21/02/2012 Daily Politics


21/02/2012

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 21/02/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. And on today's

:00:42.:00:45.

lunchtime menu, economic bail-outs and political bust ups.

:00:45.:00:49.

Greece gets its bail-out after hours of midnight wrangling. They

:00:49.:00:52.

get 130 billion euros which will get them through the next couple of

:00:52.:00:56.

months. But is this just prolonging the agony?

:00:56.:00:59.

We'll look back at yesterday's bitter Commons row over the failure

:00:59.:01:03.

of the UK's Border Agency. Proper checks were not made on hundreds of

:01:03.:01:07.

thousands of people coming to these shores. Who is to blame?

:01:07.:01:10.

Last year British business lost more days to strike action than any

:01:10.:01:14.

time since the 1980s. So is it time to change the law and make it

:01:14.:01:17.

harder to down tools? And what should Andrew Lansley have

:01:17.:01:21.

done when confronted by an angry pensioner? We will ask some former

:01:21.:01:29.

spin doctors how to avoid the photo opportunity from hell.

:01:29.:01:32.

With us for the whole programme today are Graham Leach from the

:01:32.:01:40.

Institute of Directors and Frances O'Grady from the TUC. Welcome. If

:01:40.:01:46.

you have any thoughts or comments, you can tweeted them.

:01:46.:01:48.

Let's start with Nick Clegg's latest initiative to try to get

:01:48.:01:53.

young people back to work. The Deputy Prime Minister was in South

:01:53.:01:56.

London this morning to promote his new �126 million scheme that will

:01:56.:01:59.

enable businesses and charities to bid for contracts of up to �2,200

:01:59.:02:02.

for a teenager who can be kept in work, education or training for 12

:02:03.:02:09.

months. At the moment almost one in five people aged between 16 and 24

:02:09.:02:12.

are classified as so-called NEETs. Not in education, employment or

:02:12.:02:17.

training. Mr Clegg says the plan is about getting them out of the

:02:17.:02:21.

living room, away from the telly and into the world of work. Will it

:02:22.:02:30.

work? Clearly there is a political imperative to do something because

:02:30.:02:34.

we have 1 million young people unemployed. Spain has a 50% youth

:02:34.:02:40.

unemployment rate, so it is not that bad, and this will deal with

:02:40.:02:44.

50,000 out of 1 million, so it is fiddling, politically it has to be

:02:45.:02:50.

done, but it will not change things. Are you saying it is not worth it

:02:50.:02:54.

because businesses will not be attracted by the incentive of

:02:54.:03:00.

�2,200? It will help but there are probably more direct ways you could

:03:00.:03:04.

help in terms of boosting education and training elsewhere. What we

:03:05.:03:10.

need to do is boost the quality of the applicants. Trying to subsidise

:03:10.:03:15.

employment will not change things. Isn't the problem now that if we

:03:15.:03:20.

don't tackle the issue, a ticking timebomb Nick Clegg calls it, it

:03:20.:03:26.

will store up huge problems down the line. Absolutely. We are going

:03:26.:03:30.

to need more ambitious action and we are seeing at the moment. More

:03:30.:03:37.

money? We have a million people unemployed. We have no education

:03:37.:03:41.

maintenance allowance, tuition fees tripled, lots of young people

:03:41.:03:46.

finding themselves on unpaid internships and work-experience.

:03:46.:03:53.

This has to be welcomed but it is such a small step. �126 million

:03:53.:03:58.

does not sound like a huge amount of money for that many young people

:03:58.:04:03.

but they are targeting those at the very bottom. I would like to see

:04:03.:04:06.

the government to rethink the scrapping of the Future Jobs Fund

:04:06.:04:10.

that the previous government had in place, which was making a

:04:10.:04:15.

difference, quality work that paid at least minimum wage and that very

:04:15.:04:21.

often lead to a full-time job. payment by results work? In

:04:21.:04:28.

principle? Francis said you need to pay people a reasonable wage for

:04:28.:04:33.

them to leave and then get a proper permanent job, but for businesses

:04:33.:04:38.

does payment by results work? Business wants to see somebody

:04:38.:04:43.

well-trained, with the basic skills they need, and then the company can

:04:43.:04:48.

recruit them. What they are seeing at the moment his concern for the

:04:48.:04:53.

quality of recruits. The problem goes much further back. It goes

:04:53.:04:59.

back to the basics in school. you say they want people fully

:04:59.:05:03.

trained. Businesses cannot expect people with reasonable

:05:03.:05:07.

qualifications even to be fully trained. The idea is that they do

:05:07.:05:13.

it. I am talking about the basics, having job skills. Is there the

:05:13.:05:22.

suspicion that business just once cheap labour. -- wants. The Future

:05:22.:05:28.

of Business his people. Businesses do not want to squeeze the workers.

:05:29.:05:32.

They know their future is dependent on the people that work for them

:05:33.:05:36.

and they want to maintain and improve the skills base for their

:05:36.:05:41.

own company. The problem is the government promised it could cut

:05:41.:05:44.

nearly three-quarters of a million jobs in the public sector and that

:05:44.:05:49.

the private sector would step up to the mark. Instead we have five

:05:49.:05:53.

people chasing every job vacancy in Britain and more jobs being lost in

:05:53.:05:58.

the public sector, jobs that could give many of our young people a

:05:58.:06:08.
:06:08.:06:09.

diesel and star out. Except that then -- young people a good start.

:06:09.:06:14.

Except that these jobs are not needed. They are needed. Health,

:06:14.:06:19.

education, the Border Agency. We meet real people do in real jobs.

:06:19.:06:24.

We could be doing a nationwide energy efficiency programme and

:06:24.:06:28.

getting him people into decent apprenticeship, making homes more

:06:28.:06:33.

energy efficient and cutting carbon emissions. Instead we have a

:06:33.:06:39.

piecemeal approach that will not tackle youth unemployment.

:06:40.:06:44.

private sector creates jobs, that is the lesson in history. Not at

:06:44.:06:51.

the pace we need. Because we have a weak economy. We surely learnt the

:06:51.:06:55.

mistake in the 1970s of the public sector creating jobs, and surely we

:06:55.:07:03.

have moved on from that. Not when you are in hard economic times.

:07:03.:07:08.

you think you are in hard economic times here, let's go to Greece.

:07:08.:07:11.

