Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening to all of you. Welcome to this closing plenary of the Jobs Reset Summit, a call to action for resetting the social contract. I'm Sadia Zahidi from the World Economic Forum.  You just heard in that video the co-chairs and leaders involved with this summit lay out very precisely the challenges that we're facing, but also the huge opportunity that this crisis offers us to be able to make a change and quite fundamentally reset the social contract. Now, I have the great pleasure of having with us our founder and executive chairman and four global shapers that I will introduce shortly. But I did want to thank the many of you that have been involved in these conversations over the last four days. We had over 170 leaders and organizations join the conversations over a thousand people that joined our platform through the World Economic Forum and nearly half a million people that watched all of the live stream conversations and millions more that were reached through social media. I think the reason for this strong resonance has been how critical this topic of economic growth and revival of the Jobs Reset, of education skills and lifelong learning and of equity inclusion and social justice is today. I'd also particularly like to thank the 16 co-chairs of the summit that really took on each of the four days themes and drove forward, not only the development of the program and the conversations and their networks, but this event is just the start of that conversation. They will be carrying forward a number of these initiatives with us and helping create that better vision and better outcomes for the economy, for jobs, for skills and for equity. Now, for today, we want to try to do something that is an almost impossible task, which is bring home four days of conversations and start talking about what might be the highlights, the priorities and then, of course, the key features of this new social contract. I'm going to very briefly introduce the panelists. Klaus Schwab is a founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum. Welcome, Professor Schwab. Thank you. And then we have four global shapers. The shapers are a community of young people under the age of 30 in 400 city hubs, even more, 400 and counting around the world. And we're joined by Jumi from Nigeria, Leti from Mexico, Parv from Chicago and Panos from Greece. Now, I know that they're all in different locations at the moment, but I'm giving you their country of origin and I'm addressing them with their nicknames. You should absolutely go and take a look at their very illustrious biographies. Professor Schwab, I'm going to turn it over to you first. What were your key highlights, takeaways and priorities from the last four days of discussions? Thank you very much, Sadia. I have three major takeaways. First, the World Economic Forum is now very much engaged into this initiative of shaping a great reset for the post-corona era. And of course, the objective of this reset is to make the world more resilient, more sustainable and also more fair and more inclusive. Now, in order to make the world more fair and inclusive, I think the key word is jobs. And here I have learned during the summit many aspects of how we should approach, let's say, the creation of skills for tomorrow and so on. But the second for me major element was we need to address this issue, not just in terms of our policies, what we need, but also in terms of changing our mindset. And here what is at the forefront is to create a new model, a new concept, a new definition of capitalism. Capitalism in the old definition comprises only financial capital. But actually, human and social capital is as, and of course, natural capital is as important as financial capital. And for me, this means to enhance even our steps, our important steps we are undertaking to have business leaders accepting to report on the ESGs. But one of the highlights for me was the lounge of the dashboard for a new economy, because it means that governments should also be measured and judged not only in terms of GDP growth, but on the basis of peace, prosperity, people, planet and principles for good governance. And finally, in all the sessions, that's my third conclusion, practically in every session it was evident how much public-private cooperation is needed. So all those issues cannot be solved by governments, business or civil society alone. We need collaborative efforts and I'm very happy that we have four global shapers, because it's your world which we are discussing here. And to integrate you into this great reset initiative is absolutely essential. Back to you, Sadia. Thank you very much. Jimmy, Professor Schwab just referred to this idea of broadening out beyond GDP and ensuring that as we head towards an economic revival, we are not relying only on the metrics of the past. Now, I know you were following closely the discussions on day one on economic growth, revival and transformation. Share with us your highlights and your key priorities moving forward. Thank you, Sadia. Jimmy, hold on for a second. We're just going to try to see if we can ensure your sound is back up. Okay, we're going to let our tech team work with you on ensuring that your sound is back on. It might be an issue with the headset. Letty, I'm going to move it over to you, because Professor Schwab also mentioned how jobs are basically the red thread that connect these four days. And if we have jobs and if we do have better learning and earning potential for everyone that could certainly help with some of the social challenges we face today. So let me come over to you. And if you could share with me your highlights and your key priorities from day two, and then I'm going to come back to you, Jimmy. Thank you so much, Sadia, and thanks everyone for joining. I think that for me, for day two, it was a big reminder on why it is important to have this conversation around jobs, around work. And I think that I want to bring a couple of ideas. One is that it is incredibly important to talk about work because we spend one third, yes, one third of our adult life working. And this activity is rapidly evolving and has a great impact, not only in our own quality of life, also in our communities and our countries. And this activity that we spend a lot of time performing is rapidly evolving. The worlds of work and education are changing faster than ever. And I think that one of my key takeaways from the second day is that there are multiple forces shaping this change. One of them is of course technology. When we talk about the evolution of work, the future of work, we tend to think about technology immediately. But there are also other forces. For instance, Linda Granton talked about how life expectancy is growing and how we have many demographic changes that are also changing the nature of work. We talked about climate change and migration as forces that are also shaping the world of work. And the intersection in these two topics, climate refugees, that should also have decent and good job opportunities. And finally, COVID as another imminent force that has shaped how we work. My final thought is that this challenge of the fast evolution of work is so big that one actor alone cannot tackle the challenge. We need really to work on multi-stakeholder collaboration between of course the private sector, but also companies looking