The Soviet Union broke the

back of Hitler, as Mr Churchill

often owe pined in Parliament and

elsewhere. If not for the Soviet

Union, Hitler would have ruled. And

his successorsness, perhaps until

now, from Vladivostok all the way to

Portugal.

You say we wouldn't be

able to have this discussion. In the

former Soviet Union we couldn't have

this office either?

That's also

true. But even the...

George will be

able to say, that of course.

Even

the sun has spots on its face as

they used to say in the Soviet

Union. There is no doubt tremendous

abrasions, big crimes, a lot of

suffering but, if not for the

transformation, then the Soviet

Union, Russia's GDP increased from

1930 to 190 and the Nazi occupation.

And the strength that defeated

Hitlerism would not have been there.

Peter Hitchens, does it offend you

there are people celebrating 100

years since the Russian Revolution?

Offend? No, but in the Soviet Union,

in which I lived, you would not have

been able to say it was set up by a

cynical bitch, almost bloodless, but

engineered by the German Imperial

Government using -- a cynical

putsch, almost bloodless. That this

was the inauguration of an immensely

long period of repression,

brutality, secret police,

concentration camps and lies, which

I am likely to have seen come to an

end in my lifetime, and I cannot see

why anybody looking at that

disastrous country where so much

misery was needlessly imposed on so

many people for so long could

possibly celebrate the beginning of

it, which was completely avoidable,

and as I say was truly the result of

the cynical foreign policy and

intelligence operations of the

Imperial German Government is trying

to save it skin...

But everyone

including George Galloway

acknowledges the tyranny and terror

that followed.

He doesn't. He gives

statistics about GDP but fails to

mention the people murdered in

labour

camp... He was of course formerly a

Trotskyite and sung the praises of

Lenin, which I have not done and

neither have I done today. I have

never been a Communist, unlike Peter

Hitchens, but I do acknowledge and

celebrate that an entirely different

world opened up as a result of the

events in October 19 17. China, you

have just seen their party congress,

decorated with the iconography of

the Bolshevik Revolution, and China

is the most powerful, or soon will

be the most powerful country on the

earth.

With one of the most

repressive government?

I don't think

that is true. There is repression in

China, but...

Enormous repression in

China! How can you possibly argue

there is an?

China has taken more

people out of poverty in the last 30

years than any country, resume,

system, ever has -- how can you

possibly argue there is not?

All

despots always argue, trying to

distract your attention from the

mountains of skulls behind them,

their supposed economic success,

which generally does not turn out to

be as great as claimed. The Soviet

Union was an enormous pile of rust

by the time I lived there and was a

complete catastrophe.

Yes, that is

why it fell down. But we are talking

about the Revolution 100 years ago.

Is it possible to separate the two

events? A popular overthrowing of a

government is perhaps different from

the tyranny and terror that

followed.

It was not a popular

overthrow. You sure this Eisenstein

propaganda as if it were fact. What

we see was a film made afterwards.

What actually happened was a putsch

in the middle of the night in which

hardly anybody... Nobody has even

mentioned...

That German connection,

a rather more important...

Nobody

has even mentioned during this year

until now that there was a Russian

Revolution. There were two. The

first one was a genuine uprising,

overthrowing the old regime, and I

think we can all be glad of it. The

second one was a cynical for --

foreign financed putsch and it does

not deserve to be spoken out.

Is

that true, and Menshevik revolution

would have done better than a

Bolshevik one?

It is not my business

and entirely counterfactual fiction,

if I may...

Unlike how you open this

discussion.

That is the most

important thing. If not for the

Soviet Union, we wouldn't be here.

Hetmyer might still, and most of the

world, with its allies -- Adolph

Hitler might have won and they make,

and most of the world...

The effect

of Bolshevism and coming is on

Europe was colossal.

Let's bring it

all a little bit more up-to-date.

You were saying earlier you have

never been a Leninist, although

Peter Hitchens confesses he was at

one time.

Absolutely was a

Trotskyist, and now nor the complete

folly of that particular political

disposition.

John McDonnell in the

Labour Party openly says he is a

Trotskyist, a Leninist, is that a

problem for the Labour Party?

