These are difficult times for believers in the private delivery of Public Services. Its notjust the demise of carillion, other Contracting Companies face financial challenges. Train franchises are struggling, too. Virgin stagecoach pulling out of its east coast contract. In haringey, the Labour Council has been rocked by division over a Public Private partnership for redeveloping social housing and other public assets. Is the game up for contracting . These corporations, mr speaker, need to be shown the door. We need our Public Services provided by Public Employees with a Public Service ethos, and a strong public oversight. It is commonly framed as binary. Private sector, all good or all bad. But in reality, when you think of all the things that go on inside an organisation, its an argument about where you draw a line. The line between what you buy in from outside and what you keep in house. It applies as much in the private sector as the public. Some areas are relatively clear cut. Few organisations will want to maintain their own lifts. Its a specialist task, lift Servicing Companies will likely be better at lift maintenance. Unless youre a lift company, lift maintenance is not your thing, so its one to contract out. Government should absolutely consider outsourcing in instances where the thing that it wants to buy is already being bought by lots of other people. So particularly if thats goods like, you know, pencils, or even catering, a service but lots of people are buying. Similarly if its really easy to measure the performance then government is going to be able to have a good idea whether or not the provider it is paying has delivered that service well. And similarly, is there going to be any reputation risk for government . In those instances government should absolutely be looking to outsource. Sometimes you need private expertise. When Ken Livingstone introduced a congestion charge to london it was a formidable logistical task. Capita made it happen. And another advantage was that capita could be penalised for any screw ups, of which there were a few. Risk was transferred. But what about core activities . Do we expect government to outsource the role of government . The Big Questions are about the delivery of complex services, so whether its prisons, or probation, or adoption, government is the only organisation buying those services. And theres not a proper market, its really difficult to measure performance, and if they go wrong the governments likely to get blamed. I think that is where the debate needs to be about whether outsourcing is right or not. One challenge is that contracts are hard to draw up and monitor. You can argue about the definition of an egg in a catering contract if you want to. The second challenge is the companies which win contracts are often the ones who bid unrealistically. With awkward consequences. Firstly, government is focused on price rather than quality, or value for money. And as a result these firms bid very low, but have become quite overstretched and fragile, which means they are more likely to collapse. The second problem is that government has not put a huge amount of work into overseeing and managing these contracts well. Which means that when these organisations do collapse government is often taken unawares, or doesnt have anything set up to pick up the pieces. So is it less a question about public or private being better, and more a question of how effectively each manages the other . Im nowjoined by professor mariana mazzucato, director of the institute for innovation and public purpose at ucl, and julian glover, who is associate editor of the Evening Standard and formerly advised David Camerons government on transport. Good evening. We can start with where it goes wrong. What would you highlight where outsourcing goes wrong . We use this word partnership. Where it goes wrong is we dont define what a good partnership. If you talk to a biologist they would say ecosystems candy parasitic or symbionic. We can change the contracts. There has also been this self effacing prophecy that the more we outsource the brains of government to the Public Sector, there has also been a lower tolerance on it. You make it conditional in terms of increasing the quality. You should also maintain direction. You should have a sense of what kind of system you want. You would keep the strategy in house . Yes. And you want the brains to be able to buy the services in house . Yes, but there is also a question of profits. The recent debate has been that these companies are not profitable. Often when they are not profitable, the question is, is there a risk reward relationship . There should be. They are either too profitable or two unprofitable. They are not taking risks. They are often assuming that the Public Sector continues to actually take on both in the beginning the high level risk, but also then bails them out when things go wrong. Often the reward, even when it is there, is not actuallyjustified. Julian, you are in the department for transport. You had all of those problems with the east coast and west coast franchises. Trying to write a contract for something that would be run for the public. A lot of the problems of these contracts in different areas are linking to the government. The capability of government knowing what it has to be to be a good customer. If you want a hospital run in one place without any changes, long period of time, it isnt a bad idea to sign a lock in contract for that period. Trouble is, a few years and you decide to shift. If you hand over a motorway to the private sector, the Public Sector has done a good job with the makers, but as soon as you make a choice its an issue. The government doesnt know what it wants. It changes its mind. Doing things with a private contract is a good idea. But you want