After 14 hours of negotiations, not to mention the months of to-ing and

:07:11.:07:13.

fro-ing, eurozone finance ministers finally agreed a second huge bail-

:07:13.:07:17.

out for Greece last night. Greece will have to accept years of

:07:17.:07:20.

austerity and will be closely monitored by EU officials to make

:07:20.:07:25.

sure they don't overspend. Greece will receive a bail-out of 130

:07:25.:07:28.

billion euros which will allow it to meet its immediate cash needs

:07:28.:07:32.

and avoid bankruptcy. Private holders of Greek bonds will also

:07:32.:07:35.

have to accept a write-down on their investments, which is

:07:35.:07:40.

expected to cut debt by 100 billion. The aim is that Greece will reduce

:07:40.:07:46.

its debt level from 160% of GDP now to about 120% by 2020. Still high

:07:46.:07:52.

by international standards but thought to be manageable. Some

:07:52.:07:54.

would question whether that is manageable. Some economists worry

:07:55.:07:57.

that hacking back spending will mean it is years before growth

:07:57.:08:01.

returns. But George Osborne says the deal is good for Europe and

:08:01.:08:05.

good for Britain. Last night's developments were very encouraging

:08:05.:08:10.

for the European economy. Greece took some very difficult decisions

:08:10.:08:15.

to face up to its own debts, as other countries like Britain are.

:08:16.:08:23.

We have the eurozone collectively standing behind their currency. Of

:08:23.:08:27.

course, resolving the Greece situation is only part of the

:08:27.:08:31.

eurozone crisis but I think we took a significant step towards that

:08:31.:08:35.

last night and that is good for Britain, because resolving the

:08:36.:08:43.

eurozone crisis could be the biggest boost that Britain can get.

:08:43.:08:47.

George Osborne thinks this is a good thing for Britain and Greece.

:08:47.:08:55.

Are they breathing a sigh of relief? Yes. But I think the

:08:55.:09:01.

biggest size of relief are coming from eurozone officials rather than

:09:01.:09:05.

Greece itself. This does take some of the pressure off from Europe and

:09:05.:09:09.

it means that a messy default in the short term will be avoided as

:09:09.:09:15.

far as the eurozone is concerned. It enables the eurozone to buy time

:09:15.:09:19.

in order to strengthen the defences around the banks in some of the

:09:19.:09:23.

weaker countries. But as regards Greece, they have got to implement

:09:23.:09:27.

some pretty tough measures and this is already an economy in free-for-

:09:27.:09:34.

all. It contracted by 7% in the last quarter of last year.

:09:34.:09:38.

Unemployment is 21%. This is a country that is having to take on

:09:38.:09:43.

further cuts. What does Greece have to look forward to? Where will

:09:43.:09:47.

growth come from? Or are they going to look forward to a decade of

:09:47.:09:54.

hardship? Thank you. With us to answer those questions is John

:09:54.:09:59.

Redwood and Rachel Reeves. George Osborne sounding relatively upbeat,

:10:00.:10:06.

saying this is good for Britain and will be good for Greece. George

:10:06.:10:11.

Osborne has to say that. He needs to be pro-European. Said he does

:10:11.:10:16.

not feel that. I can give a different views. My view is that

:10:16.:10:20.

this is not a success. This is a deal they will come to regret

:10:20.:10:23.

because I don't think it can work and I don't believe the numbers

:10:23.:10:27.

they have signed up to for the next eight years on meaningful. I don't

:10:27.:10:31.

think Greece will meet their deficit targets. Have they delayed

:10:31.:10:39.

the targets...? Isn't this about covering your own back? Cutting

:10:39.:10:43.

Greece adrift when the fire walls aren't that sure of the rest of

:10:43.:10:48.

Europe and contagion might be not contained, that could be worse?

:10:49.:10:54.

am in favour of an orderly exit of Greece from the euro. They have had

:10:54.:10:58.

a couple of these two planet and they have not taken an advantage of

:10:58.:11:05.

that -- couple of years to plan it. If they were sensible, they would

:11:05.:11:08.

have it plan be worked out in secret. 80s seven countries have

:11:08.:11:18.
:11:18.:11:19.

left single currency schemes quite successfully since 1945 -- 87.

:11:19.:11:25.

Coming out of the report was not an easy thing to do in the communist

:11:25.:11:28.

era and when the former communist countries got out of the Russian

:11:28.:11:37.

rouble, they started to do well. The successful, the entrepreneurial

:11:37.:11:39.

path leading Greece in large numbers and I don't think this will

:11:39.:11:48.

stop the flood of money -- are leaving Greece. Should Greece come

:11:48.:11:53.

out of the eurozone? I agree that the plan that has been put in place

:11:53.:11:57.

overnight will not do what is needed... Because they need more

:11:58.:12:03.

money? They need different policies and a different approach. Greece

:12:03.:12:08.

has been in recession for four years. The economy shrunk by 7% at

:12:08.:12:13.

the end of last year going into the fifth year of recession. They meet

:12:13.:12:17.

to try something different. The policies of austerity are not

:12:17.:12:22.

working. More businesses are failing. They will not be able to

:12:22.:12:26.

get down the deficit and meet the targets that will be set. But not

:12:26.:12:36.

coming out of the euro. Not coming out? No. I think it will inevitably

:12:36.:12:42.

be disorderly and will result in contagion for Spain, Portugal, and

:12:42.:12:47.

that will have a huge impact on the UK economy. We need a different

:12:47.:12:52.

approach. Although you say it could be an orderly exit, the risk of

:12:52.:12:58.

contagion is still great. It is not a risk that Britain wants to take.

:12:58.:13:02.

What does that mean? It means people will lose money on the money

:13:02.:13:10.

they have led to Greece. They have lost it already. Absolutely. Some

:13:11.:13:15.

of those bonds are owned by pensioners and poor people, it is

:13:15.:13:19.

not all rich bankers that will suffer in this. Lots of other

:13:19.:13:25.

not paying their bills. But it is the exposure to countries like

:13:25.:13:33.

Italy and Spain and that will affect us. I don't agree that Spain

:13:33.:13:37.

and Italy will become the next victim. It is already happening.

:13:38.:13:41.

Those contagion effects will get worse in terms of the interest

:13:41.:13:44.

rates or Italian debt and the speculation that Spain and Portugal

:13:44.:13:50.

will be the next country to fall out and I think the impact that

:13:50.:13:54.

would have on the UK economy for people with pensions, for

:13:54.:13:58.

businesses here, would be immense. I think we should try to keep

:13:58.:14:03.

Greece in the euro but we need a different approach. Keep throwing

:14:03.:14:08.

good money after bad? That is effectively what is happening.

:14:09.:14:15.

silly's numbers are not nearly as bad as Portugal and Greece -- Italy.

:14:15.:14:18.

Greece should definitely leave, Portugal should probably leave.

:14:18.:14:23.

They should tidy it up, get rid of the worst cases and then defend the

:14:23.:14:29.

rest. Do you agree? I think it is absolutely certain that Greece will

:14:29.:14:36.

leave the euro eventually. I have written a report saying the ship is

:14:36.:14:39.

going down and I think it might be in time for some cheap summer

:14:39.:14:46.

holidays. Exploiting the misery of the Greeks! That is the key point.

:14:46.:14:50.

The markets know this is not politically sustainable. You cannot

:14:50.:14:54.

impose this level of austerity. Except the markets have rallied.

:14:54.:15:00.