I

would have thought, arts would be

more respected now than he has been

for quite some time as capitalism is

collapsing around our ears. From

2008 the Economist itself, the bible

of capitalism, began to resurrect

Marxist economics and analysis, so I

really don't think it is. Jeremy

Corbyn is not a Marxist. It only

took them four years, 54...

It is

not that.

I think we are moving into

an era where Governments like the

Chinese Government are making plans,

and are succeeding in implementing

them, and thus transforming their

position. China in 1949, and I don't

need to tell you, was just about the

most backward place you could

possibly imagine. And from 1949 to

now it has sold transforms that it

is the world's biggest economy...

We

are in danger of getting sidetracked

by China here.

I have to put this

point in. If China was backward in

1949 it was far more backward by the

time Mao Zedong finished his great

leap forward and starved millions of

people to death in the period of

economic lunacy. You just don't

notice...

What George was saying

they are, and a sense certainly

amongst younger voters in this

country and others, where they are

turning against capitalism, they

don't think it has worked or

delivered for them, that this kind

of Marxist Leninist philosophy is

becoming more popular?

Let's hope

not. The fact the current system is

failing does not seem to recommend

the Soviet system, which is

demonstrably a failure, and even its

own leaders admitted it failed and

that is why they tried to reform it

in the period I was there and why it

collapsed. Whatever you might want

to conclude from examining our

position, the Soviet alternative is

not the thing you want the dues.

This was a long period of disaster,

and I remember at the end of it

watching in Moscow said a film which

has never been shown here, and the

title means approximately we can't

go on living like this, and for the

first time, the politburo told the

truth about what life was like in

the dreadful place and everyone in

that cinema was weeping because

finally they saw the truth being

told about the dreadful

anti-civilisation in which they had

been taught to live for so long. The

idea we should celebrate it revive

it seems to me to be verging on the

obscene.

George, one interesting

question about this of course,

whilst there are events going on in

London and across the UK to mark

this centenary, it is not being

celebrated in Russia.

I was in

Russia a couple of weeks ago. There

is a big debate about whether it

ought to be, and many people are

celebrating it...

Vladimir Putin is

not. He would want to ignore it.

But

the Communist Party is the second

biggest party in Russia. And it is

the ruling party in China, which,

with respect, is not a separate

thing, because China is continuing

the Russian Revolution and doing

rather better at it than the

Russians did, but there are many

people, particularly older, that is

true, who think that the era of the

Soviet Union was better than the

very cold period of capitalism that

succeeded it. So half the world

followed for a time the red flag,

the red banner of Leninism. No one

will do so again. Leninism of the

kind that Peter used to proselytise

is certainly not coming back, but

Marxism is going to live on.

Let's

hope not.

Thank you both, gentlemen,

for coming on to speak about that.

It's coming up to 11.40am.

You're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme:

We've taken the moodbox to where

else but bonfire night celebrations.

We've taken the moodbox to where

else but bonfire night celebrations?

It wasn't just Westminster

that had the fireworks this week.

We're asking people in Guildford

in Surrey,

does Theresa May have control

of her Government and her party?

Welcome to Sunday Politics South,

my name's Peter Henley.

On today's show passengers

from Dorset to London

are being offered faster trains

but less frequently and they won't

stop at so many smaller stations.

Perhaps not surprisingly,

they're not happy.

More on that shortly.

First let's meet the two

politicians here for

the duration of the programme.

Penny Mordaunt

is the Conservative

MP for Portsmouth North,

and

Tony Page

is the Labour deputy

leader

of Reading Borough Council.

Welcome both.

A survey of local councillors has

said that four in ten do not have

the money to meet one or more

statutory directive to children.

Local authorities are being asked to

take on too much.

My role,

particularly looking at disabled

people, which is the other part of

what I do, I'm focusing on children

with learning disabilities, looking

at what provision is being made for

them, and also, as they progress

through childhood and out into the

world of work, what their employment

rates are, and what support they are

given. If they are not given the

right education and independent

living support, that means there

will not be able to reach their full

potential. Employment rate is

usually less than 6%. If given both

those things, employment rate rises

to 86%.