a big diversity. Why is the government a poor client . Partly because of the nature of government. Government centralising decisions will always be difficult. When things were just run through the centre, when it took three months to get a telephone through the post office, that wasnt good. Direct organisations didnt have a good reputation of maintaining and building houses. Outsourcing is the problem, it is knowing what you want. Those bidding get it wrong. But they underbid. Virgin stagecoach underbid for the east Coast Railway and they couldnt make it work. They overbid. They were running things well. Passenger satisfaction figures came out, 90 for virgin routes on the east coast. The people losing out is the company, which is burning through its bond on east coast. They had to pay a lot of money to win the contract. But they race to get the contract. They win the contract. They have been overgenerous. Then they are strapped trying to make up the money on the little changes to the contract. I fundamentally disagree with the point that government is inevitably almost, because of its dna, a bad client, or isnt going to be deficient. Efficient. That is what you are saying. That is part of the problem. An ideological problem. There are many periods in history where government has functioned extremely well. It has been both ambitious, bold, and efficient. And other periods come in recent history, it hasnt been. Thats not just because things have changed. I disagree. There has been a narrative which has often convinced, also Civil Servants themselves, that government failures are even worse than market failures. So, be careful, dont explore, dont take risks, dont invest. When you start investing, the machinery of government, it also going to be quite hard. I spent five years working in the department for transport. Working on projects. Trying to get things happening. I didnt find that culture. I found a lot of investment from the treasury, not just borrowed money. Most things happened before 2010, things like the m25, signed by the labour party, lots of the rail contracts, as well. The enthusiasm was for the government to spend money and do things. But you cannot. But you have to have the capacity. Capacity is the result of investment. I believe in a diversity of places doing interesting things. I worry about the idea. I sat on the fourth floor, very good people, i worry about them being in charge of everything and planning everything. Would you go down the journey corbyn route . And say, what is wrong with bringing this or in house, we dont need private sector involvement in the nhs, we dont need private people redeveloping our council houses, lets do it differently . No. What you should be doing is thinking about the problem at hand, which is very different to the department for transport. Getting the different people at the table. The Public Sector should be there directing the show when we are talking about Public Services. If the private sector does want a bit of the game it has proved capable first. It has to have capacity itself. We are often talking about Public Sector capacity. But from the recent examples there is a inefficiency. But also what kind of risks they will take morte kind of investments, getting the contract and the deal is right which will produce public value. That is what they should be fighting for. There has been an argument about haringey. The redevelopment. Do you have an opinion on that . No. Chuckles julian, would you go far with the more ideological right wing approach that says government is a very good, carry on, carry on sub contracting as far as we have been . I would go both directions. Government should be involved in some areas, and more controlling, maybe suburban transit. But dont forget the Overground Railway in north and east london which Everybody Loves is a myriad of private contracts working together. But well specified contracts because they are directed. In other areas there should be more competition, less state direction. We shouldnt assume all of the activities that the state has some guided, moral principle. The danger of thinking any private activity is somehow not as well meaning for the public good as something. But there is a complete lack transparency. Adam smith on words, it has been a well established. A group of people doing things for the growing interest can enhance things for the well being is a good thing for government. We have the performance targets, the efficiency gains of all of the different Public Sector activities. Carillion, capita, they have refused to provide the data. We should get them to provide the data. So we have the mapping of the landscape about how inefficient things have become. Point made. Thank you both. Bbc management took something of a pummelling today at a hearing of a committee of mps. Pay is the issue, but when Carrie Gracie spoke to the mps about her experience remember she had resigned as china editor as a protest at the lack of pay equality with male counterparts the issue was not just money but the conduct of the bbc as an employer. Our Business Editor helen thomas watched the proceedings as did a lot of other people in this building. The bbc resisted publishing the salaries of its top paid staff. Today, the corporations management, pay and culture was picked over in the most public of settings. I have said i dont want any more money. Im not a fiscal liability to the bbc. This trying to throw money at me to resolve the problem. This will not resolve my problem. My problem will be resolved by an acknowledgement that my work was of equal value to the men who i served alongside as an international editor. We have a toxic work atmosphere. It is going to get worse. We have women leaving. The credibility of management is diminished and damaged. You know, they are stumbling