17/10/2011 Daily Politics

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics.

As we all turn our central heating on, the Government's meeting the

big six energy companies in an effort to bring prices down. But

will it work? The Wall Street protest has spread to Europe and

the City of London and they say they're not leaving until

something's done about Coroporate greed.

Mum or Dad should be able to share maternity leave - that's what the

government's promised - but with the economy in dire straits are

they about to change their mind? And has reality TV created a

generation of idle, unemployable layabouts. We'll ask the man who

brought Big Brother to Britain. All that in the next half hour. And

with us for the whole programme today is the television

entrepreneur, Peter Bazalgette. Welcome. First today, the protests

that started on Wall Street a few weeks ago have spread across Europe

and to the city of London. Anti- capitalist protestors have been

camped outside St Paul's Cathedral all weekend and as City workers

arrive this morning they're still there, and they say they'll stay

until the Government takes action on corporate greed. We were hoping

to be joined by one of the protesters, but they are too busy.

These protesters don't have much chance of achieving anything do

they? I suspect not. But it is an interesting phenomenon. Just before

we saw the riot spread across Britain on Twitter and social Media,

I see this, I have a media angle on this predictably. You would have,

but in numbers terms they need to have thousands out there before you

can achieve anything? You mentioned corporate greed, there are some

serious issues about executive pay and senior executive pay shouldn't

be more 20 times than the lowest paid person in the country, and all

sorts of things under discussion. There are some things the

Government could do about corporate pay if they wanted to. I don't know

how specific the protesters are and it looks like we won't find out.

Our corporate people greedy? We are all greedy. But can you harness it

for the public good? Senior executive pay in large

organisations has gone out of control, compared to the medium

pace in organisations over the last 20 years. He would say it is the

private sector, not just the public sector? The BBC have had to reform

its pay structures, so it is all sectors. But it will Hutton has had

some proposals, and his proposals are, you should bring a matrix in

Between the ratio of senior pay to median pay and the lowest paid in

organisations. Do you think protests a like these, even though

there is a global element to it and they say they will stay until

something is done. Unless you are affiliated politically or have any

bearing on governance, nothing will change will it? The biggest

significance of the protest outside St Paul's Cathedral is it will be

disruptive to people going to communion. And they say they will

put up with that? The vicar who said that on the radio this morning

may come to regret that. The if it gets a bit colder, let's see how

long they stay! And, Andrew Neil may not be here in

person this morning. But he's with us spiritually. He's blogged on the

eurozone crisis for us and you can read what he's got to say at the

web address on screen at the moment. Now David Cameron's being told by

pollsters that he's got a problem with women. Will the Prime Minister

turn on the Number Ten heating? It is �1,334 a year. That is following

recent price rises from the suppliers. The regulator, Ofcom

said last week the profit margin for energy firms had risen up to

�125 per customer per year. From �15 in jeans. As energy prices have

risen they have gone up the political agenda. Ed Miliband

targeted the energy companies in his speech last month, saying it is

a mid-market and argue it the squeeze Middle feel the brunt of

the price increases. The Government had made similar noises with the

Energy Secretary promising he will get tough with the firms, was the

Prime Minister has said the Government needs to work harder and

faster to bring down energy bills. Chris Huhne plans to highlight two

ways consumers can cut bills. The Government will write to thousands

of consumers who are entitled to insulation which will cut bills by

�100 a year. Switching to direct debit payments, according to the

Government, can also save �100 a year. I am joined by the energy

spokesman for Labour and a representative from the energy

companies attending the summit. Christine, in terms of what the

energy companies are prepared to do, why don't they give the cheapest

tariffs to customers who call them? A lot of them are getting in touch

with customers to do that. The advice today will be make sure you

on the right tariff, or switch to another supplier because we have a

competitive market. Insulate, because that can save hundreds of

pounds. And all of that could help people save money. It may not make

sexy headlines, this insulating, energy switching, it is hassle.

Poor people can make a difference. It is all very well to talk about

the market, but these can make a difference to people now. It is the

consumer that has to find the cheapest tariff, the consumer that

will have to find out about insulating their home and switching

companies. The energy companies won't bring their prices down?

will be sending out messages, letters to customers urging them to

shop around because you can save money. Saving money yes, but you

cannot bring the prices down. You won't bring the prices down. That

is what those companies are meant to do, maximise their profits?

Ofgem said in their document last week, why are energy prices rising?