Local council have been

squeezed too hard. If they cannot

provide statutory services...?

Children services are protected in a

way that other social care is not,

we have just set up across

government task force to look at the

whole issue of social care, which

has been missing for too long. We

need to look at not just the funding

for that, ensure it is properly

funded, but ensure that when we have

services we can allow innovation to

take place. If we commission for one

hour of care, all you do... You are

constantly driving down the quality

and the cost of that unit of care.

What we need to do is start

commissioning for innovation and you

get better services, better value

for money.

Innovation, Tony Paige,

have you got enough money to meet

the current demand?

I hope the

chance that takes on board in budget

preparations points being made,

because we have statutory

responsibilities and we have to take

children into care, and when we do,

the cost must be met, a budget can

be blown apart if you have the four,

five, six children into care,

sometimes costing four, £5,000 a

week. What takes the hit,

discretionary services. That put

real pressure on councils. There is

a fly, constantly attacking you, I

must say. But, getting back to the

issue...!

LAUGHTER.

That is an issue that Philip Hammond

needs to take on board, this is

being made to ministers nationally,

this point, by the LTA. We cannot

continue it with a situation where

statutory duties remain unchanged,

and it is right we have those

responsibilities, but when budget

pressures are suddenly blown

apart...

You have got the fly, now,

we should send it to Philip

Hammond(!)

that is something the

Chancellor has really got to take on

board, seriously.

More money in the

budget, yes or no? Do you know?

Well, actually...

What about

Universal Credit.

We have budgets

that are rising, what we also have,

and it is not children, it is adult

social care, we have rising demand,

and what we have to do is in the

future, we have to take this

opportunity to be really realistic

about, what do we want to see, and

what do we need to do to enable that

to happen.

We need certainty over

funding, I know it is not penny's

department but the government

started the process about possible

business rates retention, that seems

to have gone off the boil. A number

of us face no grants in government

by 2020, that is the projection we

have been given. We were told

business rates retention would be a

magic bullet, and all of that has

gone very quiet. We need the

government to step forward to step

forward around the funding of local

government issues on the next few

months.

It's hardly a blinding

revelation that our roads

are getting more congested,

according to the local government

association

the average motorist

spends the equivalent of a week

every year sat in traffic.

And now the RAC has done a survey

of how the view looks

through the window when we're

waiting to inch forward.

VOICEOVER: According to the RAC's

survey of nearly 1800 drivers,

61% say that congestion and journey

times have got worse

on our motorways in the last year.

Motorways make up 1%

of the country's roads but account

for more than a fifth

of all journeys.

Getting around town is also

seen to have worsened,

with 55% reckoning that urban roads

are busier and slower.

It's not just anecdotal either,

the government's own figures show

we drove over 252 billion miles last

year, up 2.2% on the year before

and the highest ever

number of road miles.

STUDIO: Joining us from our London

studio is

Nick Lyes

from the RAC.

Thank you for joining us, you do

this survey regularly, it seems

people really have got fed up with

waiting so long on roads.

Certainly

when we do the survey, annual

survey, and what we have found is

that concern about congestion is

actually increasing. In 2015, 18%

said it was a significant concern

for them. This year, it has passed

25%, it is 26%. It is going up that

league table of top concerns and

starting to mix in with other things

like potholes. It is starting to

become a significant concern and it

is not surprising because we have

record numbers of vehicles on our

roads now.

Technology will come to

our rescue, isn't it, we are not far

off Peak car, surely, we will have

self driving cars, we will have them

move towards electric, in pollution

terms -- peak car. . As well as

smart motorways and junction

improvements, surely that will solve

things for us.

We have a significant

problem now that needs to be dealt

with very soon. There are some

things we can certainly start

looking at. Are we optimising

traffic flow in city centres.

Traffic lights sequencing, is that

as good as it could be? Are we

making more use of variable speed

limits on motorways which can help

to control traffic flow slightly

better. There are certain things we

can be doing now. The government

certainly has invested about £50

million over the course of the last

five years, I've come of course, the

problem is, when you are investing

that money, you create more

roadworks to create the extra

capacity... At the moment it is

short-term pain for long-term gain.