to support their workforces, technology companies that can map potential job transitions, of course labor unions that are aware of the impact and community organizations. And in this last part, the global shippers community plays a big role as co-chair of the education and employment steering committee. I want to rectify our commitment with the global youth, especially the more vulnerable populations. And we really want to continue as a steering committee to renew our commitment with the goal of strengthening market race skills in 100,000 people while also advocating for more inclusive workplaces. But of course to actually deliver this reset of the social contract, we need to trust each other, we need multi-stakeholder collaboration and we need to be willing to adapt. Because I think that my final thought and key takeaway is that the evolution of work, getting ready for the evolution of work is similar to sailing, in the sense that the pessimist will complain about the wind, the optimist will expect that the wind is going to change and the realist will adjust the sales. And to navigate to a better world of work, we need to be realistic, adapt and work together. Thank you. I think that is great advice for all of us. Thank you. That was very helpful. Jimmy, let me try and see if your sound is working again and we'll bring you back in for day one and your key highlights and priorities. Fortunately, we seem to have the same same issue again. All right, we're going to get the tech team to keep working on that and hopefully we bring you back. Try just one more time. No, unfortunately, that's not working. All right, we're going to come back to you. I'll come back to you last so that gives us time to resolve that issue. All right, Parv, you heard from Leti the importance around sort of the future of work, but if we think about jobs being the big red thread, skills are really the currency of this new labor market that we're moving into. So tell us more about your priorities, your takeaways from day three. So I can speak about day four of the summit, focus on equity and inclusion and then Panos can come back and talk about day three. So equity and inclusion are so often an afterthought sprinkled atop existing plans and our global systems were not designed to work for everyone. It really will take intentional effort to chart a path toward transformational change. And particularly in these times of fear and uncertainty, we have to keep showing up for black and brown youth and families, people living in poverty, people with disabilities, immigrants and refugees, women and girls, queer and trans people, and the planet. At the summit today we heard about the business case for equity and justice, the need to walk the talk to reimagine public policy processes to reach those furthest behind the line of opportunity, and to push every person in a position of power to understand our power, privilege and unconscious bias. I'm very optimistic about the opportunity to reimagine the arrangements and structures that seemed normal, but have really been called into question and work together to build a more equitable and just society that works for everyone. So my call to action to organizations in the corporate and social sector and in government. We need to move beyond public statements and performative allyship and make diversity equity and inclusion a core business priority. How to do that. First face into the data, the numbers and the narrative to honor the humanity of those furthest from opportunity. Listen to and work with people most affected by systemic inequities to co create solutions. This means both improving access to leadership opportunities within your organizations and creating formal ways for community voice and engagement to play a role in decisions beyond just being informed or consulted. Second institutionalized shifts in policies resources practices and power to the priority populations you value conduct regular racial equity impact analyses of internal policies and processes and proactively work to create an inclusive workplace that works for women and minorities. Hold leaders accountable to real data and metrics tangible progress. Too often organizations think they're doing enough by creating spaces for training and development, but we know while it's important to prioritize resources to support employees to engage in anti racism work. Diversity training alone won't change behavior. It's all about structural and systems change, not just in your organizations, but in every institution. So we ask everyone to do your part to mobilize and catalyze cross sector partners to do the same. So in closing, only by shifting power to communities of color can we really create this more equitable and just and inclusive society.  Thank you very much, Parv. I was doing a terrible job of following the appropriate order in terms of far speaking. Thank you for having corrected me and thank you for coming in with today's outcomes. And I'm not only very proud of all of the work that the global shapers are doing, but also the commitments that were made today by a number of businesses around racial justice around disability inclusion around gender equality and around LGBTI inclusion. I think this has been one of the most important achievements at the summit today. So thank you for that. Let me go to you Panos and come back to you with the skills related question. And I know that you've driven forward a very impactful initiative as well. So share with us your highlights and your priorities. Thanks Aria and congrats on I get another amazing summit, you know, having to deliver remarks after Parv feels like having to sing opera after Maria Callas, but I'll do, I'll do my best. So three, three main takeaways on my side is first on the coordination side. I guess the silver lining of COVID is that there is a growing realization that skills is now the new currency. And we really need to see this post COVID momentum to foster coordination both at a global but also at a local level. As a society, we are paying a very heavy price for poor coordination efforts, which amongst others, you know, accelerates inequality hinders all recovery efforts across the grow across the board. So we really need a global trusted amplifier to lead those coordination efforts. And I believe that the forum is by any measure the most befitting organization to take up on this role. But we should not underestimate the local level as well. And a great example is what you just mentioned the skills accelerator that we are jointly launching in Greece and we are very excited about that to build on the amazing impact that we had partnering with many of the organizations represented in your summit like Microsoft, Coursera, LinkedIn learning and others rolling out nationwide employment and skilling initiatives. Now, point number two is really about automation and the impact of jobs. So my Kinsey recently run a study looking on jobs and why came out is no job is fully one thing you've got to you've got to look into the constituent activities and the impact of AI in each one of them to really understand the landscape of risks and opportunities. So the partner, the pattern that has emerged was that obviously we're going to have jobs gained jobs loss job chains, but the delta between jobs gained and jobs lost will be positive eventually, which is a good thing. Now, the tricky part is how we manage the