They do this but then they catch up later. There will not be some

:15:00.:15:03.

combined euro fiscal bail-out on the scale required to push this

:15:03.:15:09.

problem away. There will not be the Monetary bail-out, the Germans will

:15:09.:15:14.

not let the ECB to quantitative easing. All we have is backdoor

:15:14.:15:18.

quantitative easing. The ECB is desperately hoping these eurozone

:15:18.:15:23.

banks will then buy public debt but they are not going to do it. Their

:15:23.:15:26.

balance sheets are shot to pieces of this is bespoke in the

:15:26.:15:34.

inevitable. -- because this is postponing the inevitable. What we

:15:34.:15:38.

see on the streets of Greece is extreme hardship, people are

:15:38.:15:42.

starving apparently in parts of the country, they are homeless and have

:15:42.:15:52.
:15:52.:15:53.

lost their business. That will not And this is what people forget. It

:15:53.:15:58.

seems to me the EU and the IMF are acting like the worst kind of

:15:59.:16:02.

doorstep loan shark, imposing conditions which Greece cannot

:16:02.:16:10.

possibly meet. We have had a cut in the minimum wage by a fifth, wage

:16:10.:16:16.

cuts, pension cuts, ordinary people being made homeless. Actually,

:16:16.:16:25.

would it be better for them to come out and reinstate the drachma?

:16:25.:16:30.

extreme austerity approach is simply not working. You need

:16:30.:16:33.

investment and jobs and industry to get the economy back on its feet.

:16:33.:16:40.

It is Greece today, who will it be tomorrow? If you reintroduce the

:16:40.:16:42.

drachma, the Governor of the bank of Greece can print money. At the

:16:42.:16:52.
:16:52.:16:53.

moment, he cannot do that, and that is a big, big difference. At the

:16:53.:17:03.
:17:03.:17:04.

weekend, Ed Balls, was setting out alternatives for the budget next

:17:04.:17:11.

month. Rachel Reeves has been explaining today that Labour would

:17:11.:17:16.

also be tough on public spending. In a speech this morning, she said

:17:16.:17:19.

that for Labour, deficit reduction that for Labour, deficit reduction

:17:19.:17:29.
:17:29.:17:35.

Of course, you have only just given that speech - there is no

:17:35.:17:40.

difference between you and the Government, then, you are going to

:17:40.:17:42.

complete that job of deficit complete that job of deficit

:17:42.:17:44.

reduction, and you are just as committed to it. We are committed

:17:44.:17:49.

to deficit reduction, but we also believe that the Government's plans

:17:49.:17:53.

have failed, because, of course you need tax increases and spending

:17:53.:17:56.

cuts, but unless you have got people in work paying taxes, then

:17:56.:18:00.

you will not get the deficit down, because you end up paying more out

:18:01.:18:05.

in benefits and getting less in in tax revenue. So we want to get the

:18:05.:18:10.

economy moving again, to get more people into work, paying taxes. But

:18:10.:18:16.

also, we would have to make tough decisions, cutting down on waste,

:18:16.:18:22.

looking at every area of government. Everybody talks about waste, let's

:18:22.:18:28.

go back to the idea of cutting the deficit, because if you are as

:18:28.:18:34.

committed to this as you have said, and they are pretty strong quotes,

:18:34.:18:39.

why are you advocating more borrowing to fund tax cuts? This

:18:39.:18:43.

Government is borrowing more than �150 billion more than they had

:18:43.:18:49.

planned. But that's what you're saying, advocating more borrowing.

:18:49.:18:53.

What we're saying is that the Government are borrowing this extra

:18:53.:18:56.

�150 billion because their plan has failed, because there are more

:18:56.:19:00.

people out of work, and more businesses failing. We are saying,

:19:00.:19:06.

let's have a targeted, temporary stimulus, a tax on bank bonuses, to

:19:06.:19:09.

find jobs for young people, and as a result, we will have the economy

:19:09.:19:14.

growing, more people paying taxes, and paying less out in benefits.

:19:14.:19:18.

But you would then break your own statement, which is that you would

:19:18.:19:21.

be putting up the deficit and the level of borrowing. The Government

:19:21.:19:25.

has failed its own test of balancing the books, that is now

:19:25.:19:30.

accepted by them, as well as everybody else. They have had to

:19:30.:19:37.

report that they have not met their original target, because the Office

:19:37.:19:40.

for Budget Responsibility's forecasts were wrong. I am

:19:40.:19:44.

delighted that Labour are now in agreement that we need to take this

:19:44.:19:49.

seriously. But as Conservatives, we did not come into politics to cut

:19:49.:19:53.

the deficit, we came into politics because we want people to be

:19:53.:19:57.

prosperous, and we happen to believe, and I think we now agree,

:19:57.:20:01.

that if you get the deficit get out of control, it gets in the way of

:20:01.:20:08.

those very important aims. adding �150 billion to that deficit

:20:08.:20:12.

will stop your aims. Yes, I have made it very clear that I would

:20:12.:20:15.

have liked them to have frozen public spending in the first year,

:20:15.:20:19.

rather than increasing it by 5% in cash terms in the first year.

:20:20.:20:24.

Because they did that, and then the growth did not come through, we

:20:24.:20:27.

have got slippage in the numbers. And they have now got to address

:20:27.:20:32.

that. I think the Chancellor will tackle the problem raised by Rachel,

:20:32.:20:37.

that we want more jobs and more growth. That's common ground. Of

:20:37.:20:42.

course we want growth and jobs, it is obvious. Do you agree that we

:20:42.:20:45.

would have had growth, and things would have been better, if,

:20:45.:20:51.

actually, there had been more fiscal discipline, in terms of

:20:51.:20:54.

freezing pay, for example? Everybody agrees that we want to

:20:54.:20:58.

reduce the deficit, the big question is how? Is it going to

:20:58.:21:02.

come out of ordinary people's pay and pensions and public services,

:21:02.:21:06.

or are we going to do something about the frankly obscene levels of

:21:06.:21:10.

tax avoidance and evasion at the top. All parties are committed to

:21:10.:21:17.

that, aren't they? Or certainly, that's what they say. Frankly, this

:21:18.:21:21.

is a big problem, and it can be tackled. We could see more support,

:21:21.:21:27.

I would like to see support for the Robin Hood tax, which would raise

:21:27.:21:36.

�20 billion, by cracking down on financial transactions. But Labour

:21:36.:21:39.

would have done pretty well the same, when it came to cutting

:21:39.:21:44.

public sector jobs, to shrink the public sector, because it was too

:21:44.:21:48.

bloated? When you look at the NHS, for example, the Government are

:21:48.:21:53.

going ahead with a we organisation which is costing �1.8 billion. Half

:21:53.:21:59.

of that money could be used to protect 6,000 nurses over the next

:21:59.:22:04.

six months. -- a re-organisation. That's not going to promote growth,

:22:04.:22:11.

is it? Different choices are being made. Coming back to the issue of

:22:11.:22:16.

growth, that will not actually create growth, the private sector

:22:16.:22:21.

coming through with more jobs would do that. But Ed Balls has said that

:22:21.:22:28.

he wants a cut of 3p in income tax - would that be for higher earners,

:22:28.:22:35.

too? What he has said is that the most targeted way to do this would

:22:35.:22:40.

be to cut VAT back to 17.5%. If the Chancellor does not want to do that,

:22:40.:22:43.

he could cut income tax, he could raise the personal allowance, all

:22:44.:22:48.

of those things would get money into the economy. In terms of

:22:48.:22:51.

businesses, a national insurance holiday for small businesses would

:22:51.:22:56.

help them, at a time when they are struggling to get bank lending.