Do you speak up for public transport

to the extent that, someone took the

train sometimes, HS2, everything

that is going, Will Rhodes be

clearer?

There is a capacity issue,

what we find when we survey drivers,

there is some 55% of drivers wanting

to actually use public transport

more often, but they tell us that

the problem is that it is neither

convenient nor affordable. And, it

generally tends to take a lot longer

than if they took their vehicle. At

the moment it is not a practical

solution.

That is the check and

balance, if roads get more crowded,

that will persuade people to use

other transport more?

Potentially,

yes, where is the point where people

say, enough is enough.

Are we

reaching that point, our people so

frustrated that they will find other

ways?

I'm not too sure that we are

there yet, there is still a

significant number of people that

are using a vehicle to do journeys

even under five miles, certainly if

you are doing your weekly food shop,

it is much more convenient to use

your vehicle. People generally tell

is now that they are as reliant on

their vehicle as they were five

years ago.

You are a big fan of

public transport, roads are blocked

and choked, that is not such a bad

thing if it persuade bus companies

do have more people.

There is an

element of that obviously but one

cannot rely on congestion just to

solve the problem. It needs

investment in public transport.

Reading has one of the finest bus

services in the country, constantly

winning awards, and a good railway

service.

Cutting pollution in North

Reading as well.

And we are

rejigging them, not cutting them.

--

cutting service in North Reading has

caused problems.

It means literally

different roads, that is what it

means, and different services, which

you have to do to recognise changes

in local circumstances. And...

Cycle

lane, bus lane, all those other good

things you are doing in Reading, it

squeezes traffic down even harder,

even more problems getting from have

is across the other side of town.

Bus lanes in Reading, we have more

per mile outside of London than any

other city in the country, bus lanes

are created by using either central

reservation space or where we have

wide pavements and do not compromise

pedestrian safety. We are not

reducing existing road capacity,

that is an important point to make.

I see some cycle lanes squeezing

traffic... We need more money,

again, don't we, Philip Hammond,

come on, surely!

There is more money

going into this, I'm from

Portsmouth, congestion, and actually

parking issues, which are a blight

on the quality-of-life, they are the

biggest breaks, I think, in us

growing further in the economy,

growing in Portsmouth more. We have

to do lots of different things.

There is no magic or silver bullet

into this. For example, a lot of

development going on in Portsmouth,

with land we have brought back into

use. How about having some of those

developments around car pulls games.

There is lots of other options we

have out there instead of a couple

of cars per household and that. --

car pool scheme. Cycle hire, that is

something we can do, looks to expand

them. And we do need proper cycle

lanes, we do need quiet cycle lanes,

through the city, but critically, we

also need good quality commuter

routes. If people are going to give

up their cars and cycle to work,

they need to be safe but on speedy

routes.

We also need clean vehicles,

I was glad to see the survey that

recognition that air quality is a

major issue. The government needs to

look at something like a vehicle

scrappage scheme, which has worked

in the past for some categories and

is needed to incentivise.

And

incentivise electric bike 's, would

you go for that?

I think that there

is a lot of things... The local

authority is looking at this in

Portsmouth, and indeed, they are

asking elsewhere -- there are

schemes elsewhere which offer

incentives and paybacks for people

who take up the options.

All good

ideas, and the same from you as

well, thank you very much.

You'd normally expect a new rail

franchise holder to be

offering extra services,

but under proposals currently

out for consultation

from South Western Railways,

direct trains from Weymouth

to Waterloo could drop

from the current two per hour

to one,

and some of the smaller

stations on the line could lose

direct services altogether.

As our Dorset reporter

Tristan Pascoe has been finding out,

it's not exactly on track

for popularity with

the travelling public.

It is a vital artery, linking the

south coast with the capital, but as

I discovered a couple of years ago,

the trip from Dorset to London is

not such a great British Railway

journey...