transitions. The serve of jobs and occupations that can be fully automated in terms of all of their constituent activities is actually relatively small and it will remain so. So how we're managing those transitions in terms of job chains. Here at Stanford Institute for Human Center AI, we do a lot of research on how to design those new generation of deep technologies having human at the center. So design those technologies to augment and complement versus replace humans in particular given the 100 million or something new tech jobs projected to be needed as your team announced yesterday. Third point and final and final on my side is really about empathy. So in those very trying trying times, whereas institutional alignment and action is of course critical, we should not forget of the importance of empathy and not only as a soft skills. Little acts of kindness can literally change people's lives as we've seen again and again with three generation in Greece. I can't help but mention my professor, former professor at the business school and renowned philanthropist Laura Andreessen, who used to say that each one of us can be an individual philanthropist. We just need to pick our currency, whether it's capital time, whatever sort of resources. So make no mistake, wherever you live, there is a civil society organization out there that needs you with we're talking about skills. We've seen again and again across the world that the lack of social capital is a huge barrier to opportunity, in particular for youth. So whatever time you have available, please reach out, you know, mentor someone help them to reskill up skill themselves, teach them something, help them to elevate their status. At the end of the day, beyond all this technical conversation on skills and jobs, we shall never forget that fundamentally, we rise by lifting others. So it's not about the future of working abstract technical terms, but most critically, about the future of workers and the work of the future. Back to you, Sadia. Thank you, Panos. Thank you. A very critical reminder that skills are both technical and human and really are only going to be transferable. If we are all speaking to each other collaborating with each other, this is not just about a technical download of skills. So thank you for that. Jumi, let me try one more time. I really hope that we can now hear you. I hope you can too. Yes, we can. Fantastic. Excellent. Thank you so much. And I'm really grateful for this opportunity. I think I want to start by saying that the theme of the topic of economic growth, revival and transformation really hit home for me, particularly at this time in my home country of Nigeria, where we are experiencing as the rest of the world, a health care shock, an economic shock, but also a social upheaval where we have young people who are protesting for their right to end police brutality, but also to see better governance and who really just want inclusive and sustainable economic growth and revival. And so the urgency of this summit really is not lost on me. From day one, one of the major points that I took home was that the direction of our vision is key. And that's because we will head in the direction of our vision. And so when we begin to think of ideas that were expressed such as the concept of net zero on unemployment as the direction that corporates can envision as they look at ESG investing so environmental, social and corporate governance. And that's a concept that we need to really take to heart and ensure that we're heading in that direction. Our eyes was really aim for net zero on unemployment. And so as Panos was speaking about upskilling not being an abstract concept that really hit home for me. But corporates aren't the only stakeholders who need to have their visions aligned. The policy makers are really the levers the greatest levers for social change and so for policy makers, really it's back to the basics, investing in basic infrastructure, such as broadband Internet in order to bridge the digital divide, investing in education and across all age spectrums right so from very early childhood education to adult learning or re skilling, but third persisting with a mindset of optimism, despite that the heart troops of a broken social contract that many young people around the world are feeling today so it's the stockdale paradox if you will. We also need from governments active labor market policies and something that I thought was quite interesting that I learned towards the need for trade finance instruments to help facilitate the shipment of goods across borders, even in this pandemic and recognizing that indeed trade has literally been a life saver for us during the pandemic, but not only do we need to adjust our vision and even as the map has underlined we need to reset our minds. So, having a mind shift from this concept of shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism, we need to reset our thinking from really aiming for for job security to employment security where our focus is ensuring that the labor force can continue to train, reskill, retrain and always be in a position to contribute to the economy only then can we be guaranteed that we have economic revival and all stakeholders including young people are involved and so what can young people do I think there is heard some global shapers share their ideas and commitments but individually also committing to lifelong learning and recognizing that we also have a proactive stance to take we're not just being acted upon by other stakeholders but we are agents of change and all right and by really engaging in this lifelong learning we have an opportunity to ensure that not only are we getting knowledge but we're connecting with others and engaging with different stakeholders to ensure that we really have that transformational impact inclusive growth that we're looking for so yes indeed that the pandemic has brought us out of the illusion that the status quo is going to last so that it's ever going to be sustainable and truly only a reset of our minds only a reset of how we think can really bring the revival and transformation that we're looking for. Great for this opportunity. Thank you. Thank you Jimmy and I'm very glad we resolved the the tech troubles because that is a very very important point that you just made. All of you have mentioned the need for new metrics all of you have mentioned the need for new solutions and new standards for this new context that we're in and all of you have mentioned the need for public private collaboration and partnerships. I want to turn this over our work is just beginning and I want to turn this over to our founder and executive chairman to share with us his views on the new emerging features of the social contract that we need for this new economy for this new society that we all want to try to build together Professor Schwab over to you for final words and for bringing the summit to a close. Thank you very much. Since the time is running out. And I think the global chapels have very well summarized what happened. And of course all those aspects have to be part of a new or revised global social contract global national and of course local social contracts. But the point I want to make is when we look at the definition of a new social contract. Of course we want to define policies to address all the issues. But what is important for me if I look particularly