It said quite clearly, wholesale gas prices which have gone up 40%

this year of the driver between energy bills rising. There is

nothing anyone can do, there is no escaping it, even the small

companies, it is not just the big ones. So you profits have gone up,

too? Ofgem says it has gone up by a �100, is that justifiable? Those

figures don't paint and realistic figure? Are they wrong? We would

dispute those figures. How much have they gone up? Profit margins

have gone up because wholesale prices have gone up. They are very

volatile. It was �15 before the summer and it did look like it had

gone up by �100. If you look at it over five years which off gendered,

they are warm 0.6%. -- Ofgem did. Profit margins are there to stay,

what are you proposing with his breaking up of the dominance of

this market, there is nothing you can do? The first thing to say,

profits have gone up by �110. profit margin yes. Ofgem says they

have gone up to 125. The challenge for the consumer is trying to

navigate all the different tariffs. We are calling for a unit standing

charge and a set additional cost so people can understand what is going

on. According to the report last week, 80% of consumers are not

offered the best deal by their energy company. Why aren't they

offer that? Engage consumers have benefited a lot. Ask that dance --

answer that, why aren't they offered the best? They are going to

get letters offering them. So that is going to change? The Government

has said they are going to call on energy companies so consumers can

go to it energy companies asking for the best prices, but not

stating what is the best tariff for those individual customers? Some

people once based -- fixed tariff, some people want a green tariff. It

is not as simple as that. Most people will do now, fuel poverty is

becoming a problem. Companies will be getting touch with customers

offering them a tariff. Energy companies are there to make profits,

they are be holding to their shareholders, you cannot stop that.

There needs to be an admission from politicians and the Government, you

cannot force companies to bring their prices down? The public to

expect and deserve... Can you do it? There are some things the

Government can do. Scottish and Southern Energy said they will sell

their electricity on an open market. All the other electricity companies

that generate electricity, they only sell it to themselves. Just

six companies provide energy to 99% of the market, it is closed and

transfer not very transparent. of that is going to happen in the

near future and people are facing fuel poverty now. Do you accept

during 13 years of Labour Government there was a failure for

companies to invest in infrastructure? You could have done

it early on but you didn't. People are contesting whether we should

put that Investment... There is now, prices have gone up and we are

paying for that. But in 1997 you did not make those companies invest.

There were loads of things that needed to be done first and it took

time. But it was put in place and the challenge now is, we have to

ensure security of supply and we are not seeing that. On security of

supply you did not think about energy supply. It took Labour many

years before any decisions were made about nuclear power stations?

We put that opportunity in place but energy companies to invest in

renewables and look at other ways of supplying. The Labour Government

put that in place. How much money is going to be invested by the

energy companies in new infrastructure? The figure Ofgem

says is necessary is 200 billion over the next 10 years. It is a

huge sum and the companies have to make some money so they can attract

the investment that will allow them to do that. How realistic is it to

break up the dominance, have other people supplying the energy? We are

in favour of a competitive market, we have one of the most competitive

markets anywhere in the world for the cheapest price per unit of gas

and there have been a lot of benefits. Is the No 1 agenda for

the public? You cannot have low prices and high investment. Green

energy, tremendously expensive. The greener we want to be, the more

pricey it is. Shale Gas, which is being developed could absolutely

turn around the prices in the energy sector if we develop it

properly, but it will require investment. In vestment is the key.

David Cameron is being told by pollsters he has a problem with

women. He has been in trouble for saying things like this.

Calm down there, calm down. Listen to the doctor. What David Cameron

saw as a bit of banter was interpreted as underlying sexism, a

misunderstanding which led to this apology.

I obviously said some things in the House of Commons that came out

wrong. It caused the wrong impression and I deeply regret that.

I was asked about it in an interview with the Sunday Times and

I said what I think. It sounds terrible, I apologise for that. It

is not what I'm like, it is not what I am. I must do better.

The apology is apparently part of the Prime Minister's attempt to

show he is a decent person but he is looking at concrete policies.

The Government is committed to making maternity and paternity

leave more flexible so it can be shared between partners. But a

review of red tape has recommended the plans are dropped. Joining me

is a Conservative MP and the Labour MP has stayed with me. Why should

the Government dropped its extension of its flagship policies?