At more than three hours, it is

quicker to get to Liverpool or York

from London, then it is to get the

Weymouth, fast forward two years, a

new franchise holder, south-western

railways, and the promise of faster

train journeys. The proposed 2018

timetable currently under

consultation sees winners and

losers, there will be a faster

direct train, shaving around 20

minutes from the current journey

time, but also few of them, going

from two direct trains per hour down

to only one. Not surprisingly, it

has not gone down well with

passengers.

I think that is really

poor service and what I don't

understand, new franchise, why does

the government give a franchise to a

new company that is going to cut the

services which are really good?

Your

message?

My messages, don't mess

around with it. You have been hired

to give us good service, that is

what we want.

The man used to be in

charge of trains in this part of the

world, under the previous franchise

holder, is not impressed.

The

proposed timetable in my opinion is

vast the inferior to the present

service. The major stations west of

Poole will lose 50% of through

services to London, everyone during

the day will lose the through

service through Clapham Junction,

and it is replaced by a stopping

service between Weymouth and

Portsmouth, offering an inferior

journey time than that which is

currently possible by changing at

Southampton. For most people in my

view it is a bad deal.

And it

continues, a trade-off, faster

trains but with fewer stops, so,

smaller stations like these, could

lose direct trains to Waterloo

altogether.

Well, I will have to

find alternative means, because I

don't want to wait around for an

hour for another train. I will park

somewhere nearer to London and drive

back.

One local councillor says that

a reduced service is bad news for

the local economy.

I think there is

going to be a huge economic impact,

we have spent the last decade trying

to build up Dorset as a can-do

place, a place to come to do

business, to get the right worklife

balance, and this, this proposal, is

going to cut that so much, and I

know it will certainly make me think

about travelling up to London, for

meetings, if I cannot get safely

back to park stone, what we have at

the moment is not fantastic, but it

suits us, and we can manage it, all

the way from Weymouth up to

Waterloo. So if they start to cut

that, that is going to impact really

hard.

This is not just about people

who live in the area going away, it

is also about people who want to

come here, and I think, if you come

from London, after all, the most

important economic up in the

country, and find that in reality

there is only one train an hour to

Weymouth instead of two, I think

that is a big turn-off, frankly.

South-western railways declined to

take part in the programme said it

would be meeting passengers to

address concerns at a number of

forum events along the line. For

some passengers, the message is

clear:

the approaching train is not

scheduled to stop at this station.

Looks like we'll be getting a bit

more of that. You don't think it is

a done deal.

This is a consultation.

This is a consultation, the film has

just profiled it, personally, as you

know, I have campaigned on better

rail franchises, it is the only way

to get competition, that point when

you are signing up...

This is not a

good start for a new operator.

They

are consulting, I suspect they are

looking at what they can do...

Get

away with!

Well, no, they are making

best use... As we would not want to

see those services cut, I'm pleased

we have more seats and we will have

proper rolling stock on mainline

routes, unlike what we have had to

suffer. Terrible things commuters

have had to endure, using suburban

rail stop.

I remember you measuring

the width of the seats and making a

point about it!

South West trains

own ergonomic study said that only

70 descent of the population could

fit into their seats, providing you

did not take into account their

arms! It was crazy. We need to plus

two seating, if you are doing

mainline routes, travelling from

Portsmouth Southampton to London.

Many more seats, tens of thousands

of more seats, new services, and it

will be quicker. That is good but we

must ensure that we are catering for

everyone. Some of these rural

stations as well, you know, they

need a good service.

Is this an

example of the franchise system

working or not?

I don't think a

franchise system is a particularly

commendable one, you invite

companies, state-owned foreign

companies to bid for franchises,

they overpaid, and then they find

they have two... The only way they

can pay the premium payments to the

DST and the Treasury is to make

savings they were not originally

anticipating. And then you get into

the difficulties that we are seeing

here. I would like to see a much

more planned centralised regime for

franchising, which recognises

that...

Well, you are for

nationalisation.

Know, as the

franchises come up they would be

taken back into public ownership,

one of the most accessible examples,

the East Coast, National Express and

about the franchise, publicly

operated, producing 1 billion for

the Treasury, and still, for

misplaced dogmatic reasons, the

government insisted it be franchised

again. It can be made to work. It is

not renationalisation, the old BR

model but we must have the central

control that the DST has waved away,

and allows to be fragmented through

this... 28 franchises in this

country, that is a nonsense!