at the impact of the force industry revolution to a certain extent also of the if I look at the disruptive nature of the structural change which we the fellow of Kobe. I think we should use the social contract as an expression of the transition of one world to another world. When we look back we are still living in the age to a certain extent of the first second and third industrial revolution. Our life is still determined by production and consumption. But if we look at the days of let's say technologies which will facilitate work which will take over work not replace us. I think the key narrative which we should have is to move from a society which is built on production and consumption to a society which is built on caring and sharing. I think if we can integrate those two notions into the new social contract. So we really have changed the page. I turned the page and actually it's needed because the technological forces provide us with this great opportunity to go to a new and I'm away. As you see I'm an optimist. I believe at a better future. I think the history of humankind is going even if there are setbacks but from achievement to achievement and the next achievement should be to build a society of sharing and caring. So let me conclude this is summit also by saying it is just a step in a process. And actually Sadia you have already lined out what should be the milestones of achievement in the next three years in 21 in 22 and in 23. And also integrate those discussions into our big reset initiative. So thank you all. You have already given also thanks to the to the shapers I would like to join you in appreciating to have you in the final session I think it's symbolic. Of course so many people have contributed to the success of this meeting and I think we can speak about the success looking at the engagement everybody had that I wanted to thank you Sadia and your team because four days with so many sessions to do. You have shown not only intellectual leadership with your team, but great passion because I know scissors for you not just one of the many, let's say challenges. It's for your passion. It's for your passion and I would end because this let's say some hiccup in our Nigerian communication. I I want to to send calls as a technical team because we are now in the age of virtual interaction and I think they have done a great job to make sure that our interaction was always smooth. So thanks everybody. You have our commitment. It was mentioned in one of the statements. You have our commitment to act as an amplifying platform to take all this output and to make sure that we achieve what we wanted to do a world where everybody has a decent life and the decent life is also connected and intertwined with a decent job. So thank you and it's very best to you all.


Hi, I'm really thrilled to be a part of this discussion. I've been Looking forward to this meeting for a long time actually in the discussions that will take place today My name is Elliott Harman. I'm an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation My colleague Daniel Naser is an attorney with EFF and you'll be hearing from him later this afternoon We are here kind of representing a campaign that we launched several months ago called reclaim invention and to put this Maybe a little bit of perspective of our strategy as an organization We kind of see this as the Latest front in really a lot of work that we've been doing over a lot of years having to do with the patent system And what we see as flaws in the system and the way in which the system is kind of works in practice that put Innovative practicing companies at a disadvantage particularly in high-tech areas that are particularly fertile for innovation And puts aggressive patent assertion entities at an unfair advantage And the issue of how that plays out in universities and tech transfer is something that we've done a little bit of thinking in writing about over the years But about a year ago, we decided that it was time to start investing a little more energy in it So I'm not going to talk about this too much because you are then already kind of walked through this This is the the universities with the most patents in the intellectual ventures portfolio and even just looking at this I'm reminded again of the issue of representation of the public universities and I'm glad that there are some perspectives of people who have worked in the public universities fear here Also another point I was going to make about this and somebody can correct me later if I'm mistaken about this But my understanding is that this is of the 30,000 Patents that IV publicly lists on its portfolio So there are a number that are under exclusive licenses that have not been disclosed that are not part of these numbers But even within those 30,000 that are in its public portfolio 500 of those originating from universities is a striking number And this is a slightly different set of data Because this is patents from universities in the US period as opposed to specifically NIH funded ones, but you get the same idea Looking at this graph it would be very easy to tell even if you knew nothing about this space Win the by dole act past and so we'll we'll talk about that more in a couple of minutes But this graph is very interesting to me for another reason and this is kind of bringing in some of my background in the open access world When you look at this graph, it's so interesting to think about it in the context of other Developments that have happened in science over the same period of time and the kind of explosion of open access Research and now we're at this point where essentially all Federal government funded science in the United States is is under an open access policy requiring it to be made available to the public after an embargo period and Many many foundations are moving in that direction adopting open access policies as well Many of which are more aggressive than the government policies and so it struck me as this odd paradox that over The last 10-15 years We've moved more and more toward this federally funded research being available to the public to read to build on to Incorporate into their businesses But at the very same time universities are patenting more aggressively than ever on that same body of research And at least some of those patents are ending up in the hands of companies that don't necessarily have the public's best interests at heart It almost seemed to me like this kind of massive game of whack-a-mole We're playing in which we've just managed to push back this one sort of threat to another interest And it sort of popped back in our faces in a different form So again, that's why we decided to launch this campaign reclaim invention and the kind of the official launch of this was about eight months ago but it was really the culmination of conversations that we've been having over a long time and are continuing to have It essentially consists of two components One is that we are calling on Every research university in the US to adopt a policy that says that it will not knowingly sell or license its patents to PAEs and then it goes on to say that when evaluating Whether whether to partner with a certain company it will look at the history of that company and take a good-faith effort to see whether it has a History of litigation that looks like patent trolling We created a petition so that people could