I have not seen the report and they did not realise a report has been

that -- published if you are referring to the one by Adam

Beecroft. No single legislated for a measure will have a major impact

on employment or business growth. We have to be careful about adding

several extra layers which may make it more difficult for employers to

employ people. You are basically saying they shouldn't be any more

legislation that will add to what employers have to deal with?

would seek to avoid adding any more at this time. It is a flagship

policy and part of the Government's commitment to extend flexible

working and the sharing of parental leave? If you look at it on the

whole, as trying to help support families. You look at a range of

fiscal measures that have been introduced, but the biggest way is

to help people get back into work. There is some very good protected

rights in place at the moment. Think very carefully before we move

to make more burdens and difficulties for businesses. Some

of the shared parental Leeds, I can see why it is a good idea. But I

also question how you regulate that. But it has to be thought through

and I hope that is what will be looked at. Do you think the

Government will drop any of this? The Government should be looking at

how they can create jobs and growth and looking at parental leave, in

the grand scheme of things, it's quite irrelevant. They should go

ahead with those policies even if it's an extra burden? Yes, simply,

they should. The chances of it being dropped Arslan from the

evidence and what the other problem the Government, particularly David

Cameron, have that with women voters? If we're going to address

the question of perception with voters, we are in danger of missing

the point. Is it perception? Even David Cameron himself wants to have

policies that demonstrate the Conservatives are thinking about

women. Yes, if you look at the policies put forward, easing the

burden on families through the measures introduced, next year the

tax allowance up to 8,000, child tax credits being increased, that

is all good stuff but ultimately, what we are depending on for growth

is jobs. My argument is we should not tighten the straitjacket on

employers, and actually help women and all people back into work by

not increasing the regulation. truth is there is a 10 point capo

with women's and men's support for the Conservative Party. Will that

change by extending rights for parental leave? Reeves in the

highest unemployment for women since the 1980s. The Government has

taken a nursery care, support, and women are very upset with what the

Government is doing. It's another nail in the coffin if they pursue

it. You need to change that perception. We are based in reality,

we have increased child tax allowances. We have extended

nursery rights, as well for the what about child benefit for higher

tax payers? Should that be kept? would be keen that that we look at

the whole range of fiscal measures which do the job so my argument

would say, it would benefit more people by the extending the tax

allowance rather than focus on one area. I'll be going to add another

layer of regulatory burden when, over and above, some very good

employment protection rights that exists at the moment, my argument

is we should not be doing that and we should be cautious about doing

it at this particularly difficult time. Would you allow the sacking

of that pregnant women in this climate? No, of course not. Rogue

employers should be dealt with with the legislation in place and that's

what we do at the moment. All employers should be treated fairly

and equally but the protection is existing. I haven't a company for

25 years. One I left, we employed 100 people. Do you accept the

Tories have a problem with women voters? You have to believe the

polls. The important thing is, if there are issues out there, people

will never just focus on one single individual issue but look at what

you're doing, for them and their families for the high important

would this be, as an employer yourself, extending parental leave?

Are they important? The most important issue today is

unemployment, I think. If the most important issue is that, everything

must enable companies to employ more people, and that means that,

if you put any additional burdens on businesses, however good they

may sound, please take away another burden. Everybody talks about

removing red tape but they put the red tape on companies. What are you

going to take away? What would you take away? There's lots of things

Labour has come up with which we do government should do to stimulate

employment. Do you think, by putting an extra regulation, will

have a detrimental effect in terms of employment? The Business I speak

to see value having parents working for them, actually. I would say

exactly that's what we've got at the moment, very good protection

rights. The main point is, it accounts for over half the jobs in

the private sector, let's encourage them and not impose more burdens

for the Yes, let's encourage small and medium enterprises to take on

more employees by having a National Insurance holiday. Politically, of

course, there is a split with various people in the Cabinet on

either side of the argument. Do you think it is going to become one of

those defining roles? I suspect not. Most splits, what I would say,

there have been some strong words said about it at the moment. What I

think the Government should remain focused on is their commitment to

help create the conditions for small businesses to thrive, which

is about reducing the burden of regulation, not just in this area

but other areas as well. Thank you. Is there a generation of young

people out there that lacks the energy or get-up-and-go to make a

fist of things in Britain's increasingly tough job market? The

unemployment rate amongst 16-24 year olds is nudging the one

million mark with evidence that employers prefer older or immigrant

workers to British youth. Some are suggesting that reality shows like

Big Brother introduced to Britain by my guest of the day Peter

Bazalgette are to blame for the fact some young people just don't

feel like working. Adam's been Day 22,000, the House of parliament,

and a politician who knows a thing or two about Big Brother has taken

to the airways to criticise a certain reality TV show. The idea

the way you succeed is by being famous, just making an appearance

on Big Brother, if you get that, you can't succeed. Actually, we

need to show this different ways of succeeding for young people and

what I worry about deeply is giving people a sense that there something

for something. That has got the vote of this columnist. You don't

have to have learned anything to appear on a reality show. You don't

have to be good at anything. Once you have appeared on it, you become

famous, as ever did, make money, and are successful, without trying.