:22:56.:23:02.

Would any of those things be the magic pill, if you like, in terms

:23:02.:23:06.

of stimulating growth, from a business point of view? Let's just

:23:06.:23:11.

take VAT. I would not think it would be that easy. We do not

:23:11.:23:15.

believe this is going to be a game- changer. Even if it is not a game-

:23:15.:23:19.

changer, do you think it should be done, would it help? I don't think

:23:19.:23:24.

it should. I think at the present time, you need to be convincing the

:23:24.:23:31.

financial markets, were struggling with the fiscal squeeze. I'm saying

:23:31.:23:34.

that if the Government made a different choice, if it was not

:23:34.:23:38.

cutting so far and so fast, we would not have choked off the

:23:38.:23:47.

economic recovery. I think there is a fundamental problem here, this

:23:47.:23:50.

analysis is basically saying, interest rates have got 20, we have

:23:50.:23:54.

got no more options to stimulate the economy, therefore we should

:23:54.:24:02.

use fiscal policy. I think the lesson of the last 30 years is that

:24:02.:24:11.

you do not use fiscal policy to try to fine-tune the economy. The

:24:11.:24:17.

fiscal stimulus you're arguing about is merely a potato gun,

:24:17.:24:24.

whereas the Bank of England has got a bazooka. We are saying, targeted,

:24:24.:24:29.

temporary action, a temporary cut in VAT, a national insurance

:24:29.:24:33.

holiday for small businesses. had had quantitative easing the

:24:33.:24:42.

first time around, -- if we had not had it, the level of GDP would have

:24:42.:24:51.

been 2% the war. You're a tax cutter, so do you have some

:24:51.:24:55.

sympathy with Ed Balls' policy of trying to do exactly that in the

:24:55.:25:00.

budget? No, I am not in favour of borrowing yet more to make a really

:25:00.:25:04.

big tax cut. I would cut the tax rates which I think are now

:25:04.:25:08.

collecting us less revenue, it would seem to be foolish to have

:25:08.:25:11.

moral outrage against people, so much so that you actually collect

:25:12.:25:15.

less money from them, and you drive them away, that would be rather

:25:15.:25:20.

silly. But I think this is a budget for reviewing all public spending

:25:20.:25:25.

once again, and didn't glad that we agree that there are things that

:25:25.:25:29.

can be done to get better value in public spending, but what I think

:25:29.:25:33.

they need to do is to fix the banks. The number one priority I have got

:25:33.:25:38.

is to go in and sort out RBS. We cannot carry on with this

:25:38.:25:42.

Meadowbank pretending it is going to come right. It keeps on losing

:25:42.:25:50.

us money, and it offends people in the process, it seems, as well. --

:25:50.:25:58.

mega-bank. I think we should get three decent working banks, out in

:25:58.:26:03.

the private sector, lending people money. We have effectively got an

:26:04.:26:07.

investment strike going on, big businesses are sitting on huge cash

:26:07.:26:13.

reserves, equivalent to six% of GDP. They are not investing because they

:26:13.:26:17.

are worried about the bigger economic output. We have got small

:26:17.:26:20.

businesses who are still starved of credit, even from the banks that

:26:20.:26:25.

the taxpayer owns, and we need to get in there. I would keep them as

:26:25.:26:29.

nationalised banks, and actually use them to invest in new jobs and

:26:29.:26:33.

industry. It is an interesting discussion, but not the one we

:26:33.:26:38.

started out on. Now, the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, came under

:26:38.:26:42.

fire in the House of Commons yesterday over his decision to give

:26:43.:26:52.

the job of university access tsar to Professor Les Ebdon. Some MPs

:26:52.:26:56.

are concerned that Professor Ebdon want to see universities admitting

:26:56.:26:59.

more students on the basis of what they might achieve in the future,

:26:59.:27:02.

rather than what they have actually achieved at the time of their

:27:02.:27:06.

application. Does the Secretary of State accept the overwhelming

:27:06.:27:11.

evidence set out in the report today, that shows skewed access to

:27:11.:27:15.

our top universities is not a failure of admissions policy, but a

:27:15.:27:20.

lack of adequate preparation in our secondary schools? To get down to

:27:20.:27:26.

some facts, more than 20 Oxford colleges made no offers to black

:27:26.:27:31.

students for undergraduate courses in 2009, we in one particular

:27:31.:27:34.

college not having admitted a single black student for five years.

:27:34.:27:40.

Meanwhile, four independent schools have sent more pupils to Oxbridge

:27:40.:27:45.

than 2000 state schools. How can the Secretary of State say that he

:27:45.:27:48.

believes in the principles of university autonomy and admissions

:27:48.:27:54.

on merit, when his appointee says he is prepared to threaten

:27:54.:27:58.

universities with what he chose to describe as the nuclear option of

:27:58.:28:03.

fines and reduced funding if they do not meet agreed targets? I know

:28:03.:28:07.

that the Honourable Gentleman has been very eloquent on this subject,

:28:07.:28:11.

and is anxious that we do not introduce prescriptive quotas for

:28:11.:28:15.

admissions to universities, that is his primary concern. And let me be

:28:16.:28:19.

very clear that that is not government policy, it is not the

:28:19.:28:24.

policy on offer. It is the independence of universities in

:28:24.:28:32.

respect of admissions, and that is enshrined in law. And Professor

:28:32.:28:35.

Ebdon has gone firmly on the record in saying that he will respect the

:28:35.:28:40.

diversity of the sector, and institutional autonomy. We can get

:28:40.:28:44.

more on this from our correspondent, in the central lobby. Yes, you get

:28:44.:28:50.

a real sense from that montage of the debate which has surrounded the

:28:50.:28:53.

appointment of Professor Ebdon, not just the pros and cons of the man

:28:53.:29:03.

himself, but the underlying issues. With me here, a Conservative MP and

:29:03.:29:09.

a Labour MP. You're the chair of the Education Select Committee -

:29:09.:29:12.

give me some sense of what you make of the appointment of Professor

:29:12.:29:19.

Ebdon, Graham Stuart? Well, I was disappointed, because I think the

:29:19.:29:22.

Secretary of State overruled Parliament on his appointment. And

:29:22.:29:26.

that was unwelcome. But going forward, we have got to make sure

:29:26.:29:30.

we focus on the issues which do block access certainly to our top

:29:30.:29:33.

universities for children from the poorest homes, and that is not

:29:33.:29:37.

going to be about some social engineering exercise at the

:29:37.:29:40.