petition their universities to sign this pledge This was kind of a new thing for us. We'd never done something quite like this before And now you can see the I think it's about five thousand now people that have signed this petition And it's kind of interesting you can split it up by institution So you can go to reclaim invention org Slash Harvard and and and see how many people with Harvard University have called on Harvard to adopt this pledge The other half of the campaign is this piece of model state legislation that we wrote which is called the reclaim invention act this does Some of the same things and some slightly different things but specifically focused on state university systems within a state So what this model text that we wrote does is one it requires state-funded universities to adopt a policy not to sell our license to PAEs and to avoids the sale of any state university patent to a PAE This was an interesting exercise for us to put this together Because it was the first time that we had to kind of find a legal definition of PAE that we were comfortable with And we looked at how some other organizations had dealt with this issue and how some existing legislation had dealt with it To arrive at a definition that we were more or less happy with So according to this definition of PAE is an entity whose primary business model is based on patent assertion Or otherwise using patents to obtain licensing fees from practicing companies, which I think is a pretty good working definition This is actually a more conservative definition than then then some of the more kind of informal definitions of PAEs or trolls And I think it works well in this context and that it makes it clear that it's not talking about a Practicing company that is also asserting its its patents so long as the underlying business model is Actually about using the invention and it is not about litigation So we launched this campaign about eight months ago and a couple of interesting things have happened since then One is that there's been a lot of attention to this particularly around like law school students in our network There's a group of students at the University of Texas that are pushing on this issue very hard and trying to get UT to adopt a policy We've also gotten a Handful of state legislators reaching out to us and kind of wanting to talk with us more about our model state legislation It has been introduced thus far in one state that we know of and that's Maryland But we certainly hope to see we hope to see states addressing this issue In an ongoing way Use it using our language if it seems to be appropriate for their context We've also succeeded at annoying some people This is a Relatively representative example of the kind of pushback that we got This is an op-ed that Richard Epstein wrote for Forbes And I kind of I kind of love this line despite myself that it's foolish for universities to sacrifice patent revenues In order to satisfy the aesthetic whims of the EFF I think that that's that's a very funny way of thinking and like I said This is representative of some of the other pushback we received as well because it seems to kind of elevate Revenue above Indeed the reasons why tech transfer offices exist that if there is a license that is not compatible with the mission of the Organization then that's not sacrificing revenue. That's simply carrying out the mission of the organization Daniel made the point that you could kind of apply the same logic to financial aid programs Which are also sacrificing revenue in order to fulfill the aesthetic whims of people who think that access to education is important I'm so glad to have gotten to speak after the two people who spoke earlier because they gave such You know eloquent descriptions of what the purposes of these programs are So I know that this simplistic definition is something that a lot of people in this room would take issue with We also of course whenever we talk about Limitations either voluntary or or statutory on University licenses of course this always brings up the specter of the bydol act and a number of people have talked to us about the Bydol act and this is kind of maybe the thought that I will sort of end with for now is that I think it's very very dangerous to think of bydol as a trump card that kind of shouts shuts down these discussions and in fact it's To do so is to miss both the purpose and I think the language of the law itself The law says it is the policy and objective of Congress to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported research or development And that's a purpose that I strongly question whether it's ever compatible with the idea of Licensing to PA is and it even goes on even more specifically in the law to give Preference to small businesses having equal or greater likelihood as other applicants to bring the invention to practical application within a reasonable time Which again if you're looking at a company whose business model does not in any way involve Bringing an invention to practical application. I question whether this can ever actually be achieved by licensing to a PAE And I'm like I said I'm looking forward to the rest of the discussions My slides are there. They are on Google Docs if you're not comfortable using Google Docs email you and I will send you a PDF Thank you very much


Hello, welcome to Toffy TV. It is the Everton News Daily. Sean Dice has held his press conference ahead of Sunday's trip to West Ham United. The press conference started with a moment's silence for the passing of Everton chairman Bill Kenwright and the first question to Sean Dice was his thoughts on Bill Kenwright and he played this lovely tribute. We have run it as a group. Some had a bigger connection with the chairman and others due to their time. I am particularly ashamed. Myself in a different way, obviously. Being quite close to him over a period that was difficult for him and his family as well with illness. It is a big loss, that is for sure. He is incredibly supportive. I was reading some of Moisey's comments saying as a young manager how supportive he was, he was supportive to me. Sort of older manager if you like, a bit more rounded in it. He was nothing but supportive even through some hard times. He has been someone to pick up the phone to, always got time for you and always wanted to find out what was going on really and get a touch base on what the feeling of the camp was, the players, the mood, individuals and often telling me all of his wisdom about what we should be doing. But always in a supportive way I must make that clear. What were those pearls of wisdom? Last season it was fair to say that we shared a moment that is an odd big moment of course. You don't want to be having big moments that are at the bottom of the league but to stay up on the last day in the fashion we did and to sort of share that with him that was a big moment and he felt probably differently than me how big that was after a tough season for many different reasons so that was certainly a very big moment when he was very pleased and very proud of. Yeah there you go so obviously lovely tributes from the manager and there will be a minute silence ahead of the West Ham game on Sunday for Bill Kenwright and of course Bobby Charlton as well who sadly passed away last weekend and I'm sure Evan will be announcing more in the coming days on what tributes will be paid on