And systematic attack on our political system, said the republican speaker of the house of representatives, following the charges against 13 russian nationals and three russian companies. One of those charged, yevgeny prigozhin, is said to be nicknamed putins chef, a reference to his closeness to the russian president. However, a Russian ForeignMinistry Spokeswoman called the allegations of interference in the us elections, absurd. What is clear from the indictment is that the alleged interference, which involved hundreds of people in a spiders web of Online Activity going back for years, was not only designed to damage Hilary Clintons president ial campaign, but it didnt stop after donald trump reached the white house his presidency became the target. A little earlier this evening, this is what the us Deputy Attorney general had to say. On september 13, 2017, soon after the news media reported that the special counsels office was investigating evidence that russian operatives had used social media to interfere with the 2016 election, one defendant allegedly wrote, we had a slight crisis here at work. The fbi have busted our activity. So i got preoccupied with covering tracks, together with my colleagues. And trump tweeted tonight that russia started the anti us Campaign Long before he announced he would run for president. He said russia started their anti us campaign in 2014, long before i announced that i would run for president. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump Campaign did nothing wrong no collusion im nowjoined down the line from washington by niall stanage, white house columnist at the hill. And anne applebaum, Washington Post columnist and professor at the lse institute of global affairs. Good evening. The level of detail in the indictment is quite extraordinary. It is, absolutely, kirsty, that is the big takeaway from this. Some of the allegations are not that surprising given what is in the ether. But it is as if the prosecutors have been building a jigsaw puzzle and have suddenly whipped away a cover to showjust how much they know. In that sense it is very dramatic and a very big story. On page 23 of the indictment it talks about november the 12th in 2016, at the same time defendants and their Co Conspirators organise a rally in new york called trump is not my president. They held a rally in charlotte, North Carolina against trump. So they were putting together rally ideas and posters and the unwitting American Public was following along. Yes, as they were doing that by fictional social media accounts. The overall effort here is clearly to increase discord, to sow dissent among the American People, and to use hot button social issues to do so. What about the involvement of a particular character, allegedly called putins chef . I am not an expert on the russian side of this, but clearly somebody who is that much intimately connected with the russian president is a problem because it typifies that this is a russian lead and directed operation. It seems clear this is not some freelancing effort, given the number of people involved and the amount of money involved, 1. 5 million a month at one stage. I want your reaction to these indictments tonight. I think the indictments are an extraordinary insight into how the russians think, how they think about disinformation, us elections, and it should offer us some really useful background for how they think in other countries and how they act in other elections because we know they do that as well. One of the extraordinary thing is watching the Us Election Campaign was the way in which russian messaging and tramp messages were acting hand. Hashed out and narratives that started in sputnik and on tv would appear out of the president s mouth a few days later. We never knew what the connection was. We do not know what tied them together, but we see the russians were studying the us very closely and were looking for explosive, divisive issues and they were acting in concert with the Trump Campaign. And the unwitting collusion of the American People in this as well, the way they organised it, that is their modus operandi anyway, but i wonder how it fits into the overall picture about possible russian interference. Given that it is still going on, does that in itself as per Donald Trumps tweaked let him off the hook . No, i do not think he is let off the hook at all. It is true the report says there is no evidence any of the americans named in this indictment knew they were collaborating with russians. But this does not address the overall question of what the Trump Campaign knew. Did they know this Extraordinary Campaign was going on . How could they not know . There were all kinds of connections between different kinds of russians and members of the campaign is all through 2016 and that was happening at the same time millions of russians were putting millions of dollars into affecting the campaign and increase democratic disillusionment in the United States. How is it possible they were not aware of one another . We do not have the answer to that at all. And we now have a Trump Presidency and Hillary Clinton would be perfectly right to say this possibly did actually affect the outcome of the election that she has some evidence on her hands with these indictments now. We certainly have evidence of what the russians were doing. As the previous speaker was saying, it is in detail. This is what is unexpected about the indictment. The paypal accounts, the bank accounts, the particular incidents described. We now know exactly what the russian operation looked like in the United States and how it worked. The detail is extraordinary and a slip up of one of the defendants who allegedly said online to a friend what they were doing and how they were trying to cover their tracks. It is like some strange thriller. Absolutely. I am not even sure. It is amazing the fbi got those details where you have an alleged russian conspirator e mail in a Family Member literally saying the fbi are on to us and we are now trying to cover our tracks. Just in terms of the sheer compelling nature of the story that is a remarkable thing and it builds this broader picture of nefarious activity and that is what further