University gate, it is going to be about raising standards, making

:29:40.:29:44.

sure you have the right subject choices and the right support, so

:29:44.:29:52.

that every child with the attitude can get on in life. Katy Clark, you

:29:52.:29:56.

sat on the committee which was scrutinising the appointment of

:29:56.:30:00.

Professor Ebdon, what did you make of it? I supported his appointment.

:30:00.:30:04.

There were four Conservative members who voted in favour of

:30:04.:30:07.

opposing this particular appointment, but the Labour members

:30:07.:30:12.

were supportive. I think he is a strong candidate. I think some of

:30:12.:30:15.

the issues that he has been taking forward are what are required. For

:30:15.:30:20.

example, if you look at what he is doing at his own institution, he is

:30:20.:30:24.

prioritising things like generous bursaries, the kind of action we

:30:24.:30:27.

need to encourage people from disadvantaged backgrounds to get to

:30:27.:30:36.

university. You're a member of this new Conservative group on fair

:30:36.:30:42.

access - tell us in short what you hope that group can achieve. What I

:30:42.:30:45.

think everybody across Parliament agrees is that we want to do more

:30:45.:30:53.

to support bright kids, from poor backgrounds, to get into university.

:30:53.:30:57.

What we see the last government having done, and this government

:30:57.:31:01.

having done, is to focus on universities as if they are the

:31:01.:31:05.

problem, as if there is some kind of snobbish selection process going

:31:05.:31:10.

on at the University gate - we do not believe that is the problem.

:31:10.:31:13.

The universities have no incentive other than to attract the brightest

:31:13.:31:18.

and best, from wherever they come. But we need to address the lack of

:31:18.:31:22.

social mobility on the real issues, which is about looking at issues

:31:22.:31:25.

like subject choices, like the support which is available, and

:31:25.:31:29.

making sure we have the right financial support. We must focus on

:31:29.:31:35.

the real barriers, not artificial, politically created ones. Are the

:31:35.:31:45.
:31:45.:31:46.

Some of the policies that this government is coming up with,

:31:46.:31:52.

getting rid of the educational maintenance allowance and troubling

:31:52.:31:58.

tuition fees, on not the solutions. We need to get support so we can

:31:58.:32:04.

get disadvantaged students into a more prestigious universities.

:32:04.:32:11.

seems you on the same page but from different perspectives? The results

:32:11.:32:14.

of A-level from people in comprehensive schools have been

:32:14.:32:19.

improving but not as quickly as those from selective state and

:32:19.:32:23.

independent schools. Our schools are not delivering in the way we

:32:23.:32:28.

would like them too. Pupils with worse grades from state schools do

:32:28.:32:33.

just as well at university as those from private school who have

:32:33.:32:37.

managed to get higher grades because of their paid education.

:32:37.:32:45.

Not at Cambridge... Thank you. Plenty more on this debate from the

:32:45.:32:47.

Select Committee in the coming months.

:32:47.:32:50.

Thank you. Last year saw mass protests by public sector workers

:32:50.:32:58.

over their pensions. We lost more days to strike action as a result

:32:58.:33:03.

of the demos in November than at any time since the early '80s. Some

:33:03.:33:06.

people think that heralds a new age of industrial unrest, with even

:33:06.:33:10.

more stoppages on the way. And yet union membership is declining. So

:33:10.:33:12.

just what is the state of industrial relations in this

:33:12.:33:16.

country? Do we need tougher anti- strike laws? Or do the unions need

:33:16.:33:20.

to reform in order to stay relevant in the 21st Century?

:33:20.:33:26.

Old core union power, when the weather always seemed that and the

:33:26.:33:36.
:33:36.:33:37.

situations were fuzzy. These days, the struggle goes on. We should now

:33:37.:33:42.

rapidly moved to a position for a strike ballot if there is not for

:33:42.:33:47.

the movement. This is a meeting of senior officials from the Fire

:33:47.:33:51.

Brigades Union. They are deciding whether to ballot members for

:33:51.:33:56.

strike action over changes to pensions. That issue has already

:33:56.:34:01.

caused industrial unrest so is this the dawning of a new era of union

:34:01.:34:05.

militancy? A quarter of the working population are members of the Union

:34:05.:34:10.

and in the public sector it is more than 50%, but numbers are falling.

:34:10.:34:19.

In the 80s, there were more than 30 million members. It is half that.

:34:19.:34:23.

But 2011 saw the highest number of days lost to strikes since the poll

:34:23.:34:28.

tax. We are seeing an unprecedented wave of industrial action and I

:34:28.:34:33.

think it is time we looked at serious reform to separate the

:34:33.:34:37.

moderate union leaders who tried to represent their members responsibly

:34:37.:34:43.

and the hardline militants, for whom there is no compromises.

:34:43.:34:46.

official government position is that while strike law is under

:34:46.:34:50.

review, it is not on the cards at the moment. If you take public

:34:50.:34:55.

sector pensions out of the equation, it is debatable how militant we

:34:55.:35:04.

have become. In 2009, France lost 100 days to strikes. We lost 19th.

:35:04.:35:09.

The we are not seeing a huge rise of militancy. That is not to say

:35:09.:35:14.

there are no concerns but it shows how responsible trade unions are in

:35:14.:35:19.

this country. If you believe in free trade unionism, you except

:35:19.:35:22.

there will occasionally be industrial disputes and trying to

:35:22.:35:26.

make it more difficult for a union to ballot their members is asking

:35:26.:35:33.

for more strikes without ballots and that is no good for anyone.

:35:33.:35:36.

despite real conflict with the government over public sector

:35:36.:35:40.

pensions, union membership continues to fall from its

:35:40.:35:45.

historical highs in the 1980s. In the private sector, just 14% of

:35:45.:35:51.

workers are in a union. So how does the movement make itself relevant?

:35:51.:35:55.

We haven't yet found a way to give workers a true voice in the

:35:55.:35:59.

workplace. I think that is an important thing. People feel

:35:59.:36:04.

frustrated that their voice is not heard. The unions are not doing

:36:04.:36:10.

enough there. Four unions, times may have changed but values haven't

:36:10.:36:15.

-- for the unions. Defending those beliefs however? That may need a

:36:16.:36:22.

whole new set of tools. Graham Leach, let's pick up on what

:36:22.:36:28.

Alan Johnson said. Not a huge rise in militancy. He is right in the

:36:28.:36:33.

sense that this is a public sector issue, not a private sector issued,

:36:33.:36:40.

and companies do not have a big issue. The problems we saw with

:36:40.:36:44.

unions hit in the private sector in the 70s and 80s has basically

:36:44.:36:48.

disappeared so there is a huge change there. What I think as well

:36:48.:36:52.

with change in the future is the volumes in the public sector

:36:52.:36:57.

because we have already seen the Chancellor has embarked on an

:36:57.:37:00.

investigation for the potential of decentralising public sector pay.