Wednesday against Burnley and of course against Brighton at the weekend as well and there's a lovely tribute actually paid last night at Anfield as well for Bill Kenwright as well so nice to see that happening as well. Obviously Sean Dice was asked about the team news and the situation regarding Seamus Coleman, Delly and Andre Gomez. Seamus is back up training with us fully now but obviously he's been out for quite a while so he will need more of just training to get that sort of general fitness and then games as well because of the length of time. Delly is still a bit away, Andre is still a bit away as well. So obviously Sean Dice reporting there on Seamus Coleman which we've seen the pitches this week with them training at Gullison Park so great news about Seamus Coleman, interesting to see whether he'll feature on the bench on Sunday because obviously with Ashley Young being suspended Nathan Patton does step up into the first team then a back up right back with someone like Seamus Experience would be huge so and obviously as I said with the Burnley game as well on Wednesday it'd be interesting to see. Gomez and Delly, I honestly not sure we'll ever see either of them play for Evan. I honestly don't, I just don't say anything with Delly, the Delly situation and the finances I just can't see them ever playing for Evan but we'll wait and see, we'll wait and see. We'll see what happens and we know Delly did have a setback recently and he's been trying very hard to get back into fitness but Sean Dice obviously with the news this week was asked about the situation regarding the independent commission and the possibility of ever facing a 12 point deduction. I think there's loads of stories out there about things nowadays particularly things of that base type you know but at the end of the day the commission will decide and when they do we'll find out. Does it feel like the pressure's been cranked up somewhat with that, even that possibility? To be honest ever since I've been here there's been pressure, there's pressure on all sorts you know around Evan football club and we've been trying to stay calm within lots of different challenges here. I think we mostly have done trying to get things right on the pitch or better certainly and trying to improve other areas of the club and there's so much noise there to be honest that it's just another part of it. You know and like I say trying to change the noise putting in a more positive feel about the club not just the team about the whole club. We're trying to work to do that and you know every time you just about getting there another thing comes up so you know it's one end thing. So there you go, Sean Dice very much keeping his part of the drive about the 12, well rumoured, well leech, well 12 point deduction that has been spoke about in the press we'll have to wait and see. The commission apparently is all done now and Evan will have to wait weeks to find out as the commission goes away and reviews all the evidence given by both sides on this. So it's going to probably be December, early December I imagine when we find out what is going on with the commission and if they were to lose what punishment Evan would face and then if they do lose I imagine Evan will appeal it if they feel like they have grounds to. So we'll have to wait and see. Moving away from Sean Dice's press conference he was actually asked about it, Sean Dice was asked about Abdelight de Coray and whether he is set to sign a new contract for Viteo Romano reporting this on Thursday night that he was set to sign a new contract. Sean Dice said that Evan were continually speaking to players agents and de Coray was one of those players. He signed a one year extension this year that was part of his contract. Evan will probably hope to tie him down I imagine and maybe that will be news that we hear more in the coming weeks maybe it's at the early stages because obviously with the players Evan it got Evan and could be very light in midfield in the summer if they don't get some of these players tied down and de Coray being one of them and obviously de Coray has been in good form for Sean Dice he's been a very important player for Sean Dice and what we saw last season was the wheels come off a little bit when he got sent off against Spares and got suspended the wheels really did come off so being tested to see over the coming days what happens with this it's rumoured that it's till 2025 with an option of another year after that so we'll see in the coming days what happens on that Evan's potential new owners, 777 have provided in the region of 80 million of funds, this is reported by Alan Myers obviously this is ahead of the fit and proper test and going through all that which again should be decided in December and the biggest talk that if the buy was did fail because of that that that could be turned into equity and maybe they would have a small stake holding in the football club and maybe then they would still be in charge but obviously not own the club fully and maybe would go through the process a lot slower then we'll have to wait and see but that's a hell of a lot of money isn't it that's a hell of a lot of money for something that might or might not happen they must be very very confident of it going through or they must be very confident of a plan their plan regardless of what the Premier League say and that might start out with a smaller share holding in the club which is what the talk was from regarding MSP wasn't it a couple of months ago talk was they were going to buy 25% and build up slowly and they wouldn't have to go through the process at the start and they would have people on the board so it could be we could see that 777 if they don't pass that fit and proper test might might start off with a small percentage in the club but essentially run the football club because they'll have people in the places of power so we'll wait and see how that plays it's just another fascinating element of everything that's going on at Everton at the moment and finally the Everton versus mainly game in the Carabao Cup next Wednesday is sold out that's fantastic news that that game is sold out a full house under the lights I'm sure there'll be some fantastic tribute getting paid to Bill Kenwright on the night as well so a great opportunity as well for Everton to get through to the next round of the Carabao Cup as well so looking forward to that one next week don't forget check out the match preview the best time of the night is Everton there's been some great live content over on Toffee TV premiere this week make sure you check it out, the link is in the description and the QR code is coming up on the screen now see you later


Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we have with us Shekhar Singh to discuss on the Lokpal bills or bill, whichever way you look at it. Shekhar, we have already discussed the context in which all this is being discussed. What are the main provisions of the Lokpal bill in the government bill which you think are much too weak at the moment to stop corruption? The government bill as presented in parliament only covers a very small proportion of the civil servants. And there is nothing in the introduction or in the, you know, there are usually these notes which are attached with the bill, which suggests that there is any other device that the government is thinking or any other bill to cover the rest of the bureaucracy. So, now for example, central government has 42 lakh employees by their own count. This covers only group A officers which is 65,000 of those 42 lakhs. It only covers, it does not cover the prime minister for example. So, first of all, we have a problem with the coverage. We feel that every category of the civil servant and the prime minister himself should also be covered. General Lokpal bill on the other hand covers all this, but wants to put all of them under one institution. Now, we see that is not possible. So, basically to have different institutions for different class of people or class of officers. Similar for judges, these government of India bill does not talk about judges at all. The General Lokpal says judges should also be under General Lokpal. We say no, you should strengthen the accountability, judicial accountability and put it in there. So, that is the first problem. As far as the prime minister goes, General Lokpal bill says he should be there or she should be there without any qualifications. The government bill says only after they have demoted office. We are saying no, the prime minister should be there, but we have suggested three or four safeguards. One is that it has to be a full bench of the Lokpal which decides that the prime minister should be investigated on the basis of prime FAC evidence. And they must make a reference in camera to the Supreme Court where a full bench also looks at that evidence and then says yes. So, safeguards are the question. So, that it is not every day that the PM is being hauled up and one or two other such safeguards. Second, independence of the Lokpal. Now, we have seen over the years that the government has many ways of finishing the independence of an institution. In the government bill, for example, the selection committee is of nine. So, it looks very impressive. But five of those nine are either from the ruling party or from the government or nominated by the government. So, for that practical purpose is going to be a government nominee. We do not agree with that. So, we said the only way out is that you have one person from the government, the prime minister, the leader of the opposition and a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the Chief Justice of India. So, that you have some balance and this seems to be working a little bit wherever such a system has come in. The next question is that who is going to sack or otherwise discipline the Lokpal itself? Again, independence issues come here. Government system is that you file a complaint with the government. The government will then decide whether this complaint has merit and if it has merit, it will then pass it on to the Supreme Court of Investigation. Supreme Court will recommend to the government which will then decide whether it should take action or not. That is the end of the independence of the Lokpal. So, basically a question of mutual assured destruction that is the both sides cannot proceed against each other. Absolutely. The point is that how is the Lokpal going to be answerable. Now, the general Lokpal bill has a very strange system. They say that the judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court would be answerable to the Lokpal. But the Lokpal members would be answerable to the Supreme Court. Again, a question of. So, we are saying that yes, all complaints let them go straight to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not going to be under the Lokpal and let them hear it. So, that is the third major difference. What about the issues regarding if the Lokpal investigates, finds people have prime office cases against them that can be done. Then the government's bill, how does it look at it after that? See, the government's bill is strong on one issue and similar to the Lokpal that the Lokpal will have both the investigative and the prosecution powers. So, if the investigation and prosecution is in my hands, I can make sure that the court has no option but to find somebody guilty or find somebody not guilty. So, but we have for the moment accepted because there isn't any problem. Difference lies. The general Lokpal says that if it's not a criminal matter, but an administrative matter which attracts up to dismissal of a civil servant or minor or major penalties, the Lokpal will be authorized to do that against civil servants. Now, there are two problems with that. One is that it will require an amendment to the Constitution. This is a judge, jury, execution. That's the other problem. How can you have the same body investigating, prosecuting and giving punch? But the government's bill says that if it goes to the government, the government will decide and it doesn't have to do anything. Yeah, but then you have judicial review. See, suppose I'm a complainant and the government doesn't do anything. I can go to court of law and we are under the Lokpal dispensation, both the government bill, the general Lokpal and ours, special courts are being set up. So, you go to court of law.  See, there are three issues here. One is that you have to, of course, control corruption. But you also have to protect honest civil servants because believe me, if you don't do that, the wily ones or the dishonest ones will never get caught, but the honest ones will always be in trouble. I can tell you the whole system of writing annual confidential reports in the government has collapsed because every officer says, if I write one adverse entry against somebody, it has to be communicated, natural justice, does that, they'll file complaints against me and then I'll be stuck forever. Thirdly, you have to make sure that the government doesn't get paralyzed after all, corruption is not the only problem, inaction is another problem. Now, there are two very dangerous clauses in the government bill. One clause is that all movements, groups, anybody who collects money from anybody, suppose you're the officer, now what does that mean? Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it means you can be asked, please show what was your income. Otherwise, if your assets are disproportionate to your known sources of income, it's assumed that you're corrupt. Now, it's one thing for a government servant who gets a fixed salary, maintains this. Frankly, if I was asked to tell them for the last 40 years what was my income, I don't have any records here. How am I going to show? Number two, it also says that if you misuse your position, now in the government, these are defined, what you can do, what not. In fact, it's very interesting in the government bill, while they don't want to include numbers of like 42 lakhs because it's too large, therefore restricting to 65,000. They don't seem to have problems for including all and suddenly outside the government. So, the whole argument of why the net should not be wide and seems to fall here. Though they have put in one caveat that beyond above a certain level, what that level will be, we don't know. But it's also unnecessary because if you're not getting money from the government, there are other laws. If you commit fraud, there are other laws under which it should be covered. And if you're abetting a government servant, in any case, section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act will get you into trouble. So, I don't see why it is. So, only it should, in your view, this if organizations outside the government are covered, it should really be those who receive government funds and therefore have quasi in that sense public servant role. That would be the further the government bill says this will not cover religious organizations. It specifically says, why not? And we are saying it doesn't cover corporate sector, it doesn't cover media. So, why shouldn't it? In fact, we have recommended, this is not in Jan Lokpal, but we've recommended any profit seeking organization, corporate, etc. which gets a license and order, a concession, etc, etc from the government. And this is in violation of any rule or any law provided that they can not show that we could didn't know and we couldn't have known. Then it would be assumed that they've indulged in corrupt practices. In 2G, what is clear is that companies which were not eligible got spectrum, but that doesn't help you. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, you'll have to show that they actually bribed somebody. That's very difficult to show. That's actually the problem of the Corruption Act, probably the PCA. So, we have said that the PCA should be amended for and bring this in. The second is on the question, I believe, of the whistleblower. That means whoever makes a complaint, that minimum penalty is 2 years. Not just whistleblower. This is penalty that if anybody, not just a whistleblower, makes a complaint which is false, vexatious and frivolous, minimum prison of 2 years. But if the person is found guilty of corruption 6 months, first of all, you must prove that it's a malefied, malicious intent to harm some. So, it must be false and malefied maliciousness should be proved. And even then, a fine. So, effectively, it is in order to disarm complaints. That's the intent of it. Coming back to the Jan Lokpal bill, which is also doing the rounds, there are two very problematic issues which we haven't discussed in law. One is this so-called citizen charter, the demand that every civil servant, every government official, all this 42 lakh government employees must have a charter. This almost sounds like our old-fashioned time and motion study which is to be imposed on the workers. What we are saying is that, look, there is already citizens' charters. As you know, every department is required to have a citizen's charter. Let us fine-tune the citizen charters. Let us simply say that, look, if you are going to interact with the government on these matters, these are your rights, these are your obligations. And let's codify them so that everybody knows. This is not a Lokpal issue. It should be outside the normal understanding of an ombudsman. Absolutely. So, what we have said is that you set up a grievance redress mechanism. And we've said there are no costs involved because nowadays you have the central schemes, for example, the NREJ. 1% of the NREJ budget is earmarked for a grievance redress scheme. You have now right to food is coming in. In that, you will have right to education is coming in that. So, effectively have separate redressal mechanisms part of the department which is setting it up and funded statutorily. That would be a problem. And we've said that right down to the block level in the rural areas and the ward level in the urban areas, there will be a single office where all these central scheme grievances plus other grievances, so you don't have multiplicity of offices. Effectively, the Lokpal bill in its current from the general Lokpal bill requires according to Prashant, who we've heard requires at least 20,000 people to set it up. Do you think there is a threat that this in fact might a make it completely non-functional administering 20,000 people is not easy? And secondly, it might itself become a problem tomorrow? I frankly think that 20,000 is a huge underestimate. And let me tell you why facts and figures. Currently, the Central Vigilance Commission handles group A officer 65,000. Last year, they received 17,000 odd complaints. That's 25%.  If you ask any supporter of Anna today how many of the bureaucrats are corrupt, they'll say 90%. Even if they're corrupt once a year, can you imagine how much? I'm saying let's take 25% for which we have statistics. 42 lakh people means you're going to get what? You're going to get about 10 lakhs of complaints every year. The CBI standard is that one investigating body, which means that there is one investigator, this law also says of DYSP and above and two assistants can do between three and four investigating cases in a year. That is what the CBI standards are. Put that no, you got 10 lakhs, so you need two and a half lakh investigators straight off. Then we are also prosecuting. Now in the court systems that we have today and you know if you want natural justice, witnesses have to be called this, that and the other. Any one team can only prosecute about six to eight cases in a year because you have 200 working days in all that sort of a thing. So you start adding all that up. Plus then they need drivers, they need peers there. My calculation you need about 10 to 15 lakh people if it's be a single institution. So much has been talked about Karnataka Lokayut. Just the Lokayut, they have Lokayut and Uplokayut. Uplokayut looks after that. Lokayut and Uplokayut, that body, 56,000 pending cases as of now in one state, 56,000 when you had that very effective Lokayut. So effectively what you are suggesting is a much smaller ambit of this Lokpal but which has effective powers would be really the solution of the current crisis of. So what I am saying is that let us start from the top. There are other advantages. See people at senior levels are the ones who have the clout which you have to counter by having this high-powered independent Lokpal that Babu is not going to have the clout.  So you need the abilities to be able to trace that. Secondly, if really the top is relatively free of corruption then the bottom is much more likely to be clean. That's really the issue. I agree with you that then it should be something which comes down. This is in one case trickle down the world. Unlike the economic philosophy. Let me just add one very important point. See what's happening in India and the world over today is that because people are disgusted with elected governments, they are slowly wanting to take away the function of the elected government, put them into bodies which are not part of the electoral process. And they should also not account for it. This is the problem. See tomorrow, if your Lokpal is corrupt, you can file a complaint by the Supreme Court. But suppose he's not corrupt. Suppose he's biased. Suppose he's lazy. Suppose he just doesn't work. If you get an institution which is not accountable, then the checks and balances of the Constitution are lost. But one further point, this is also middle-class fantasy that once we've elected a parliament, they'll make them accountable. Or once we make a Lokpal, they'll make them accountable. I'm afraid that for a long, long time each one of us will also have to be involved in making them accountable. Otherwise, they're not going to work. Good. I think on that note that every citizen has to intervene if things have to improve and not just camp once in a year or once in five years or just do his task in voting. I think we conclude this section of our discussion. Shekhar, I think we're going to see many more developments on this. We'll come back to you again on these issues. Thank you. Thank you very much.