That the values they are imparting. According to his employment expert,

those attitudes are being felt in the world of work. Evidence shows a

third of employers are not happy with young people's skills and work

attitude, so that shows there might be an issue, and it's a little bit

alarming considering the economy and labour market and youth

unemployment more generally. But, this academic, who has looked of

thousands of survey responses from young people across Europe, thinks

the picture is more complicated. the moment, we are high levels of

unemployment, it could lead to people to think that taking a quick

route to celebrities is a good option for them, but the vast

majority of young people are quite sensible, and they just won't take

that route. They know that they have to work hard, and that's the

only way they will achieve things. The fact is, cutting the record

levels of youth unemployment is one of the big issues in politics at

the moment and the contestant who succeeds in that task is likely to

be crowned at the whim of the reality show that his Westminster.

Prime minister, this is Big Brother, get out of the Jacuzzi!

Ed Miliband said reality TV shows like Big Brother have contributed

to a general malaise, a generation of young people who have a feeling

of entitlement for nothing. It's a good cheaper slogan on a wet

afternoon when you can't think of what else to put in a conference

speech in the autumn. No, it's always been a teenage desire to be

famous, going back to the coffee shops are Denmark Street, in the

1950s when Cliff Richard wanted to be a start, or go back to the

celebrity collectors of the 1920s, it's a desire. -- cultures.

Television gives people 50 minutes of fame but as nothing to do with

what that piece was about. It's about young people's skills of they

depend on the education system and that is the proper issue that that

report was raising. Television entertainment is not the beginning,

the end or the middle. Maybe not, but has it contributed? There is a

strong feeling that, although you argue people are always wanted to

be famous, now there are many, many young people who think it is

achievable. It's not just for the chosen few but it's an achievable

aim in life to be famous, for doing very little. No, it's a perfectly

legitimate dream as a teenager, to think of yourself in that way.

have up TV shows, the X Factor, Britain's got talent, it's all

about on stage performing to be paid a lot of money, not to have

role models of doctors, nurses, teachers, but that has diminished

and the celebrity has increased. There are more celebrity shows on

television and there is more television and more channels, so,

in that sense, it's true, but I don't think the sentiments of that

age group has changed at all. Everybody has this fantasy about

being famous when they are a teenager. What we have to do in the

education system is have more jobs will be good to go into an that's

basic, and hasn't got a lot to do with reality television. In terms

of young people employment, what do you see out there? Young British

workers are not employable? That's putting it too strongly, but if you

take the large employers in Britain, they don't always get the levels of

skills, particularly in a literacy and IT they need, and sometimes

they have had remedial courses when they employ them and that's not

good enough. We need to put that right in school. How have you found

attitudes about people turning up on time, looking smug, playing the

game? I think it would be a gross generalisation to say there was a

problem with attitude. I think it one was going to allege that, you

would have to come up with evidence, not anecdotal observations, a quick

line-out from a speech of a politician. Seeing it in the round,

though, you have celebrity reality television on the one hand, the new

media on the other, the obsession with mobile phones, and the rest of

very different way than employers would like them to be in the world

of work. In the sense that they are not focused on getting the jobs,

they are more focused on a social celebrity level? No, young people's

dexterity with a new media is a positive we should build on going

forward, and those that are really media-literate, they may not be

wise, and put far too much of their private lives on Facebook, but that

a separate issue, but they are much more employable and that's a good

thing. You argued forcibly there. tried! While three have been on air,

James Landale joins me, what is the news? Over the weekend to be a good

impression the Government was going to shake up its policies towards

lobbying as a result of the Dr Fox effect when William Hague yesterday

said ministers would take stock of its policy well the Prime

Minister's spokesman said this morning these are two separate

issues pulled up Liam Fox on one hand and the Government plans to

reform of lobbying. There's an existing process under way and the

Government is consulting on a statutory register of lobbyists for

the that process will be ongoing, nothing will change. Yes, if there

are any elements of the Dr Fox affair that are relevant, it will

be taking into account, but the Government will not speed up the

policy in any way. They are two separate issues so tomorrow when

Gus O'Donnell reports on the whole affair, we shouldn't expect much

policy recommendations, just the facts. James, thank you for joining

us today. That's all for today. Thanks to our