:37:00.:37:05.

What has happened in the private sector in terms of union activity

:37:05.:37:09.

will ultimately have been in the public sector. Are you saying we

:37:09.:37:17.

don't need tougher and destroyed laws? -- and he strike. I think

:37:17.:37:21.

this is fundamentally a public sector problem, not a private

:37:21.:37:29.

sector problem. The government has talked about the idea of tougher

:37:29.:37:33.

strike laws for the reason that the ball is still pretty low, they feel,

:37:33.:37:42.

in order to get a ballot to go on strike. I disagree. Funnily enough!

:37:42.:37:48.

In fact the public as you well know, even the lowest opinion polls after

:37:48.:37:55.

the November public service strikes, showed that 60% or more of the

:37:55.:38:01.

public supported the strike against having to pay more, work longer and

:38:01.:38:05.

get less pensions. I don't think that the government can drive a

:38:05.:38:10.

wedge between the unions and the public on this one. When it comes

:38:10.:38:15.

to strike ballots, let's remember, this is a human right, to withdraw

:38:15.:38:20.

your labour. It is recognised in international law. People never

:38:20.:38:24.

take strike action likely. Why should this ballot have a threshold

:38:24.:38:29.

that politicians do not apply to themselves? Let's remember because

:38:29.:38:34.

-- Conservatives won 23% of all of those entitled to vote at the last

:38:34.:38:38.

election. I don't think anybody would suggest they should not be in

:38:38.:38:43.

the coalition government today. would unions react if the

:38:43.:38:47.

government made it harder? I think we would be looking for public

:38:47.:38:51.

support to fight a very big campaign on this because it would

:38:51.:38:55.

be profoundly anti-democratic and actually it would be bad for

:38:55.:38:58.

business and bad for the economy in the long run. Remember all the good

:38:58.:39:04.

work that unions do. We create healthier and safer workplaces, we

:39:04.:39:08.

help workers get learning and skills, we resolve issues, we

:39:08.:39:12.

resolve grievances in the workplace and keep employees out of

:39:12.:39:17.

employment tribunals and that has to be good. There is a risk of

:39:17.:39:22.

further intensification of union activity in the public sector in

:39:22.:39:26.

the face of the pensions argument and that leads to a backlash from

:39:26.:39:29.

the electorate and ultimately it could be self-defeating from the

:39:29.:39:33.

unions because if they decentralise public sector pay, it fundamentally

:39:34.:39:38.

transforms the role of unions in the public sector. I think you are

:39:38.:39:42.

misreading public opinion. People believe that the balance of power

:39:42.:39:47.

has swung far too far in favour of the banks and big business and

:39:47.:39:52.

ordinary people need to be protected. Membership is on the

:39:52.:39:59.

slide. But it has been rising since the strike. But generally it has

:39:59.:40:02.

been coming down. We have a membership application forms coming

:40:02.:40:10.

in! I will take your word for it. Theresa May has announced that the

:40:10.:40:14.

UK Border Agency will be breaking up. The move comes over Brodie

:40:14.:40:18.

Clark -- after Brodie Clark resigned last year over claims he

:40:18.:40:24.

had relaxed checks. The Home Secretary set up the findings of an

:40:24.:40:34.
:40:34.:40:36.

investigation into border security The report reveals that security

:40:36.:40:40.

checks carried out at the border have been suspended regularly and

:40:40.:40:47.

applied inconsistently since at least 2007. In June of that year,

:40:47.:40:51.

ministers accepted a policy that allowed the suspension of all index

:40:51.:40:55.

checks on certain health and safety grounds but the report found that

:40:56.:41:00.

those cheques were suspended on many occasions for other reasons.

:41:00.:41:04.

It is time for her to stop hiding, to take responsibility for things

:41:04.:41:08.

that have happened on her watch, for the unclear instructions from

:41:08.:41:12.

her office, for the policy decisions to downgrade border

:41:12.:41:16.

controls, to the failure to monitor what was going on and for her

:41:16.:41:21.

failure to take responsibility now. This mess got worse on her watch

:41:21.:41:26.

every month that went by. Isn't what the country wants is not a lot

:41:26.:41:30.

of huff and puff from the opposition and the front bench and

:41:30.:41:34.

point-scoring, what they want to know is that ministers are now

:41:34.:41:39.

taking action to make the Borders more secure. That is the important

:41:39.:41:44.

point. The Home Secretary have set out what regular performers

:41:44.:41:49.

assessment there will be to ensure they do not fall back into an at

:41:49.:41:53.

hoc events driven approach to board as security that was so prevalent

:41:53.:41:57.

under the previous government. occasions where backbench members

:41:57.:42:01.

on the opposition benches have not seen a report that is subject to

:42:01.:42:05.

the statement, we depend on a comprehensive and non-partisan

:42:05.:42:09.

presentation of the report by the minister responsible. The Home

:42:09.:42:12.

Secretary has given us the impression that the report is in no

:42:12.:42:16.

way critical of ministers, yet we have heard suggestions that the

:42:16.:42:22.

report does contain criticism of a lack of clarity in the language

:42:22.:42:24.

used by ministers in their instructions to the Border Agency.

:42:24.:42:30.

Will she tell the House, is there criticism and if so, what she

:42:30.:42:35.

apologise for the Department's failings? In a number of aspects,

:42:35.:42:40.

the report does indeed refer to the issue of the necessity of greater

:42:40.:42:44.

clarity of communications of all sorts that were taking place in

:42:44.:42:50.

relation to what was happening at the border.

:42:50.:42:56.

John Vine wrote the report. He joins us now. Welcome to the

:42:56.:43:02.

programme. Was this a ministerial or managerial cock-up? It was a

:43:02.:43:06.

combination of both. What I have found is that the decision making

:43:06.:43:12.

by ministers in relation to the suspension of the Czechs going back

:43:12.:43:18.

to 2007 was variable -- checks. Sometimes people were notified

:43:18.:43:23.

about what was happening. Sometimes suspensions took place without

:43:23.:43:28.

notification from ministers. There was a lack of clarity in

:43:28.:43:31.

submissions to ministers and a lack of clarity in language coming from

:43:31.:43:36.

the ministers, and there was also a lack of clarity in the way that was

:43:36.:43:40.

communicated down to the work force so that there was an inconsistency

:43:40.:43:46.

of application cheques that most -- at most of the courts I visited.

:43:46.:43:50.

was more than inconsistency. I read some of your reports and it sounds

:43:51.:43:57.

chaotic in parts over that period. Basically the lack of communication

:43:57.:44:00.

and clarity, people carrying out orders they had not been asked to

:44:00.:44:07.

do, it sounds chaotic. Yes. There were a number of important checks.

:44:07.:44:11.