towards a kind of greek tragedy where they make happen of their own worst fears. We are not in the business of producing toothpaste or tyres at the bbc. Our business is truth. We cant operate without the truth. If were not prepared to look at ourselves honestly, how can we be trusted to look at anything else . I need to be there alongside the other great bbc women, also belittled, their work also marginalised, helping the bbc to sort it out, and the bbc management need to stop treating us as some kind of enemy, putting up a kind of fortress with the emperor and his sons behind the fortress wall. No. This is a bbc that belongs to all of us. Bbc bosses stressed their commitment to equality, and their plans for an improved approach. The equality, and equality particularly with women, has been something ive felt very, very strongly about and wanted to fix. So, how is it possible, when there is only five international editors, for one to be inadvertently underpaid for years . Well, the answer is, thats wrong. Yes, but how is it possible . Its not like there are hundreds all round the world and you lose track of whos doing what. What we are doing, going forward, is saying we want to make sure that we keep these things regularly under review, were upfront about it, so that we dont get the point where the band between someone who is a low pay editor, if we are taking the editors say, and the top pay editor is notjustifiable. The purpose of approvals has been very much about controlling cost, not about ensuring equality or ensuring fairness, and thats been a mistake. Was there anybody, then, responsible for looking at the equity across peoples pay . I think that would have been done within news. So who. And i think were accepting that it wasnt done within news. Is there any differential which is justifiable . We think there is, and i think that this is based on. Obviously not based on gender at all. Its based on the status of the job, how often its on the air, helen is with me now. Helen, dramatic testimony, actually. People were absolutely gripped by it. Did we have much news from Carrie Gracie . We did. It was dramatic, emotional, passionate. She says shes been offered nearly £100,000 in back pay. Shed been told shed been inadvertently underpaid. She had a lower salary for her first three years. Years as china editor because she was in development. As a very experienced china editor, you could see that grated. She talked about a breakdown in trust and bbc management, and she was hinting at a collective blindness or incompetence in the management of this issue, and overall how the bbc treats some of its staff. She was saying she wants to stand up and fight for some more junior women the bbc pre empted a lot of this, coming out with their own report and doing interviews yesterday. Did we learn much news from the bbcs answer to their questions . I think the main message was, yes, there may have been mistakes in individual cases, but there was no systemic gender discrimination, and that the bbcs processes and framework around pay are being totally overhauled. We got clarity on one thing. In management size, thejobs of china editor and north america editor are not directly equivalent, so they should not necessarily be paid the same, but as you heard, in some cases the disparity in these jobs had got too large. An interesting question is how many employers, what sectors, have so many people whose pay is set by individual negotiation and discretion on the part of managers, as opposed to people on a scale where the pay kind of sick is a structure. I think this industry is kind of unusual, but a lot of industries will be looking at this and how it is handled. Certainly other media companies, but sectors where there is discretion over bonuses, flexibility over how you retain people, pay hikes or invented job titles to justify them. I think there are lessons for companies everywhere. One is that your gender pay gap, that percentage figure, tells you very little about this other issue, which is equal pay for people in the same jobs. A lawyer said to me this week that we are moving towards a world with more pay transparency, and Many Companies will be thinking, how confident am i that my handle on relative pay would stand up to a bit more scrutiny . Thank you. Whats the economic effect of brexit . There is an official assessment its made the news in the last two days, as it was leaked to the Online News Service buzzfeed, and it offers a whitehall view of the economic effects of different brexit scenarios all negative compared to staying in the eu. An awkward conclusion. The government has experimented with different ways of trying to shrug it off. One response was those Civil Servants they get up to all sorts of mischief. Then, itsjust preliminary and incomplete, move along, nothing to see. But after saying that they wouldnt publish the analysis, today the government said they would. Let me start with the terms of the motion. We will provide the analysis to the select committee for exiting the european union, and all members, on a strictly confidential basis. This means we will provide a hard copy of the analysis to the chair of the eu select committee, and a confidential reading room will be available to all members and peers to see a copy of this analysis once those arrangements can be made. Well, that may or may not change peoples minds when it comes but without waiting, we now have a little more from the leaked document. Buzzfeed have released a line on what it says about the estimated effect of reducing eu immigration. Alberto nardelli, buzzfeeds europe editor, is with us he received the leaked document. So what is the line on immigration . I think the point on immigration in the analysis is that it shines the light on one of the other conundrums this government is facing. It