adds to the narrative about alleged collusion. Thank you both very much indeed. Tonight the pressure on 0xfam has intensified, with the government announcement that the charity will not bid for any new government funding until they prove they can meet the high standards expected of the department for International Developments partners. The International Development secretary, penny mordaunt, said that it was clear that 0xfam has a long way to go to regain the trust of the British Public, their staff and the people they aim to help. It comes on the day when the charity said it will set up an independent commission to investigate past and present allegations of exploitation by staff. In a moment, well be discussing the implication of the ban on bidding, not least for the delivery of future aid to those in need around the globe. But first heres david grossman. Charities cannot afford to be slow in showing us the work they do. Theirfundraising depends on showcasing the lives they change. We cannot reach them without you. It all starts with you. In the past we may have rather trusted their own accounts too much. After all, we can hardly go and see for ourselves. But that trust appears to be drying up. I would like more outrage. This has all been going on for a long time. The Intelligence Agency warned in 1999 that paedophiles were finding safe, happy homes in our foreign aid sector. And yet nothing has been done about this until the times investigation last week. How ripe is the misconduct within the charity and the sector at large . Oxfam needs to fully clarified delegations with maximum transparency. Tonight it deepened. The young aid worker employed by oxfam for the first time in the haiti disaster in 2010 has told the bbc she was assaulted by a more senior, male colleague. He pinned me up against the wall, he was groping me and grabbing me. He was kissing me and i was trying to shove him off. A torrid week of scandals for 0xfam has ended with a blunt statement from the International Development secretary. 0xfam will no longer bid for government aid contracts. Clearly 0xfam have a long way to go before they can regain the trust of the British Public, their staff and the people they aim to help. The actions and attitude of the organisation over the coming weeks will be critical. The 0xfam scandal has cast a spotlight on the whole sector, where the government with big aid budgets rely too heavily on how the ngos spend those budgets and whether this close relationship has deflected necessary scrutiny. This is not about the charity, it is about the people they are trying to help. By withdrawing from bidding for future contracts, that might mean 0xfam can help fewer people in the future. Throughout this process whatever 0xfam has done wrong, i very much hope this is a temporary period whilst they sort themselves out. But this has happened before. The Charity Kids Company collapsed in 2015 amid allegations of financial impropriety and questions about how many people they help. It was not that the government saved the company, it was that the company did the governments work. The charity received tens of millions of pounds of public money. The journalist who wrote the first critical article says it was a very tough story to break. Nobody wanted to hear the story, people had invested too much into kids company and their reputation rose and fell with kids company, so the did not want it pulled down. This was whether they were politicians or pop stars or whether it was business people. They wanted kids company to keep going because it made them look good. This perhaps explains why it took so long for the allegations against 0xfam to come to light. For 75 years the charity has been harnessing the British Public enthusiasm to help those in need. Whether that enthusiasm survives this scandal will decide how well the charity survives. Im nowjoined by imogen wall, an independent aid worker and former un spokesperson. She runs an Online Support forum for aid workers. Also with me is martin bell, a unicef uk ambassador since 2001. Hes also a former war correspondent and former mp. 0n the line from south africa weve got ian birrell, a contributing editor to the mail on sunday and former advisor and speechwriter for david cameron. Good evening. How bad is it for 0xfam that the government has said Going Forward there will be no future contracts until they are sure of that ethical stance . It is pretty damning for 0xfam, although i have to question why it is the government feels 0xfam is not good enough for new contracts, but it is worthy of continuing to hold the contracts it has held and they are worth millions of pounds. Let me put that to martin bell. 0xfam is engaged in so many different contracts around the world, is ian right that if we take the chance of them getting future contracts away now, we should really be probing the contracts that they have now . Oxfam is in so much trouble it has two and suffer itself. To answer for. I have been a unicef ambassador for 17 years. I have seen wonderful people, national and international staff, doing life saving work on some of the most difficult corners of the world. I can only hope that this appalling scandal does not affect those people helped by aid agencies doing such great work. With your professional hat on, looking at that indictment of oxfam from penny mordaunt, she is saying there needs to be radical change, the time it takes for that to come out, what will happen to oxfam . We will see in the coming days. We are very far from the end of this. What is clear and very unfortunate, and i think david have no choice, they manage public money and the right to demand an element of accountability, but that oxfam are not alone in this. Every agency in the aid sector has a problem that we work in a sector that attracts the vulnerable, sorry, that supports vulnerable people. It attracts predators. So you have to have a safeguard. Every agency has faced this. Oxfam have been found out but they have been hung out to dry. That is possibly quite terrifying for a lot of people to hear that we, with our best endeavours, support a variety of charities, and youre telling that this literally is the a we need an interagency