Lets

see how much it works out in the new

trains arriving in a couple of

years.

Now our regular round-up of the

political week in the South in 60

seconds. The aircraft carrier Queen

Elizabeth left Portsmouth on more

sea trials, she has been undergoing

engineering work. The next big

milestone, getting some planes to

fly from her. In Oxford, still

waiting for a commercial investor

for a major flood scheme, project to

protect 1200 homes and businesses

still formally and pounds short, a

month until a funding deadline

expires. Protests as Hampshire

council has decided on £140 million

of cuts is, asking the government to

let them charge elderly people for

bus passes and everyone else who

uses waste tips.

It will cause more

fly-tipping, and congestion.

Labour

MP Anneliese Dodds is calling for an

Oxford man charged with being a

member of so-called Islamic State to

be returned to the UK. Jack let's

was captured by Kurdish fighters.

Reading base Yellow Pages is now

digital only. -- Jack Letts. It will

publish its final version of its

business directory in 2019.

STUDIO: Magnificent aircraft carrier

leaving Portsmouth for the first

time. And, the new Secretary of

State, moving in, to take over the

Ministry of Defence, should have

been a woman, shouldn't it? And

Milton from Guildford could have

done this, Harriet Baldwin, she

could have done this. Indeed, you

were tipped for the job.

One day, a

woman will hold that post...

Would

you like it?

Who wouldn't, fantastic

job, but anybody who cares about

defence at this time must support

the new Secretary of State.

Difficult job to ensure that we

deliver the 20 14th -- 2019 STS are,

of which that carrier was a part,

they need to get behind Gavin and

make sure he's doing a really good

job. -- SDSR.

A lot of people say

that he does not understand it, he

has never run a major government

department.

Are you suggesting that

ministers are appointed on the basis

of only their experience.

Anna

Soubry says that he picked himself a

plum job, Sarah Wollaston, there are

times when you are offered a job, it

would be better to advise that there

is someone more suited to the role,

better spearing.

Someone going into

parliament and government could end

up with any department, what you

will do as a minister is make

decisions, and you are very reliant

on good advice being given to you.

Having worked at the MoD, I can tell

you, it is a fantastic department

with amazing individuals working in

it. He will have a huge amount of

advice and support. As

parliamentarians, we need to ensure

that he is doing the best he can,

and we need to get behind him and

support him to do that.

As Theresa

May got strong control over this?

Without intruding on private grief,

the fact is, Michael Fallon was a

very experienced politician, I am no

conservative, but the fact is, he

was widely respected, a very

well-established individual, as

Secretary of State for Defence, and

inevitably, whatever attribute Kevin

Williams and has got, it is going to

take some while to reach the level

of expertise that Michael Fallon

brought to a crucial job.

With a

really difficult intro.

Indeed, that

is the reality of the situation. I

will not make any further comment,

obviously. Penny would have liked

the job, I am sure, and from what I

have read, she may have done a

splendid job of it. Better luck next

time!

That is where the programme ends. We

could do with

All right, and at that point

we have to end it there.

My thanks to Rosena and Andrew,

and with that it's back to Sarah.

It's been a tricky

week for Theresa May -

again, you might think.

She's lost a Cabinet minister

and been forced into a reshuffle

which did little for party unity,

to say nothing of losing a Commons

vote on Brexit and yet more reports

of fireworks in Cabinet meetings -

this time apparently over housing.

So, is the Prime Minister's time

in office going with a bang

or more of a whimper?

Well, we sent Ellie Price

and the entirely unscientific

Sunday Politics moodbox

to Conservative-held Surrey,

to find out.

ALL:

Three, two, one.

# Ignite the light

and let it shine...#

It's a tale of lit fuses, plots,

conspiracy, treachery,

but enough of the recent goings

on in the Conservative Party,

it's firework night here

in Guildford and we're asking,

does Theresa May have control

of her Government and her party?

Yes or no?