shows that under different potential policy scenarios, on the one hand the number of people from the eu arriving in the uk would be reduced from about 90,000 to 40,000 a year. But it provides a hit on the economy, and the problem the government has is that the upsides of brexit, such as the trade deal with the United States, the value to gdp that this would provide, is far smaller than that hit. This issue cuts across this document. We knew the general economic effect was negative, but specifically, the benefit of going off and saying we can trade with the us, because were not in the Customs Union or the Single Market, is offset by the fact that the immigration control you have the freedom to impose is going to more than wipe out the benefit . Exactly. If you look at this document, there is no scenario in which nontariff barriers, even if the uk were to stay in the Single Market through the European Economic area, it would mitigate some of those losses, but there is no scenario in which all of those losses would be eliminated. This document doesnt aim to refight the referendum. It says, britain is leaving be you. These are the upsides and downsides. This is what it looks like in terms of the impact on the economy. Now, ministers, decide what you want to do. Of all the things you have published out of it, and you havent published it all, to protect your sources, all of them, the upside affect of a trade deal with the us is estimated at approximately zero, isnt it . That is how much bigger our economy is in 15 years time, 0. 2 bigger. The document includes trade deals with china, new zealand, the gulf countries, the some of those would add about 0. 2 to 0. 4 . It is very little. Thank you. Well, here to talk about the implications of that report, im joined by two of the biggest beats from the conservative jungle. Peter bone was a Founding Member of the grassroots out campaign. That wasnt affiliated to the official leave campaign and had a stronger emphasis on the need to cut immigration. And ken clarke. He is a passionate remainer, a former cabinet minister and of course father of the house. Good evening. Peter bone, what do you make of specifically the immigration stuff, that they are finding immigration as a negative . You knew that. We are only 132 days away from withdrawing from the european union, that is the good news. On immigration, this is project fear mark ii. We had project fear before the referendum. The British Public listened to all the arguments, the economic arguments, and decided to vote leave. Nigel farage says there will be a cost of immigration reduction, but what do you think . We will have a fairer immigration system and the same rules and regulations across the whole world. Were not going to discriminate in favour of the european union. An unemployed person from romania or somewhere could come into the country now, whereas a doctor or nurse from india will have to go through all the hoops. We will have a fairer immigration system, and all the parties can calibrate it how they want. Should we take these figures are seriously . They have been dismissed by a number of brexiteers. They say the immediate forecasts following the referendum did not. It helps to understand what they are. The present silly debate we are having on brexit is made sillier if anybody rejects any expert that comes up with something that doesnt fit their side of the argument. Very high powered people have made a serious assessment on the impact on the economy of the things that might change, because we dont know exactly what we are going to do with our economic relationships or with immigration. As a cabinet minister, this is the kind of thing i would expect to have from the officials, giving me their best expert objective assessment. They may have restrictive models that build in all the facts. I might be affected by the groupthink. Most of the economic changes, leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union, is going to damage our economy. We are leaving one of the richest multinational free trade agreements in the world. This is an expert attempt to say that it is going to affect the economy by about this amount. Everybody has always known will stop immigrants from the eu, young people coming to take jobs that british people will not take for some reason, for example in the entertainment industry. This is a fair way of assessing what the impact might be, the best estimate anybody is likely to make. It should be published to the public and the cabinet should be allowed to see it. Peter, do you agree that everybody should be allowed to see it and make their own judgment . There are documents that have not been completed. They never made it to the cabinet. They didnt even look at what theresa may is trying to achieve, it didnt even look at that model. If we are going to talk about experts, lets talk about professor minford, who says we are going to be vastly better off. He has been proved more right than the treasury. No, he hasnt. The treasury got it totally wrong before. He is the only economist i know who thinks that we willjust open our tariff. But is he more right than the treasury . He said there wouldnt be a disaster after the referendum. We are poorer since the referendum. Let me answer you. There is no doubt that large sections of the population are poorer now than they would have been if we had voted to remain, because it set off a devaluation, because it damaged confidence in british sterling assets, and that caused inflation. The real wages of many people are not keeping up with this inflation. The lowest unemployment for a0 years the reason we need an analysis is to stop having slogans from brexiteers, and all this nonsense to denounce any attempt to analyse. I think we have demonstrated that having a few numbers doesnt necessarily resolve the