process. You can solve the problem of oxfam but the predators will getjobs elsewhere. We have seen that is what happened. Ian, how damaging you think this is to the global aid effort . I think it is pretty damaging because it is highlighting problems that these are organisations that paint themselves as saviours of the poor, paint themselves as do gooders and see themselves as being so morally above criticism, and suddenly people are seeing them for what they are, which is people interested in earning my for what they are, which is people interested in earning money and brand protection and people proclaiming. Can ijust put to you what martin bell was saying . He has been an ambassador for unicef are many years and has seen the good work done. You wouldnt doubt, presumably, that individual aid programmes, people going with their best endeavours to help those in need, youre not entirely cynical about this, are you . Im pretty cynical. Ive seen too much of it. Lets look at haiti. What did the un there . They took cholera there and killed several thousand people and put hundreds of thousands more into a state of disease. Then they denied it. They covered up. That is typical of what goes on. Haiti was a complete mess from start to finish. I want to bring in martin. Particularly when you are talking about the government giving money to particular aid charities, do you think there has been too cosy and casual a relationship between the government and the charities who it funds aid programmes through . I think the government and charities are close, and they have to be. If ian had been where i had been, if you are holding the hands of a nine year old child in yemen who has been bombed out of her home and is being given care by unicef, you have a different view of it. I think the idea that because there is a scandal, all aid agencies are tarnished just doesnt connect with my experience. Wonderful people doing wonderful things out there. What about the question of governance . Are aid agencies and the governance to close . Are aid agencies and the government to close . They work closely together. What we are seeing right now is the capacity the government has told them to account when needed. That is a powerful thing. There is no question it is a club, and there have been long discussions about how to bring more, particularly local organisations into that community, and to this collection of agencies. That interesting. What you are saying is, and we know the government only funds through big agencies and it is funnelled out. I think 0xfam has 19 different charities are tunnels through. It finals. Funnel. What youre saying is that it is too for a divot. They have to be more particular and pick Smaller Charities which it ollie spatter . Which it can police better . Yeah. And help develop into agency policing systems. I was in the field for ten years. 95 of aid workers and local staff. They are not internationals. That is the stereotype. What about the big salaries ian talks about . They are not that big, trust me certainly not for oxfam. Ian, if you dont think that aid in itself delivered by charities is a good thing, how would you sort a lot of the global issues that we feel everywhere in the world, those of us who have more, have a duty to help those who have less . Im very committed to help the worlds poor but the way to do it is not with patronising westerners going in there and telling them how to solve their problems their services. Not by propping up dictators. And not get caught doing harm. Is what we have seen so often. There is an unholy trinity going on whereby there is a shared deal going on with the government and much of the media, and with the aid groups. They all portray this image that they are the saviours of the world. The facts do not fit this. That is why there is such resentment against it in many parts of the world. Martin, everybody is hearing this, people who perhaps give to different charities, should the public, for example with 0xfam, withhold the money until 0xfam gets a clean bill of health . I think that is reasonable. Oxfam now has to answer for itself. But that all ngos and aid agencies should be tarnished, if ian and anybody could come with me to the eastern congo, there are no dictators, there was no government, there was nobody there helping the people accept unicef and other agencies. Except. Should they be left without help . I dont believe so. Thank you all very much. Just to point out, with regards to recent allegations made against adam smith international, the organisation have denied any wrongdoing. What would you do with £10,000 a year guaranteed income . A new report says we have to rethink radically the value of work, and how we contribute to society, before the machines take over swathes of our lives, and just as we face a vastly increasing ageing population and the prospect of much less stable employment. Would it be better to give everyone a basic income and do away with many state benefits and tax reliefs . Today, the Royal Society for the encouragement of the arts, manufacture and commerce rebooted the idea of a universal basic income, described by thomas paine more than 250 years ago as a citizens dividend. From its enlightenment origins, universal basic income has been an idea that crosses the political divide, mentioned in the writings of thomas paine and john stewart mill. The first thing that we must do you tonight. The first thing that we must do here tonight. By the 1960s, both Martin Luther king and Richard Nixon were on board. One of the big attractions for modern politicians is that it proposes getting rid of one of the most hated aspects of the welfare state. You still dont get this, do you, mr blake . This is an agreement between you and the state. The ken loach polemic, i, daniel blake, struck a chord in its portrayal of the dehumanisation process of bureaucratic assessment. Universal basic income would simply do away with that altogether. Everyone gets paid the same sum of money each year, no strings attached. Some on the libertarian right like it, because the government would be less involved in our lives and it could lead them to shut existing programmes. Some on the left like it because it seen as a