# Baby you're a firework...#

With all the scandals in Government

at the moment

and Brexit seems to be dragging on

a little bit longer than we thought.

So, at the moment, I don't think

she is in control.

She's too many people sniping

at her back, really.

Do you think Theresa

May's in control?

I think she's in control.

She's in a good job

having a tough time.

No, I don't.

I think she's a mess.

Even when you read her body language

when she's being interviewed

by people, she doesn't

seem like she's in control.

I think she has poor advisers.

I'm going to put it in the "yes".

I do think she's struggling but,

I still hope, still think she has

a bit of a grip on them.

The Queen is England's role.

It's her birth right.

She is England's role

of this country.

I'm going to vote for Theresa May.

I don't think there's anyone

who could do a better job.

I think she's had a bit of

a poisoned chalice with Brexit but

I think she could have done better.

The money's not going

to where it needs to go.

I think she should resign, really.

I feel a bit sorry

for her, actually.

I think she's been witch-hunted

a little bit.

She's doing her best.

With everything that's

going on with the Cabinet at the

moment, I think the Conservative

Party is in a real mess, actually.

Very disappointed.

Well, you get bickering in all parts

not just the Conservative Party.

And that's just sort

of par for the course.

But I'm sure she'll

hold everybody together

despite the current difficulties.

The Tories weren't in control

when they had the referendum

in the first place for the euro.

We've had two years

of complete chaos.

I don't see an end to it.

Well, I seem to have

acquired a few new friends.

The oohs and ahs are

over and so the moodbox

and the result is...

No.

The majority of people

here in Guildford

don't think Theresa May

is in control.

CHEERING

That was Ellie with the entirely

unscientific moodbox, and thanks

to Bushy Hill Junior School

in Guildford for having her along.

Let's put the Sorbol question to our

panel. Equally unscientific but all

seasoned Westminster watchers. Is

Theresa May in control of her

Government at the moment or is all

of this sex harassment allegations

swimming around loosening her grip?

Depends what you mean by in control.

All Prime Ministers have a degree of

control. They retain the power much

tat wrongage as we saw with her

reshuffle. Didn't go down well with

her MPs but she did it. You can't be

fully in control of these situations

in effectively what is a hung

Parliament. If she won a land sheep

in the election she would have the

authority to do what she wanted. She

could float over something like

this. Stories like this, you could

say she's perfectly suited for it,

the vicar's daughter, the church

goer, to sort it out. It is much

more complicated than that. I don't

think she will be able to get a full

grip of it. There are some practical

things that need to happen that will

happen. I remember with back to

basics and John Major, that equally

vague scandal, what was back to

basics about? It was still running

months afterwards, stories about a

minister having an affair. This is

different. I can see it will be

impossible for her to fully get to

grips with it.

Does it provide an

opportunity for Theresa May to be

seen to be taking really serious

action, trying to root out a bad

culture in Westminster and therefore

get some political credit for it?

That opportunity was available to

her all of last week and she hasn't

taken it. What's remarkable for me

is the near complete breakdown in

discipline in the higher ranks the

Tory Party. It is extraordinary you

have Cabinet level ministers who are

not supporting their colleagues.

Ministers and former ministers

giving interviews in which they slag

off their former colleagues. It is

an absolute unholy mess. There is no

sense that she is gripping this. Or

has any particular solution. I think

we can have a lot of sympathy for

her in terms of finding a solution.

How on earth do you grip a problem

like this where you're talking about

apparently an indefinite period of

retrospective examination of

potential faults. 15 years is no

longer too historic for somebody to

dredge up some small thing that may

or may not have happened to them. It

is very difficult for her. But she's

being battered around by events.

Where does this story go next?

I

think the whip's office on every

party, Tories, Labour, Liberal

Democrats, SNP all have their own

whipping operations. That seems to

be the place of it really. This is

because, where do we draw the line?

Going forward what mechanisms are

put in place to top this helping

again. To take allegations

seriously, report them and

investigate them independently. Or

is there a bigger job to go back

into the past retrospective, who

knew what when as Nia said about

Kelvin Hopkins. This is a Shadow

Defence Secretary saying what did