The warnings index check is the most important and identify whether

:44:12.:44:18.

somebody is wanted by the police. That was suspended on over 350

:44:19.:44:23.

occasions. Far more occasions than ministers and senior agencies

:44:23.:44:29.

realised. That was mainly through health and safety grounds. What I

:44:29.:44:32.

identified in the report is that health and safety itself was not

:44:32.:44:37.

properly defined. For example, coaches backing onto a French

:44:37.:44:41.

motorway to try to get through the juxtaposed controls were often

:44:41.:44:46.

designated by immigration officers as the health and safety risks.

:44:46.:44:52.

There were other examples where the criteria for suspension of CQ at

:44:52.:44:57.

identification checks was not properly defined and there was not

:44:57.:45:03.

operating policy for that -- suspension of clear identification

:45:03.:45:09.

checks. So we will never know what risks posed? No. The risk must be

:45:09.:45:13.

in perspective. When the identification checks were

:45:13.:45:18.

suspended, warnings index checks were generally carried out, so the

:45:18.:45:21.

risk for the border must be put into perspective, but a very

:45:21.:45:25.

important check that was considered by ministers and officials to be

:45:25.:45:31.

mandatory, there was no operating policy. The record-keeping of

:45:32.:45:38.

border officials' reports was very poor indeed. This came from 2007,

:45:38.:45:44.

so the previous government as well as. The minister's' decision-making

:45:44.:45:48.

giving back to that period, yes. I mention both the previous

:45:48.:45:51.

government and the current government and I outlined where

:45:51.:45:54.

ministers were involved and where they were not involved but there

:45:54.:46:00.

seems to be a lack of clarity about the operational autonomy of the

:46:00.:46:03.

agency with regard to ministers and I have recommended that ministers

:46:03.:46:07.

decide the level of authority required for a suspension of any

:46:07.:46:11.

cheque. How much pressure did you find from ministers for the queues

:46:11.:46:16.

to be reduced? Managing the queues is very important and what

:46:16.:46:20.

immigration officers are trying to do is manage that as well as

:46:20.:46:30.
:46:30.:46:34.

perform their function in checking The government decided for 100 %

:46:34.:46:39.

checking in 2007. Since that time, there were other requests for

:46:39.:46:41.

suspension of cheques, in particular circumstances. Over a

:46:41.:46:45.

period of time, what has happened is that the authority levels for

:46:46.:46:50.

those suspensions had become muddled and unclear. There needs to

:46:50.:46:55.

be a new minimum standard for border checks, a new framework, and

:46:55.:46:58.

if the 12 recommendations I have made in the report are carried out,

:46:58.:47:01.

then didn't confident it will improve the level of border

:47:01.:47:06.

security. And the former Home Secretary David? Is with me now. I

:47:06.:47:10.

should point out, you were not Home Secretary in the period that was

:47:10.:47:14.

being talk about, but that does not let you off completely. The Home

:47:14.:47:18.

Office is a poisoned chalice, isn't it? These things can always

:47:18.:47:25.

happen... Yes, I have a great deal of sympathy with Damian Green and

:47:25.:47:35.
:47:35.:47:35.

Theresa May, or I would have, if the Conservative government had not

:47:35.:47:39.

been so venomous against ministers in the last government, because

:47:39.:47:45.

these are difficult issues. Politicians need to be clear that

:47:45.:47:50.

they are in charge of the policies, but there was a bigger issue here,

:47:50.:47:55.

which is even more important in the long term, and that is getting a

:47:55.:47:58.

clarification as to how responsible ministers are for management.

:47:58.:48:06.

Because in government, I fear to say that very often, they're told

:48:06.:48:09.

not to be, and then they blame officials, then officials say,

:48:09.:48:14.

you're blaming us, and we go round in circles. The public want to know,

:48:14.:48:20.

who's responsible, who's accountable? But the row between

:48:20.:48:24.

Brodie Clark and Theresa May came to the fore, but that has been

:48:24.:48:28.

played out from time immemorial in the Home Office, hasn't it? Is it

:48:28.:48:34.

not the case that the UK Border Agency was unfit for purpose, and

:48:34.:48:40.

it was set up in Labour's time? was set up in 2007, suspensions did

:48:40.:48:46.

not take place until 2009. But the number has risen every year since

:48:46.:48:52.

then. We ended up with a staggering 350, most of them unauthorised. In

:48:52.:48:56.

January last year, the Immigration Minister, Damian Green, actually

:48:56.:49:01.

did authorise changes. But they were misunderstood. I think that's

:49:01.:49:05.

correct. I think they were not clear enough, the policy directives

:49:05.:49:09.

were not care enough, and the information was not clear enough,

:49:09.:49:13.

but when I ask Theresa May last November in the House of Commons

:49:13.:49:17.

about other ministers having authorised these suspensions, she

:49:17.:49:22.

did not answer my question. Well, Jon Leyne has now answered the

:49:22.:49:28.

question, and the answer was, yes, ministers did. Do you think it is a

:49:28.:49:33.

good idea to do this just before the Olympics? No, I do not think

:49:33.:49:39.

any structural change is a good idea just before the Olympics. It

:49:39.:49:46.

interrupt what is already in place. I think things have already started

:49:46.:49:51.

to be put right, and they need to get on with that. I have no

:49:51.:49:54.

objection in the long term to them splitting it, the real issue is

:49:54.:49:58.

what we do between now and August. I think the public would understand

:49:58.:50:02.

that in July and early August, we are going to have the most enormous

:50:02.:50:12.
:50:12.:50:13.

flows through our airports. And we are not good at change. In terms of

:50:13.:50:19.

the risk posed, when the public hears that possibly hundreds of

:50:19.:50:22.

thousands of people coming through the borders, whether they be

:50:22.:50:27.

students who had not had proper clearance, or people in the wider

:50:27.:50:31.

European economic Area, coming in without any checks, is that a wise

:50:31.:50:36.

thing for ministers ever to have advocated, even in a pilot form?

:50:36.:50:40.

No,, but if you're going to cut by more than 5,000 the number of

:50:40.:50:43.

people working in the agency, you're going to end up with these

:50:43.:50:49.

crises. I would appeal to the Government, think again, our

:50:49.:50:52.

borders are so important, the immigration policy is so critical

:50:52.:50:56.

to the public, that continuing with these massive reductions is

:50:56.:51:00.

inevitably going to end up with managers having to manage, and if

:51:00.:51:04.

they have to do that by suspending what were critical checks, then we

:51:04.:51:12.

are all at risk. Except that there were similar pilots put into place

:51:12.:51:18.

by Labour. Yes, there were six in 2009. I would like to believe that

:51:18.:51:21.

ministers now know what's going on, I'm not holding my breath.

:51:21.:51:25.

Certainly, in the case of Theresa May, she seems to have got away

:51:25.:51:30.

without being mortally wounded, although Scott on this occasion. It

:51:30.:51:34.

is something I am familiar with, because every single Home Secretary

:51:34.:51:38.

in recent history has hit the buffers at one point or another.