way of universalising benefit and empowering workers, even as automation undermines their position. A few more days off a week to study, take up yoga or help elderly relatives who could argue with that . Of course, some may choose not to work at all. That is one criticism. The main problem though is expense. In the most extreme version, where the allowance is enough to live off, that is hundreds of billions of pounds a year. So most ubi proposals are for a halfway house. Smaller amounts, or even one large, one off payment. Todays report envisages £10,000 a year. But the thing that unites all the proposals is that they envisage giving billions of pounds to millions of people who currently manage without state help. Will voters buy that . With me now a man who is flirting with the idea of universal basic income, former labour leader ed miliband. I like yourfilm, it i like your film, it was very good. You have sort of half tongue in cheek described the idea of a universal income as a trust fund for all. The problem is that people actually do have trust funds and get it as well. It is indiscriminate. Yeah, but they pay it back through taxation. The reason im attracted to this is because it speaks to the can kind of society we want to be. Do we trust in people . Do we believe that if we get rid of a complex, intrusive, demeaning mea ns tested system, and replace it with a flat rate payment, people will do extraordinary things . I personally think they probably would. Some of it would be caring, for elderly relatives, kids. Some would be voluntary. The interesting thing is, the evidence is, on the point about work, the evidence is so far in the work that has been done on this, the pilots, it hasnt led to the diminishing of work, people doing nothing. There will be less work . Because of technology. Exactly. That is another reason why this is interesting. We are entering an era were be cant be certain of this scale. But we know technology will be incredibly disruptive. So a welfare system built on a job for life, the welfare system we sort of have, doesnt really feel fit for purpose. And therefore, this could be, this is kind of right, has got attractions in any case. But in particular for the very people chopping and changing theirjobs, that world, it could be appropriate. Do you think that by and large people want to work . Yes i do. Nick boles, the former minister of skills, says mankind is hard wired for work, we gain satisfaction from it. The point is there wont be work for all, were kidding ourselves. U nless we unless we rethink how much we work. That may be true to an extent. We dont know. People have predicted the end of work before. The interesting thing on this point about what evidence we have, its not overwhelming, but alaska, they have got a fund, a smaller version. They are doing one in finland. Yes, but alaska has been going for a decade. Work has gone up. In a way this is a bet on human nature. There is a biggerfundamental question about whether it would necessarily be a bad thing if people worked less, if they do different things, because there will be an ageing population. Perhaps there are different ways we should be running our lives . I totally agree with you. The ageing population is another aspect of this. In a way your language has changed. When you are special adviser to gordon brown you talked about tax credits. I was in short trousers that must have looked very weird in parliament. You talk about tax credits. They are means tested. You have changed your mind . Yeah, maybe a bit. Im still a defender of tax credits. But they are means tested. Yeah, but the liberating thing for me is im not thinking what should we do tomorrow. Im thinking five, ten, 15 years ahead, what system should we be designing . What is the system that will be fit for purpose . You talk about labour being the party that supports grafters. It is more like the grifters. That is where we part company. The notion that people will take this money and lay around, i dont buy that. Who will pay for it . What the rsa are saying is it will cost £14 billion a year. In the big scheme of things that is small change. In the big scheme of things, if you are thinking about a 20 year, 15 year enterprise, and i think we should pilot this. It has been piloted in scotland. Exactly. We should be doing it here. The government has cut Corporate Tax over the past few years by £15 billion. You would save some money on some of the means tested benefits. It would have an outlay. But if it worked, if it had the liberating power that many advocates think it could have, i think it would be worth it. You think there would be retraining . Starting businesses. They are saying in the report today that mrs thatcher said up the enterprise allowance, which gave people a certain amount of money. People set up businesses. People might set up businesses with this money. Middle class people take it for granted that they have money to fall on. You have been very critical of people like mike ashley at sports direct. The idea that people are very wealthy and get this £10,000, i suppose they give more back in tax. In a moral sense, should everybody get this money . Yeah, because they are citizens. This is the point. We have more or less got universal child benefit. This is what thomas paine advocated. Its a recognition of citizenship. Particularly as Technology Takes off and the danger is greater inequality. The idea that every citizen should have a stake in the growing wealth of the country i think is attractive. Thank you very much indeed. Now, two papers in front of us. That story, no more money for 0xfam, say ministers. Charity warned it must regain public trust. 0n the right hand side, 13 russians charged over the trump plot. The ft weekend, russians charged with interfering in us election. They have also got a piece on life in riyadhjail. Thats almost it for tonight. But before we go, the closest most of us will get to walking amongst the stars is a holiday in los angeles. Not so for Norishige Kanai and mark vande hei. The two astronauts spent most of today on a so called space walk, conducting maintenance on the outside of the International Space station. Talk about an office with a view. Goodnight