argument thank you both. The past week has seen horrific violence in the Afghan Capital kabul. Indeed the country has seen horrific violence for much of the past a0 years. And during that time theres been very little real justice for any of the victims. No process of criminal trial for war crimes, nor a peace and reconciliation process either. But it is possible that the International Criminal courts prosecutor could launch a formal war crimes investigation. And today is an important one in that process thats whether they are accusing the taliban, the cia or afghan officials. Secunder kermani has been talking to victims to hear their stories, and their feelings about obtaining justice. Just to warn you, some of the testimony in the film is extremely graphic. Hospital cctv cameras captured the moment a huge taliban bomb exploded on saturday outside a police compound across the road. It had been hidden inside an ambulance. Over 100 people died. Its just one of the many potential crimes against humanity committed in afghanistan by many different groups. Nowjudges at the International Criminal court are beginning to examine submissions from victims here in afghanistan. They are deciding whether to authorise an official investigation into war crimes that could see charges being levelled against high ranking taliban members, against cia officials, and leading figures in the afghan government. 32 year old samara worked as a cook in an orphanage. She was killed in another suicide bombing by the taliban in kabul last july. Now, samaras17 year old daughter, fatima, wants the International Criminal court to bring charges against the taliban. Shes lost faith in the afghan authorities. Fatima says shes not afraid of reprisals. But to get justice for fatimas mother, those responsible would first need to be identified, then somehow arrested. Youve got to catch the taliban or youve got to catch the individuals. Youve got to bring them to the hague, and youve got to put them on trial, and you need evidence, and that evidence comes in the form of documents, it comes in the form of witness statements, and that gathering exercise, for an institution that doesnt have its own police force, is incredibly problematic. The proposed investigation by the icc would look at crimes committed from may 2003. That would cover some prisoners taken from afghanistan to guantanamo bay. Many were initially held at the bagram detention centre, just outside kabul. Campaign Group Reprieve are making submissions to the icc on behalf of three men. When you look back at the kinds of things that happened to the prisoners detained in afghanistan, in bagram, in other secret facilities, were seeing all manner of abuses, including russian roulette with guns, men held in stress positions for days, doused with freezing water, attacks on their genitals. Abuses that really destroy the men both physically and psychologically, and whats important to remember here is that these abuses were perpetrated at the behest of the top commanders. The United States isnt signed up to the International Criminal court, and thats not all. A bush era law passed by Congress Says that if any american personnel are ever sent for trial at the icc, us authorities are allowed to use all means necessary to free them. That could, in theory, mean military action. The icc prosecutor is also asking to investigate allegations of abuse by afghan officials. Perhaps the most high ranking alleged offender was general abdul rashid dostum. The current Vice President has been dogged by claims of human rights abuses for decades. He is currently in turkey in de facto exile after one particularly grim allegation. In late 2016, ahmad ishchi, a political rival of dostums, says he was beaten and sodomised on his orders. Dostum refused to appear in court in afghanistan. Ishchi believes the icc should now step in. Dostum denies any wrongdoing. His Spokesman Says ishchi was never raped. The judges of the International Criminal court still need to decide whether to authorise a formal investigation, let alone level charges. But this is a country where people are desperate for some kind of accountability after years of violence. Its not a modern problem, establishing that a potential Sexual Partner is happy to become an actual one. Fumbling a way through the flirting, the come ons or the rejections is part of growing up. But the issue of Sexual Consent has never been as charged as it is today. In fact, an app has come along to help would be partners make explicit their permission to proceed in a contract. The fact that it describes itself as secured in the blockchain will either inspire confidence or scepticism. But whether the app takes off, is this kind of formal contracting process seriously the answer to the many cases of disputed consent, or confused intentions . What kind of consent should people be comfortable with . Im joined by kate parker, a barrister, who has set up a charity called the schools consent project, which sends lawyers into schools to discuss issues relating to consent and key sexual offences. Good evening. Some of this is motivated by what is happening in sweden. Maybe you can tell us. They have passed a law which says explicit consent is required. Its exactly that. Im not a swedish lawyer. Their law has done a u turn. Originally it was that for a rape prosecution or conviction it had to be threats of violence. Obviously there were lots of permutations to that. That has now moved to a position where there has to be explicit, verbalised consent. Failing that, a conviction will be overturned. What do you think of the idea of an app where you literally, i think it involves a photo, you can take various boxes. I think that is problematic in a number of ways. Anything that purports to externalise and modify consent, some hours possibly before any sexual interaction takes place, is a worry. Consent is a live thing. It involves two human beings checking in with each other. Its a process. Exactly. You might give a licence for one thing, and in actualfact what happens in the bedroom turns out to be something completely different. Exactly. I think it is unworkable. But trying to open up conversations about consent, as my charity does, is important. You are sceptical about explicit, requiring explicit verbal consent, or not. Because everybody just thinks of conversations where people fumble through very awkwardly, really. From a legal perspective, going back to swedens law, it almost reverses the standard of proof. There are scenarios where you read somebodys nonverbal cues and you are able to understand that they are consenting. The example, a couple who might have been together 20 years is unlikely to check in with one another that explicitly and say, do you consent to this, that . There might be situations that do not require verbalised consent. You run this schools project. What is your advice to young people about how to engage in this . It can just be so awkward and embarrassing. There are so many other things you are trying to overcome. Absolutely. There might be alcohol involved, nervousness, whatever it might be. Exactly. Communication, we say, is the answer. That doesnt mean saying, do you consent to this . Exactly, we do not want a turn off, what is the communication . Something like does this feel good to you . What do you like . Opening up the channels of communication is really important with young people. Even just discussing it in a classroom, so they have some kind of pre thinking before they find themselves in these scenarios. We think its very important. Just put the other side, 99. 9 of cases will be dealt with perfectly finally on that kind of basis. There will be 0. 1 where there will disputed consent. Maybe you do just have to go the swedish way, because those ones are so awful that you have to say, look, everybody else has to go with explicit consent, so we can deal with the point 1 that are not. Turning to our law on consent, our law says a person consent if she or he agrees by choice and has the capacity to make that choice. As i understand, there is no agreement that it should change. Your own personal standard might have to be higher than the law. Good etiquette. Enthusiasm rather than capacity, for example. Thanks very much. That is all we have time for this evening. Kirsty will be back in this chair tomorrow. Have a very good night. Good evening. If you are venturing out in the next few hours, wintry weather may greet you. A band of rain with some sleet and some snow, even on some of the motorways, heading southward. Wont necessarily stick in many places, but it will become quite slippery. That band of rain clears out quite quickly tomorrow morning. We will be faced with widespread forest. Not in the air, but on the roads and pavements and temperatures will be at freezing frost. More snow across scotland with a gale force wind. A scattering of showers across northern england, wales, and northern ireland. Still that wintry element to them. They are falling on to the services, washing the salt away, and making things icy. If it is not always sleet falling it will be pretty slippery. A wintry mix throughout the rest of the evening and overnight and into tomorrow. Where we do not have showers there will be sparkling sunshine. Look at the strength of the wind. So in china but a biting wind, a northerly component to it. Sunshine. With the strength of the wind it will feel a loss colder than the temperatures might suggest. The showers will continue through the night across northern areas, increasingly into eastern areas. Elsewhere the wind may ease. Another cold start friday, but probably not as cold through the day as the winter eases. We see more sunshine in northern and western areas. The east coast is likely to be called a feeling because we have more showers and less cluttered. Nothing to write home about. Into the weekend, a convocation with the weather front, diving into that cold air. It will bea mix. Diving into that cold air. It will be a mix. Cold rain or sleet and snow over the hills, especially north, but not exclusively. How far east . A transition day. It could cause some issues. It could give wet weather if you are heading to cardiff to watch wales and scotland at the start of the six nations. As we get towards a sunday, hopefully that rain and sleet will peter out. And after a nasty stormy day on saturday hopefully it will be quieterfor englands saturday hopefully it will be quieter for englands match. Saturday hopefully it will be quieterfor englands match. Into sunday we have that bitterly cold north east to be picking up. The rain, sleet, snow, petering out. Perhaps the dry day of the two this weekend. All in all, a looks as though the cold weather is here to stay, a colbon, frosty nights, wintry showers, and highs to watch out for the rest of this evening, overnight, and tomorrow morning. Wintry showers as well. Coming up next on the bbc news channel, newsday looks at the latest international news. Tomorrow morning, join a Business Life for Global Business news. Followed by lively debate in the Victoria Derbyshire programme. Im rico hizon in singapore. The headlines britains theresa may is in china to forge new partnerships, ahead of britains exit from the european union. The fbi says it has grave concerns over the accuracy of what is expected to be a critical memo that could soon be released by the white house. Im Babita Sharma in london. Also in the programme the bbcs former china editor Carrie Gracie tells british mps of her anger at the way the bbc has treated some of the women it employs. I was so distraught by what had happened. Anyway. Then i thought,