:51:38.:51:45.

have to leave it there, thank you very much. The short walk from

:51:45.:51:48.

Andrew Lansley's office to Downing Street yesterday turned into

:51:48.:51:53.

something of an ordeal. It is every spin doctor's worst nightmare, what

:51:53.:51:56.

to do when you're minister gets confronted by a member of the

:51:56.:51:59.

public. It can be even worse when they are in a scrum of angry

:52:00.:52:03.

protesters. Andrew Lansley tried politeness, but that did not seem

:52:03.:52:07.

to work. He is not the First Minister to have this problem.

:52:08.:52:10.

Here's a reminder of some other politicians getting into trouble

:52:10.:52:18.

with members of the public. Would you like to tell me what you're

:52:18.:52:23.

going to do to provide those people with better facilities? That's

:52:23.:52:27.

exactly what we're going to do. is appalling, if you would just

:52:27.:52:33.

like to go and have a look at it. am very sorry about it. No, you're

:52:33.:52:37.

not very sorry, if you work, you would do something about it. You're

:52:38.:52:41.

saying that, but all these eastern Europeans which are coming in,

:52:41.:52:46.

where are they coming from? What your manifesto says is that you

:52:47.:52:50.

want to reverse the bias towards the inclusion of children in

:52:50.:52:54.

mainstream schools, that's what your manifesto says. I could not

:52:54.:52:59.

feel more passionate about the subject. I understand that. But I'm

:52:59.:53:02.

telling you, it is the wrong way to go about it, you're not

:53:02.:53:12.
:53:12.:53:13.

representing the needs of children in mainstream education. You're a

:53:13.:53:23.
:53:23.:53:28.

Well, we have three guests to discuss what should have been done,

:53:28.:53:34.

Penny Mordaunt, Mark Littlewood and Paul Richards. What was Andrew

:53:34.:53:38.

Lansley trying to achieve by walking into that scrum? In those

:53:38.:53:42.

kind of situations, there is a very limited amount you can do. You can

:53:42.:53:46.

go in through the back door. But that is not what you want to do.

:53:46.:53:50.

you were a spin doctor, let's visualise, Number Ten Downing

:53:50.:53:53.

Street is here, OFFA House is pretty well opposite, you can see

:53:53.:53:58.

what's going on, would you not decide, you know what, Andrew

:53:58.:54:03.

Lansley, let's go in the quiet way? I would not, actually, because that

:54:03.:54:10.

becomes a story in itself. I think you can spend a lot of time

:54:10.:54:16.

worrying about these sorts of things. I think it is very complex,

:54:16.:54:19.

the types of situation you might find yourself in. Somebody who has

:54:19.:54:23.

got a story to tell, who's genuinely upset, and you can engage

:54:23.:54:29.

with them, or it might be somebody who's just there to make trouble.

:54:29.:54:34.

It was a public relations disaster, wasn't it? Yes, pretty much, I

:54:34.:54:37.

think he handled it pretty well in the end, but she he should not have

:54:37.:54:41.

been in that situation. You would not have let him be in that

:54:41.:54:45.

situation? Correct, I would have said, this would be about the worst

:54:45.:54:49.

sort of coverage he could get for his reforms. What is interesting is

:54:49.:54:54.

that he has been off the air waves. You have to make sure that you are

:54:54.:54:58.

the spokesman going to all of the Sunday programmes, but in fact, he

:54:58.:55:03.

ran for cover. He could get his ideas across much better by doing

:55:03.:55:07.

that, by taking to the airwaves, but not being hijacked by

:55:08.:55:12.

protesters. What would you have done? I would not have allowed it

:55:12.:55:17.

to happen, I have stood in that window, in OFFA House, advising the

:55:17.:55:20.

Secretary of State not to go anywhere near the protesters, there

:55:20.:55:24.

is a perfectly good back door. You do not go and get hijacked like

:55:24.:55:32.

this. It looks terrible. Let's have a little look at those pictures

:55:32.:55:40.

again, and talk about what he should have done. What was he able

:55:40.:55:49.

to do once he was in that situation. A lot -- I am not letting you go,

:55:49.:55:55.

no. She is having a real go at him. You said he handled it rather well,

:55:55.:56:03.

once he was there? Yes, otherwise he would be there for an hour or so.

:56:03.:56:07.

I think you can say, I'm terribly sorry, I have got to go to a

:56:07.:56:12.

meeting, I will meet you afterwards. But she said, I am not letting you

:56:12.:56:21.

go. She is a good Unison union member, she knows what she's doing.

:56:21.:56:25.

But it just looks awful that the public are now haranguing Cabinet

:56:25.:56:29.

ministers over this health issue. But it can happen. We saw the

:56:29.:56:35.

pictures of Tony Blair. Tony was desperate to get off camera, he was

:56:35.:56:39.

saying to her time and again, step inside. But she did not, she said,

:56:39.:56:43.

I want to discuss it right here, knowing full well that it was on-

:56:43.:56:53.
:56:53.:56:54.

camera. Coming back to your point, is there a case that actually they

:56:54.:56:57.

should never come into contact with the public and those who oppose

:56:57.:57:02.

what they're doing, is it a risk worth taking? I think it is, I

:57:02.:57:05.

think people feel less of politicians who are not prepared to

:57:05.:57:09.

go and meet them where the rubber hits the road. Shooting in the back

:57:09.:57:14.

door is not the way to go. I think Andrew handled it well, he tried to

:57:14.:57:17.

engage with the person. Clearly she was not up for having a

:57:17.:57:23.

conversation. Do you rehearse it with ministers? If they are going

:57:23.:57:26.

into these sorts of situations, do you do little role plays and

:57:26.:57:33.

things? I think as a politician, you have either got it or you

:57:33.:57:39.

haven't, no amount of preparation... Who has got it? Cameron is very

:57:39.:57:46.

good at defusing the situation. The problem is that the television

:57:46.:57:49.

pictures make it look like these are ordinary members of the public,

:57:49.:57:55.

they are not, these are almost professional protesters. Not always,

:57:55.:57:58.

but... If Andrew Lansley want to walk around the high street in his

:57:58.:58:02.

town, meeting people, that's one thing, but you have no -- but you

:58:02.:58:06.

know you have got organised opponents in this case. Which shows

:58:06.:58:13.

a bit of naivety. She was not haranguing him, she was putting

:58:13.:58:18.

forward some sensible views. One strategy is the masochism strategy

:58:18.:58:24.

which Blair used to adopt, you confront your worst opponents,

:58:24.:58:28.

someone whose daughter has been killed in the war, and you so cut

:58:28.:58:32.

the anger, engage with them at that level. But that is very different

:58:32.:58:36.

from what has been happening with the scrum of reporters, the front

:58:36.:58:40.

page of the Daily Mirror showing an old lady haranguing a Minister, who

:58:40.:58:47.

looks out of touch, it is a disaster. Do you think it will be

:58:47.:58:52.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS