22/05/2012 Daily Politics


22/05/2012

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/05/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. We need more energy

:00:42.:00:46.

or the lights will go out. But how do ministers plan to generate it

:00:46.:00:52.

and how much more will it cost? Today they publish their plans.

:00:52.:00:55.

The police could be forced to investigate allegations of anti-

:00:55.:00:59.

social behaviour if more than five people complain. But what do the

:00:59.:01:02.

boys in blue make of the Home Secretary's scheme?

:01:02.:01:08.

Tony Blair said he had scars on his back trying to reform public

:01:08.:01:11.

services, is so wide to the Labour Party oppose reforms seeking to do

:01:11.:01:18.

that? -- why do the Labour Party? And a leading philosopher tells us

:01:18.:01:21.

why they should be some things that money cannot buy.

:01:21.:01:29.

The breaking news this lunchtime is that the International Monetary

:01:29.:01:32.

Fund's made an interesting assessment of the health of the UK

:01:32.:01:37.

economy. Lord Adonis, the New Labour Action Man, welcome to the

:01:37.:01:41.

programme. You have been asked to head up the industry strategy for

:01:41.:01:45.

the party. Let's start with a House of Lords, a subject close to your

:01:45.:01:54.

heart. Do you support the plans for an 80-20 elected-appointed to House

:01:54.:02:02.

of Lords? An opinion poll found that 0% of the House -- of the

:02:02.:02:07.

public felt that the House of Lords reform was important. So it may not

:02:07.:02:10.

be important right now. I have always thought that the House of

:02:10.:02:13.

Lords should be elected and Parliament should be elected.

:02:13.:02:16.

Either be perfectly happy and indeed enthusiastic about standing

:02:16.:02:21.

for election if the Lords were to be reformed. On the central

:02:21.:02:25.

principle of should it be elected or not, the answer is yes. But on

:02:25.:02:28.

the political thing, will you support the coalition's plans when

:02:28.:02:32.

it comes out? The key thing is that there should be a referendum and of

:02:32.:02:37.

course I support that. The same opinion poll showed that 0% thought

:02:37.:02:43.

that there should be reform also thought that there should be a

:02:43.:02:47.

referendum. People should have their say. What about the Labour

:02:48.:02:57.

peers that might vote against, with the rebel peers? We fought the last

:02:57.:03:01.

election on a commitment to have a democratically elected House of

:03:01.:03:05.

Lords. We also said there should be a referendum, so I think the right

:03:05.:03:10.

way forward, and I hope that party leaders can agree this, is to have

:03:10.:03:16.

a predominantly or wholly elected second chamber with the people.

:03:16.:03:20.

on the basis of what you have just said, it may not happen at all.

:03:20.:03:24.

That would defeat the purpose. think watch this space. It is quite

:03:24.:03:27.

possible that the coalition could decide that the way to bring

:03:27.:03:31.

everyone on board is a referendum. What about moving to Manchester?

:03:31.:03:38.

Why would that be a good idea? those people that come from North

:03:38.:03:42.

of Birmingham are very keen. they? I have got a very positive

:03:42.:03:46.

response. Even though people don't want reform of the House of Lords?

:03:46.:03:50.

The existing House of Lords moving there, they think that is a good

:03:50.:03:56.

idea. People from London, not so keen, very telling. People in the

:03:56.:03:59.

House of Lords are essentially Londoners, so we did not get an a

:03:59.:04:04.

disaster response from the South. I would not count your chickens on

:04:04.:04:09.

that one. -- we did not get an enthusiastic response from the

:04:09.:04:13.

South. Some good news for the economy. The

:04:13.:04:17.

consumer prices measure has fallen to 3%, the lowest level in three

:04:17.:04:20.

years. But if ministers felt good about that, it will not have lasted

:04:21.:04:25.

long. The head of the IMF was in town. Christine Lagarde said that

:04:25.:04:28.

she shivered to think of the state of the British economy had the

:04:28.:04:30.

Government not put a deficit reduction plan into place two years

:04:31.:04:36.

ago. So far so good for George Osborne. She went on to say that

:04:36.:04:38.

ministers have to prepare to change direction if growth failed to

:04:39.:04:43.

materialise. Unfortunately the economic recovery

:04:43.:04:48.

in the UK has not yet taken hold and uncertainty is abound. The

:04:48.:04:52.

stresses in the eurozone affect the UK through many channels. Growth is

:04:52.:04:56.

too slow and unemployment, including youth unemployment, is

:04:56.:05:00.

too high. Policies to bolster demand before low growth becomes

:05:00.:05:06.

entrenched are needed. Well, our political correspondent was

:05:06.:05:10.

listening to Christine Lagarde. What is she actually saying? That

:05:10.:05:15.

the Government should now look at a plan B? She was not saying that

:05:15.:05:18.

explicitly. I think on the whole the Treasury will be pleased with

:05:18.:05:24.

the IMF's assessment of how they have done so far. It is approval of

:05:24.:05:28.

their strategy. It was a fascinating moment in her press

:05:28.:05:31.

conference when she said that she shivered to think what would have

:05:31.:05:34.

happened if they had not been a deficit reduction plan in place in

:05:34.:05:44.

the UK. So good so far. But with that backdrop of stagnant growth

:05:44.:05:49.

and uncertainty across the global economy, she is saying that they

:05:49.:05:53.

should be a plan B in the Treasury's pocket in case recovery

:05:53.:05:58.

does not emerge. She says the Treasury should consider further

:05:58.:06:02.

fiscal easing measures, including temporary tax cuts. And in the

:06:02.:06:06.

press conference that followed her remarks, one of the IMF officials

:06:06.:06:12.

talked about the VAT cut playing right into a very charged and

:06:12.:06:16.

relevant political debate between Labour and the Government. And

:06:17.:06:22.

perhaps boosting demand may also be needed if growth does not appear

:06:23.:06:29.

soon. That will be something that Labour will jump on. They will.

:06:29.:06:32.

They are saying that the structure of the Government's plan is wrong

:06:32.:06:36.

and it is snuffing out growth by having a deficit reduction plan

:06:36.:06:40.

that is too severe. Labour of course argue that it should be

:06:40.:06:44.

slightly slower and the screw should be loosened. Christine

:06:44.:06:48.

Lagarde is not endorsing that. She is saying that there may need to be

:06:48.:06:52.

measures to stimulate the economy further down the line. That is

:06:52.:06:55.

something that Labour have been calling for and we have not had a

:06:55.:06:59.

response yet from Labour, not that I have seen. They will seize on her

:06:59.:07:03.

remarks, I am sure, arguing for fiscal easing measures to boost

:07:03.:07:08.

growth. She has stepped into a very controversial part of the political

:07:08.:07:12.

debate and there is something for both sides, to be honest. All right.

:07:12.:07:17.

Matthew Hancock, the Conservative MP, is with us now. He is a close

:07:17.:07:20.

associate of the Chancellor, George Osborne. Welcome back. Christine

:07:21.:07:24.

Lagarde did endorse the Government's plan of cutting the

:07:24.:07:29.

deficit from 2010. But she also said that we have to prepare for

:07:29.:07:33.

Plan B. Is the Treasury planning for that? Let's look at what she

:07:33.:07:37.

said. She said tersely that the fiscal consolidation dealing with

:07:37.:07:46.

our deficit is on track. -- firstly. People watching will be pleased to

:07:46.:07:52.

hear that a quarter of the progress has been made. She also said that

:07:52.:07:54.

growth is disappointing. We all know that. She explained the

:07:54.:07:58.

reasons. She said there was no growth and high unemployment in

:07:58.:08:02.

Britain, which was a worry, and that is why they are calling for

:08:02.:08:07.

austerity to be relaxed. That is not what she said. Hold on. Let's

:08:07.:08:12.

explain what she actually said. She said tersely that there should not

:08:12.:08:18.

be a fiscal relaxing now. -- firstly. And if growth continues to

:08:18.:08:22.

disappoint, then the first recourse should be looser monetary policy,

:08:22.:08:28.

lower interest rates, more clubs to be easing. And it is for the Bank

:08:28.:08:34.

of England to make that decision. - - more quantitative easing. I would

:08:35.:08:39.

support that decision if they decided to make it. They also want

:08:39.:08:42.

measures for small businesses, which the Government announced in

:08:42.:08:47.

November and brought in the Budget. And thirdly, changing the mixture

:08:47.:08:55.

of spending, away from spending on things like benefits and salaries

:08:55.:08:59.

and more towards infrastructure spending. Only if Gross still

:08:59.:09:03.

disappoints, and there has been substantial amounts of that, then

:09:03.:09:09.

we should consider other options. - - if growth disappoints. The idea

:09:09.:09:13.

that Ed Balls should listen to that programme, the proposals put

:09:13.:09:15.

forward, and listen to the confirmation of the Government's

:09:15.:09:20.

strategy, which has been fiscal responsibility and monetary

:09:20.:09:23.

activism, and that as a proposition for what should happen, actually

:09:24.:09:29.

this is very good news for the Government. All right. At what

:09:29.:09:33.

point is she saying that these things need to be changed and there

:09:33.:09:37.

may need to be a look at the policy mixture? When does that happen,

:09:37.:09:41.

bearing in mind that we have had flat growth for two years? When do

:09:41.:09:46.

we get to that point? How much longer is this Government going to

:09:46.:09:50.

tolerate no growth? The Government is not tolerating no growth. That

:09:50.:09:53.

is why it is already acting on credit easing and getting people

:09:53.:09:57.

into work through the biggest work programme that this country has

:09:57.:10:02.

ever seen. Over half a million people in six months have been

:10:02.:10:05.

engaged in that scheme. The answer directly to your question of when,

:10:05.:10:11.

she says it herself. The IMF say it themselves. Only after substantial

:10:11.:10:16.

further action has been taken on monetary policy, on credit easing,

:10:16.:10:20.

and from switching from current and into capital expenditure. But she

:10:20.:10:28.

said that if the recovery fails to take off, then the Government

:10:28.:10:31.

should focus on quantitative easing and one of the measures we should

:10:31.:10:37.

look at would be a temporary VAT cut. Are they right? They are not.

:10:37.:10:44.

Labour was calling for the VAT cut. You are totally misrepresenting the

:10:44.:10:48.

IMF. That is the quote. In answer to the question whether this should

:10:48.:10:53.

be done now, they say no. They say the current plan is the correct

:10:53.:10:57.

plan and it is on track. Separately we have borrowing figures showing

:10:57.:11:02.

deficits down by a quarter. The fiscal plan is on track, it is

:11:02.:11:07.

appropriate, it is essential. They said that in the future if things

:11:07.:11:10.

change, after several different other measures have been tried, we

:11:10.:11:16.

should look at other things. Let's get the deficit down and get growth

:11:16.:11:18.

growing through the infrastructure investment that we are doing,

:11:18.:11:22.

getting people out of unemployment. Is that how you read Christine

:11:22.:11:26.

Lagarde, that she was not criticising the Government so far

:11:26.:11:29.

and they are on track? I heard to say that growth is too low and

:11:29.:11:33.

there is not any at the moment and unemployment is too high. In that

:11:33.:11:37.

clip, she said there was a danger of youth unemployment, which is 20%

:11:37.:11:40.

higher than it has been since we started collecting records. There

:11:40.:11:44.

was a real danger of that becoming entrenched. What I have heard from

:11:45.:11:49.

Matthew is complacency, no change. They are going to carry on with the

:11:49.:11:53.

policies that have slowed growth, lead to unemployment rising, no

:11:53.:11:59.

change. What we have heard from the IMF... What we have heard...

:11:59.:12:03.

did not hear no change. She said that significant further steps are

:12:03.:12:07.

required to boost growth. That is the message. Military steps, which

:12:07.:12:12.

is what Matthew Hancock is saying. You do not have a one gear policy,

:12:12.:12:16.

you have policies across it. But a key thing must be support for new

:12:16.:12:20.

jobs, that is crucial. Labour is saying there should be a tax on

:12:20.:12:23.

bank are bonuses to create thousands more jobs for young

:12:23.:12:29.

people to counter the record levels of unemployment. And we should be

:12:29.:12:31.

accelerating infrastructure spending. That is what Labour is

:12:31.:12:35.

saying. She said no big fiscal stimulus, which is what Labour have

:12:35.:12:39.

been calling for, in effect. She said policies should be fiscally

:12:39.:12:43.

neutral, which is what the Government is trying to do, it says.

:12:43.:12:47.

The air will need to be more money going into the economy to create

:12:47.:12:53.

and sustain new jobs. -- there will need to be. That is crucial. If

:12:53.:12:57.

there is a vat cut, there needs a further injection. We need a plan B.

:12:57.:13:02.

What she was calling for, in diplomatic, coded language, is

:13:02.:13:06.

precisely what Ed Miliband has been calling for. She says she does not

:13:06.:13:09.

want to trample on political sensitivities here. But reading

:13:09.:13:13.

between the lines, she says the policies have worked so far and

:13:13.:13:16.

have made the Government credible in terms of dealing with the market

:13:16.:13:21.

and the price it is paying for its debt, but in terms of going on from

:13:21.:13:27.

here, it is not creating growth and jobs. She says that because of the

:13:27.:13:32.

difficult issues of higher commodity prices and the eurozone,

:13:32.:13:37.

we need to look at more monetary activism, and when asked do we need

:13:37.:13:46.

to borrow more now to get things down, she says no. Andrew, I think

:13:46.:13:49.

you are one of those great Labour politicians who normally tell it

:13:49.:13:54.

straight. It is slightly beneath you to mangle the words. Yes, she

:13:55.:14:00.

says let's do everything we can to get growth going. And yes...

:14:00.:14:04.

you doing everything you can to get growth going? Should we do more to

:14:04.:14:09.

deal with youth unemployment? Absolutely. Hold on. That is why

:14:09.:14:14.

the work programme... Why do they not have taxes on the bankers'

:14:14.:14:20.

bonuses? Oh, come on. Your friend Alistair Darling said it would not

:14:20.:14:25.

work. We did attacks and it did work and we could be doing it now.

:14:25.:14:28.

Alistair Darling has said it will not work again. Alistair Darling

:14:28.:14:33.

has said that the bankers' bonus tax would not work again. Ed

:14:33.:14:37.

Miliband and Ed Balls have promised to spend it 10 times. The big

:14:37.:14:40.

picture question is do we give up on the benefits that the Government

:14:40.:14:46.

has got, that Christine Lagarde spelled out? Hold on. She is not

:14:46.:14:50.

asking for us to give up on the fiscal consolidation. That is

:14:50.:14:55.

precisely... Matthew is on Treasury autopilot. He has been sent here to

:14:55.:14:59.

defend us. Any member of the public understands that plan A is not

:14:59.:15:03.

working and unemployment has gone up since the election. There is no

:15:03.:15:06.

growth and there was substantial growth at the time of the last

:15:06.:15:09.

election. The head of the IMF is now saying there is a real danger

:15:09.:15:12.

of youth unemployment been entrenched, and this is the most

:15:12.:15:18.

alarming thing. Let the real about what this means for the country. --

:15:18.:15:23.

let's be real. There could be a whole generation of people not

:15:23.:15:26.

knowing what working is and that could be so damaging for the

:15:26.:15:32.

country. A banker's bonus tax would be so imperative. If you are saying

:15:32.:15:36.

that more has to be done in a monetary form, it sounds as if the

:15:36.:15:39.

Government is saying that we cannot do anything and it is up to the

:15:39.:15:42.

Bank of England to do things like cutting interest rates, and

:15:42.:15:51.

quantitative easing and there is No after youth unemployment rose

:15:51.:15:56.

during the boom times, the work programme and the work experience

:15:56.:16:00.

programme which we have brought in are the biggest programme to get

:16:00.:16:06.

people into work. I was in sufficient folk on Thursday with

:16:06.:16:11.

Chris greyling, meeting people who have been given work experience

:16:11.:16:15.

placements and by the end of the time they're taken on. So that is

:16:16.:16:20.

the action the government should be taken. As Christine Lagarde said,

:16:20.:16:26.

is now the right time to try borrow your way out of debt? No, it is not.

:16:26.:16:32.

Thank you. Now can't we all just get a I long that? That may seem a

:16:32.:16:38.

stretch, but some policies being pursued by the Government were

:16:38.:16:45.

dreamed up by New Labour. Adam has been investigating. Politics is a

:16:45.:16:50.

bit of a pick and mix business and you sometimes get a new government

:16:50.:16:57.

that seems strangely familiar. big divide in politics has been

:16:57.:17:01.

about the economy and the pace of deficit reductions, but there is

:17:01.:17:06.

continue is the on education, welfare reform, overseas aid, where

:17:06.:17:11.

the Government has kept track with what Labour have done. But Labour

:17:11.:17:15.

haven't been keen on the reforms in opposition. Take benefits, they

:17:15.:17:21.

pioneer rad tougher approach, but have opposed much of the

:17:21.:17:26.

coalition's crackdown. And there are accused Mees, Labour invented

:17:26.:17:33.

the idea, copy right Lord Adonis and the coalition increased them

:17:33.:17:38.

nine fold. But Labour were not happy. Why the change of heart?

:17:38.:17:40.

There was a sense of trepidation in the Labour Party that this was

:17:40.:17:44.

selling out the public sector. I don't think that was true, but

:17:44.:17:48.

there was a certain errors in describing the policies which

:17:48.:17:52.

allowed people to think that. The Labour Party was never comfort

:17:52.:17:57.

kpwrabl with a lot of its -- comfortable with a lot of its

:17:57.:18:00.

reforms. John Hutton has been in the position of being a Labour peer

:18:00.:18:06.

who has worked for enemy, reviewing public sector pensions and earning

:18:06.:18:14.

the label of collaborator from some. It is important to be, when your in

:18:14.:18:18.

government and you go into opposition to have continuity. We

:18:18.:18:23.

started this process and I don't think it serves our cause well if

:18:23.:18:29.

we then say, well we didn't really do that, but actually we did.

:18:29.:18:34.

this is going to be a feature as long as politics exists. When there

:18:34.:18:38.

is a new face as Prime Minister, they get some things they like the

:18:38.:18:46.

look of and opposition leaders are supposed to oppose. Well Lord

:18:46.:18:50.

Adonis is still with me. Do you think Labour is opposing just for

:18:50.:18:55.

the sake of opposing on key areas like welfare, health and education?

:18:55.:19:00.

I think Labour's doing the right thing, that is judging policies on

:19:00.:19:04.

their merits. You sympathise with Ed Miliband saying free schools are

:19:04.:19:09.

a bad thing. What we have said is we will look at free schools case

:19:09.:19:16.

by case. I invented aed -- academies. They were new schools in

:19:16.:19:20.

areas where there were not schools. Are you frustrated by Ed Miliband

:19:20.:19:26.

not embracing that? The policy was to bring good schools in areas

:19:26.:19:30.

where standards were low. Where new schools are being set up with that

:19:30.:19:34.

as the mission, I support them. Of course, the numbers given about the

:19:34.:19:40.

expansion of academies, it is not replacement schools for

:19:40.:19:46.

underperforming corps hen sifrs, most are existing schools. --

:19:46.:19:50.

comprehensives. And they are changing the label. No change in

:19:50.:19:54.

their governance, simply to pocket �25,000 that the Government gives

:19:54.:20:00.

for changes -- changing. You said in an article the Labour Party will

:20:00.:20:04.

get back into government by having a better plan for the future, not

:20:04.:20:07.

by opposing changes that are working well. We don't changes that

:20:07.:20:11.

are work. Why did you say that then? We don't oppose changes that

:20:11.:20:17.

are working well, we support them where change has been made for

:20:17.:20:20.

change's sake. That is something that not going to be supported in

:20:20.:20:26.

the same way. On the question of free schools, free schools should

:20:26.:20:29.

be concentrated in areas where educational standards are low and

:20:29.:20:35.

where children are being failed. Not simply a quest for establishing

:20:35.:20:41.

more schools. But this is, it sounds like an argument, you

:20:41.:20:47.

support the thrust of the reform from the Government on thing like

:20:47.:20:51.

education, but the Labour Party now and you know Shadow Cabinet don't

:20:51.:20:56.

embrace it in the same way. Are you saying they should and they haven't

:20:56.:21:02.

been forthcoming enough? One Labour MP said Lord Adonis's argument is

:21:02.:21:09.

selective and in parts wrong. people, including some people in my

:21:09.:21:14.

party, didn't like the public reforms, and if thought school

:21:14.:21:20.

should continue to be run by local authorities. That debate is now

:21:20.:21:25.

largely over in the Labour Party. Tony Blair's mantra, what matter is

:21:25.:21:29.

what works, people accept that. Particularly in tackling

:21:29.:21:35.

disadvantage. Reforms which are geared at narrowing inqualities and

:21:35.:21:39.

tackling disadvantage, we support. But that is different from reforms

:21:39.:21:43.

which are intended to break up public services. Like? Which

:21:43.:21:49.

reforms are you against? One is the health reforms. The marketisation

:21:49.:21:54.

of the health service, which the coalition was proposing. It was

:21:54.:21:59.

muted by the House of Lords. support GP commissioning? We do. It

:21:59.:22:03.

is what the role of competition and this is the thing for the Liberal

:22:03.:22:06.

Democrats which has been difficult. Where you have an NHS that is

:22:06.:22:10.

working well and delivering for patients, where we put in place

:22:10.:22:14.

reforms to see that operations are delivered in a shorter time and

:22:14.:22:17.

hospital waiting lists are dealt with and patients have choice.

:22:17.:22:21.

Where those systems in place, we support them. Competition for

:22:21.:22:26.

competition's sake and t let's be clear what they want to do, they

:22:26.:22:36.
:22:36.:22:37.

want to dismantle public service. One problem was the party could

:22:37.:22:42.

never embrace public sector reform. We have embraced reform. That

:22:42.:22:47.

doesn't mean to say we embrace the dismantling of the public services.

:22:47.:22:51.

That is the dividing line between Labour and the Conservatives. Many

:22:51.:22:57.

Conservatives would rather not have the NHS and would rather have

:22:57.:23:03.

private medicine. We see it as the best insurance policy in the world

:23:03.:23:08.

in respect of health. Now, today, the energy Secretary has published

:23:09.:23:13.

a draft bill to reform the electricity market. It is designed

:23:13.:23:16.

to solve a problem of how to generate enough power to keep the

:23:16.:23:26.
:23:26.:23:29.

lights on and enable the Government to hit its climate change targets.

:23:29.:23:36.

It will introduce an emissions performance standard. The plans are

:23:36.:23:40.

intended to secure investment in clean energy to avert a gap in

:23:40.:23:45.

supplies. As some power stations come to the end of their lives. But

:23:45.:23:51.

will it lead to higher energy bills? Roger haar ban joins us.

:23:52.:23:59.

Will it lead to higher bills? inevitable. It will lead to higher

:23:59.:24:04.

bills. But the Government says any way, because of fructations in

:24:04.:24:11.

fossil fuel prices -- fluctuations -- consumer would have to pay

:24:11.:24:17.

higher bills and the Government says within a time of 20 years that

:24:17.:24:20.

consumers will be better off from the changes being made today. I

:24:20.:24:25.

have to say that is contested and some people think we would be

:24:25.:24:28.

cheaper off going down a fossil fuel route. But this is the

:24:28.:24:33.

Government's position. It believes it will be proved right. How is the

:24:33.:24:38.

Government to encourage investment in compleen energy? It has a

:24:38.:24:44.

problem? -- clean energy. It wants new nuclear power stations, but it

:24:44.:24:50.

is struggling to to co-that -- to do that. It has to get companies to

:24:50.:24:54.

put in billions up front before they make any cash back. So what it

:24:54.:25:04.

is trying to do is offer long-term contracts for different causes

:25:04.:25:08.

where ibin vestors get their money back as soon as they start planning.

:25:08.:25:16.

That funding will come from our own bills. That is in the form of a lvy.

:25:16.:25:23.

And they hope to attract investment. But eSen with those inducements is

:25:23.:25:26.

not certain they will get new nuclear power stations. They could

:25:26.:25:33.

end up with only one or two. joined by the energy minister

:25:33.:25:38.

Charles Hendry and Jenny Jones. Can you guarantee that we will get a

:25:38.:25:45.

new generation of nuclear plants? No, but we can create the right

:25:45.:25:51.

environment for companies to invest. We're trying to deliver energy

:25:51.:25:55.

security. How can you guarantee if, there are no state subsidies,

:25:55.:26:00.

although you're guaranteeing contracts for ndge supplies, so

:26:01.:26:06.

that is a subsidy, do you accept that? No there is a higher cost for

:26:06.:26:12.

low carbon technologies, the cheapest one gas. We want a

:26:12.:26:16.

balanced portfolio and if we want these to come through, we have to

:26:16.:26:23.

have a structure that encourages people to invest and make up for a

:26:23.:26:27.

catastrophic shortage of investment in energy. To get that investment,

:26:27.:26:33.

you have laid down inducements to energy suppliers and we will pay

:26:33.:26:37.

for that? The consumer will have to pay for berilding the

:26:37.:26:42.

infrastructure. How much will that add to an average bill What we have

:26:42.:26:47.

looked at it is what will happen with business if we went down the

:26:47.:26:52.

route of fossil fuel. It would be cheaper. Well it wouldn't, gas is

:26:52.:26:57.

at a high price and coal will become more expensive. We believe

:26:57.:27:02.

the way that we're doing it will be a cheaper way of doing it. Are you

:27:02.:27:07.

convinced? No, it is difficult to know what this bill is going for.

:27:07.:27:12.

Because it will not reduce prices for the consumer and it also won't

:27:13.:27:17.

I think produce the energy that we want. It won't reduce price for the

:27:17.:27:21.

consumer, but will it be cheaper, can you say it would be cheaper

:27:21.:27:27.

than if we stayed with the status quo. Of course not. If they only

:27:27.:27:31.

started insulating people's houses that would reduce each household's

:27:31.:27:39.

bill by �180. Then if you started investing in renewables, Germany

:27:39.:27:42.

has 21% market share in renewable energy and their prices have gone

:27:42.:27:48.

down. That is the way to bring prices down. You reduce the need

:27:48.:27:51.

for electricity by insulation and reduce prices by going for

:27:51.:27:55.

renewables, which have fewer long- term problems. So why aren't you

:27:55.:28:01.

doing that? That is what we did last year. The take up... It hasn't

:28:01.:28:10.

come in yet. But in terms, some incuesment -- inducements have come

:28:10.:28:16.

and people haven't taken them up. That is why we have gone for a new

:28:16.:28:21.

approach, so we can systemically improve the efficiency of houses.

:28:21.:28:26.

But the approach will deliver energy security at low cost and

:28:26.:28:30.

fundamentally move us in the low carbon dre,. Yes, it will be

:28:30.:28:34.

nuclear and be more renewables. have said yourself that you don't

:28:34.:28:38.

know whether we're going to get a new generation of nuclear plants

:28:38.:28:46.

and you're going to set up an system, who have shown an interest.

:28:46.:28:51.

EDF and Centrica. They haven't confirmed that. Well pev e they

:28:51.:28:55.

have spent billion of pounds so far. And everyone who looks at the

:28:55.:28:59.

country recognises in five years we have gone from a count which are ry

:28:59.:29:04.

where nuclear was not on the agenda so, one of the most exciting places

:29:04.:29:09.

to invest in nuclear. But also in renewables, we want to see a broad

:29:09.:29:14.

portfolio. What are you doing about getting that diversification?

:29:14.:29:19.

is what this bill does. It is providing an incentive for people

:29:19.:29:23.

to invest in low carbon technologies and bring down the

:29:23.:29:28.

cost of some of the renewables. you dismissing this bill before you

:29:28.:29:34.

have seen it? No, my impression it is unstable baby steps to what

:29:34.:29:37.

we're aiming for, which is a low carbon future that does haven't the

:29:37.:29:42.

burden of nuclear problems later. Cleaning up the nuclear problem

:29:42.:29:47.

will be a problem for the future. We can't afford that money. And my

:29:47.:29:53.

understanding is... It is cheaper. It isn't when you have to pay for

:29:53.:30:02.

it through taxpayers' and consumers' bills. The long-term

:30:02.:30:07.

bill of nuclear is way beyond this. Labour would have had to backed

:30:07.:30:13.

some investment to build a new generation of nuclear plants?

:30:13.:30:18.

need new investment and we need furbt si. And we will see

:30:18.:30:22.

developments of nuclear power stations. The problem for the

:30:22.:30:28.

government is it doesn't seem to that is affordable. Two companies

:30:28.:30:34.

have pulled out and what we want to look at, because we're not signing

:30:34.:30:38.

blank cheques, when statements are made, that this isn't a subsidy,

:30:38.:30:45.

but we're signing long-term contracts ta at -- at guaranteed

:30:45.:30:49.

prices. And illegal. The higher cost of low carbon electricity. If

:30:49.:30:53.

we want to sea that, we have to get twice as much investment, each year

:30:53.:30:57.

of the decade, as Lord Adonis achieved in his decade in power,

:30:57.:31:02.

that we saw a catastrophic falling of investment in infrastructure and

:31:02.:31:06.

we have much of the coal plants closing and we're playing catch up

:31:06.:31:11.

for that appalling failure and we're determined to do it in a low

:31:11.:31:21.
:31:21.:31:21.

Renewable energy cannot fill that gap in the way that the Green Party

:31:21.:31:25.

envisages. In Germany they are doing very well, closing down the

:31:25.:31:30.

power stations and using renewables more. It can be done. If you reduce

:31:30.:31:35.

the need, then you also resist this desperate drive to use other forms

:31:35.:31:40.

of fuel. It can be done. This Government is just not taking up

:31:40.:31:45.

the giant strides that they need to take in imagination. The Germans

:31:45.:31:52.

have just cut their solar fund. That was 50% of their energy,

:31:52.:31:55.

providing 3% of electricity. The German decision on nuclear is

:31:55.:32:00.

burning more coal and gas. We are looking at a balanced approach

:32:00.:32:03.

which is actually a very sensible for our energy security, and

:32:03.:32:07.

looking to see how we can secure that investment at the lowest cost.

:32:07.:32:11.

It does require a major change to the market, this is the most

:32:11.:32:15.

significant change. And there has also been controversy about the

:32:15.:32:19.

subsidies given to people having onshore wind technology and wind

:32:19.:32:24.

farms. Very expensive, with very low capacity, people say. We have

:32:24.:32:28.

to invest for the future and when you are investing in nuclear, who

:32:28.:32:32.

are committing to more problems and expense in the future. With

:32:32.:32:35.

renewables, it is an upfront cost but it becomes cheaper and cheaper

:32:35.:32:39.

later. Quite honestly, why would we not want to reduce people's need

:32:39.:32:44.

and at the same time make their bills lower? To me it is dinosaur

:32:44.:32:48.

economics that we are using to justify nuclear. I think it makes

:32:48.:32:53.

the case for why we need a balanced situation. Only if it is achievable.

:32:53.:32:57.

Are you going to reach the low carbon targets? Are you going to

:32:57.:33:01.

have a new generation of nuclear power stations? There is a big risk

:33:01.:33:06.

of the likes really going off. purpose of this is encouraging

:33:07.:33:10.

people to invest in the energy sector in the UK, which they have

:33:10.:33:15.

not been doing at these levels. When will you get this investment,

:33:15.:33:19.

contracts signed and sealed? We are working with people now to give

:33:19.:33:23.

people a price for that investment for next year. There is a process

:33:23.:33:27.

of negotiation. Companies like EDF Energy need that decision this year.

:33:27.:33:31.

My understanding is that they have withdrawn from the plant at

:33:31.:33:37.

Hinckley, for example, at a time when credit ratings agencies are

:33:37.:33:41.

backing away from nuclear. So why are you going forward and offering

:33:41.:33:46.

billions? I have to stop you there. Thank you.

:33:46.:33:50.

Theresa May have been talking about a radical overhaul of schemes to

:33:50.:33:54.

tackle anti-social behaviour. She wants to replace ASBOs with

:33:54.:33:57.

alternative ways of doing with troublemakers. These include

:33:57.:34:04.

forcing the police to take action in five households complain.

:34:04.:34:09.

Earlier today I launched a white paper. This new approach them

:34:09.:34:13.

powers local communities, placing victims' needs at its heart and

:34:13.:34:17.

putting more trust in professionals than ever before. It's perfectly

:34:17.:34:22.

complements our approach to wider local policing. A lot of what is

:34:22.:34:25.

called anti-social behaviour is actually crime and it should be

:34:25.:34:29.

taken seriously and it should be dealt with. 3 million incidents of

:34:29.:34:32.

anti-social behaviour are still being reported to the police each

:34:32.:34:36.

and every year, with many more doubtless going unreported. Theresa

:34:36.:34:42.

May. Let's join Cezanne on College Green to find a more.

:34:42.:34:49.

There was a time when Tony Blair was talking about hugging a hoodie.

:34:49.:34:53.

Theresa May wants to change the ASBO system, and is talking about a

:34:53.:34:57.

community trigger. If five people in a community complain about one

:34:58.:35:01.

individual, or if one person complains three times about the

:35:01.:35:06.

same individual, and police are obliged to investigate. I am joined

:35:06.:35:09.

by an MP from the Home Affairs select committee. People might

:35:10.:35:13.

think that the police are overstretched. Should we be giving

:35:13.:35:17.

them more work to do at the time when budgets are cut? This is a

:35:17.:35:23.

question about how to deploy your police. A lot of members of the

:35:23.:35:27.

public feel that when they complain to the authority, when they raised

:35:27.:35:32.

an issue, they hit a brick wall and nothing is done about it. We had

:35:32.:35:37.

the tragic case of Fiona Ann Pilkington. This is designed so

:35:37.:35:41.

that when somebody repeatedly complains, and somebody in a

:35:41.:35:45.

community is repeatedly complaining about the same thing, then police

:35:45.:35:49.

actually investigate and deal with the issue. But how to regulate it?

:35:49.:35:53.

The Centre for crime and justice has talked about it from the point

:35:53.:35:58.

of view of bullies and snoops. How do we know that somebody is a

:35:58.:36:03.

genuine victim of crime? We leave that to the good sense of the

:36:03.:36:07.

neighbourhood officer on the spot. Also to the police and crime

:36:07.:36:12.

commissioners, who we will be acting in November. I leave it to

:36:12.:36:20.

them rather than the Home Office. One person in overall charge,

:36:20.:36:24.

overseeing the police, will be elected by the public. And secondly

:36:24.:36:27.

there will be a mechanism whereby if people are not having their

:36:27.:36:31.

concerns dealt with, that police will listen and investigate those

:36:31.:36:36.

concerns. The Police Federation have told me that they think it is

:36:36.:36:40.

a metaphor for handcuffs for police officers. They will be forced to

:36:40.:36:43.

investigate situations that may be could be dealt with without police

:36:43.:36:48.

involvement. Arguments over the garden fence, for example. Let me

:36:48.:36:53.

give you an example. In my area in Kent, there was a problem of street

:36:53.:36:57.

prostitution for centuries, really. The police did not do much about it.

:36:57.:37:01.

They made the odd arrest but they accepted it was there, putting it

:37:01.:37:05.

in there too difficult box. Then a council ran for office saying that

:37:05.:37:12.

he was going to deal with this problem and he got the police and

:37:12.:37:14.

the Council working together and he has eradicated this problem in

:37:14.:37:19.

Chatham. That is what we want, proper oversight and responsiveness

:37:19.:37:26.

from our police service. Thank you. The ASBOs are going to be replaced

:37:26.:37:33.

by something called the Community criminal behaviour order. It will

:37:33.:37:37.

be a slightly known for something slightly different. Whether it

:37:37.:37:44.

makes any difference remains to be seen. Are you sad to see as buyers

:37:44.:37:51.

going? -- ASBOs going? It is clearly a complete dog's breakfast.

:37:51.:37:54.

They have committed to replacing ASBOs and they are fishing around

:37:54.:37:57.

for something as close to an ASBO as they can get with a different

:37:57.:38:02.

name. I think the public will be very depressed about this. When

:38:02.:38:05.

there is anti-social behaviour, they expected to be dealt with.

:38:05.:38:08.

din never really was dealt with. The councils did not follow up on

:38:08.:38:18.

it. That is precisely why the ASBO is popular. ASBOs give a real

:38:18.:38:22.

redress for tenants whose lives are made a misery. Renaming them with

:38:22.:38:28.

the huge bureaucratic waste that will go on, and Dennis arbitrary

:38:28.:38:34.

cut-off, -- then it is arbitrary cut off. Will it be five, four,

:38:34.:38:38.

three? We want to see properly responsive police locally but there

:38:38.:38:42.

are fewer police and the Government reforms as well. You will be very

:38:42.:38:46.

pleased to know that our quiz is about ASBOs, son to like them so

:38:46.:38:52.

much. Which of the following cases did not result in an ASBO? A

:38:52.:38:55.

grandmother listing to Frank Sinatra too loudly. A shepherd not

:38:55.:38:59.

controlling his sheep in Gloucestershire. The soup than

:38:59.:39:05.

company serving food to 100 homeless people in Manchester. --

:39:05.:39:10.

pursued fund company. And familiar flying his helicopter to close to

:39:10.:39:13.

his neighbours. We will get the correct answer at the end of the

:39:13.:39:16.

programme. The long awaited report into

:39:16.:39:19.

employment law was published yesterday. The Government had not

:39:19.:39:23.

wanted to publish it yet, but it was forced to after the Telegraph

:39:23.:39:27.

leaked an early draft. It in the craft had been asked to do the

:39:27.:39:32.

report and it is full of controversial ideas. -- Adrian

:39:32.:39:38.

Beecroft. One of the most controversial proposals is no fault

:39:38.:39:43.

dismissal and also the delay of compulsory pensions. Vince Cable is

:39:43.:39:46.

away from Parliament, but that has not stopped his opposite number

:39:46.:39:51.

from demanding questions to be answered in the Commons.

:39:51.:39:57.

What a complete and utter shambles! Can the Minister confirm that his

:39:57.:40:01.

department was complacent and fully co-operated in a production of this

:40:01.:40:06.

report despite the Secretary of State's misgivings? We believe that

:40:06.:40:10.

improvements can be made to the way that employment tribunals operate

:40:10.:40:14.

for the sake of employers and employees, but we do not think that

:40:14.:40:19.

watering down the fundamental rights of workers can be

:40:19.:40:22.

substituted for a proper growth strategy. A lot of cliches but not

:40:22.:40:31.

much substance, I'm afraid. He asks whether I am complicit. If he had

:40:31.:40:36.

listened to my opening statement, he would have heard that this

:40:36.:40:41.

department commissioned the report, and so we were complicit. What

:40:41.:40:45.

would be the increase in output if all these measures recommended by B

:40:45.:40:52.

Croft were adopted? -- Adrian Beecroft. I cannot say that, which

:40:52.:40:56.

is why we are calling for evidence. My honourable friend is right to

:40:57.:41:01.

question this issue and was not present during any of the comments

:41:01.:41:05.

from the gentleman opposite. agree on the need for balance.

:41:05.:41:14.

Would he agree with me that we would be creating an environment of

:41:14.:41:20.

fear if we bring in a fire at will, which would not bring in growth and

:41:20.:41:24.

would just be bonkers? We have to get the balance right so that

:41:24.:41:26.

businesses are competitive and we do not tie them up with the red

:41:26.:41:29.

tape we suffered in the last Government, and we make sure that

:41:29.:41:34.

we do not strip away those basic rights, as she rightly says. As a

:41:34.:41:38.

former shop steward and proud trade unionist, I welcome many of these

:41:38.:41:44.

proposals. Would the Minister agree with me that we need to change so

:41:44.:41:49.

much of our rules and regulations so that instead of having a card to

:41:50.:41:57.

culture, we have a can-do culture? I only wish that were the case on

:41:57.:42:01.

the benches opposite. Adrian Beecroft is an asset-stripping

:42:01.:42:04.

venture capitalist. Surely putting him in charge of a report that

:42:05.:42:11.

decides whether or not it is easier to sack workers, isn't that like

:42:11.:42:16.

putting Hannibal Lecter in charge of deciding the nutritional

:42:16.:42:24.

benefits of cannibalism? That is a good joke. I think he needs to be

:42:24.:42:27.

very careful about talking about asset-stripping vultures and all of

:42:27.:42:31.

that. If we want people to develop and create jobs and invest in this

:42:31.:42:37.

country, we need to watch our language very carefully.

:42:37.:42:41.

We are joined now by the Conservative MP John Redwood, who

:42:41.:42:46.

you saw in that debate, and Lord Razzall, the Lib Dem peer. Do you

:42:46.:42:49.

back most of Adrian Beecroft's proposals, including making it

:42:49.:42:53.

easier for business to sack people? I back most of what he is saying

:42:53.:42:57.

but I do not welcome the idea of fire at will, and no sensible

:42:57.:43:01.

person would want that. We want these and protection for people in

:43:01.:43:06.

the work force. What we are talking about is very small businesses. The

:43:06.:43:10.

entrepreneur thinking about taking on his first employee, as someone

:43:10.:43:13.

with two of three employees. If they choose wrongly and they take

:43:13.:43:16.

someone that is not co-operating and is letting the side down and

:43:16.:43:19.

they have warned them, they want to feel that there is some way of

:43:19.:43:23.

getting rid of a badly performing employee without a huge bill and

:43:23.:43:27.

lots of law is involved. I hope we can find a compromise to deal with

:43:27.:43:31.

that point. That sounds like you agree with no fault dismissal.

:43:31.:43:36.

is not no fault dismissal, there has to be some kind of fault. The

:43:36.:43:39.

fear that the entrepreneur has is that they are going to take someone

:43:40.:43:43.

on in good faith, they don't turn up, they mess around, and they do

:43:43.:43:49.

not perform to a normal stand-up. - - normal standard. It is very

:43:49.:43:54.

difficult to manage those people out. Do you agree? We have to look

:43:54.:43:57.

at the changes that have just taken place with the unfair dismissal

:43:57.:44:03.

rules. Up until last week, if somebody was there for more than a

:44:03.:44:07.

year, they could claim for unfair dismissal. That has now changed to

:44:07.:44:11.

two years. I fail to understand why it is a disincentive to take

:44:11.:44:15.

somebody on, if you think you cannot get rid of them when they

:44:15.:44:18.

are no good, considering you have two years to make that decision

:44:18.:44:22.

before they have a claim against you. That was one of the reasons

:44:22.:44:28.

why my party supported the extension to two years. If the

:44:28.:44:32.

employer has not made up his mind about them after two years, he

:44:32.:44:40.

should not have no fault dismissal. The idea put forward by Adrian

:44:40.:44:44.

Beecroft is bonkers, then? Yes. agree with the Business Secretary?

:44:44.:44:53.

I would not use the word bonkers. It was the son! I think what we

:44:53.:44:58.

need is a proper consultation. it was the Sun newspaper! There is

:44:58.:45:02.

a problem at that needs to be tackled, but none of us want fire

:45:02.:45:07.

at will, that is not reasonable. And that would create a climate of

:45:07.:45:10.

fear, yes. Let's look at making it easier for businesses to hire

:45:11.:45:20.
:45:21.:45:21.

people. What did you like in the Anything that makes it a fairer ae

:45:21.:45:27.

easier process for both sides, it has gt too expensive and gives

:45:27.:45:32.

lawyers too many fees. The proposals to reduce the cost and

:45:32.:45:36.

make it easier for both sides are welcome. What about the Liberal

:45:36.:45:43.

Democrats, Vince Cable did call it bonkers, will it end up in the

:45:43.:45:49.

scrap heap? No fault dismissal will. But the others are being

:45:49.:45:52.

implemented. The laibds -- Liberal Democrats are happy about that.

:45:52.:45:56.

the other one there is a consultation and I'm sure Vince

:45:56.:46:02.

Cable and the minister will take into account both sides. What about

:46:02.:46:05.

family friendly policies, it has been reported that No 10 doctored

:46:05.:46:10.

the bits that said there should be a delay to family friendly policies,

:46:10.:46:17.

was that the rigt thing for No 10 to do? I think that is disputed.

:46:17.:46:21.

The man changed his report from first draft to final draft. That is

:46:21.:46:28.

normal. He decided that the -- that some of the thing were going too

:46:28.:46:34.

far. Do you not agree that the original that said it would be too

:46:34.:46:37.

expensive to deal with those changes at this time? All these

:46:38.:46:41.

things are a balance, as the minister said. We want a fair

:46:41.:46:46.

balance, we felt that the previous settlement was sending too many

:46:46.:46:50.

negatives to employers. We want to do something about that. We don't

:46:50.:46:56.

want to live in a Victorian world where the mill owner grinds the

:46:56.:47:04.

faces of the emply ployees. argument was it was a cost to the

:47:04.:47:10.

employer. I don't agree with the postponement. The family friendly

:47:10.:47:17.

policies are not that expensive. you have any costs if they had to

:47:17.:47:20.

introduce flexible work and removing regulations around the

:47:20.:47:30.

employment of young people? Well no. There noise direct costing, but it

:47:30.:47:33.

is not that expensive. This I why I asked for numbers yesterday. I

:47:33.:47:37.

can't answer the questions until I see the numbers. If you make it too

:47:37.:47:41.

expensive you will have fewer people in jobs. If you don't allow

:47:41.:47:46.

enough for the employees, you have a miserable position at work.

:47:46.:47:52.

is the problem. We have a report in advance of the evidence. John asked

:47:52.:47:56.

yesterday what was the evidence. To my astonishment, the response of

:47:56.:47:59.

the minister was we are going to call for evidence, after the report.

:47:59.:48:05.

I may be a bit old fashioned, when I was in government we assembled

:48:05.:48:10.

the evidence first. That is because it was leaked. Yes but it we have

:48:10.:48:14.

been waiting for the proposals. intention was to have the

:48:14.:48:19.

consultation before the report. These were firm conclusions that

:48:19.:48:24.

Adrian Beecroft made, but there haven't -- hadn't been evidence.

:48:24.:48:28.

They were conclusions of Adrian Beecroft, not Government's. What I

:48:28.:48:33.

was saying is they need evidence before they make decisions.

:48:33.:48:38.

Wouldn't it have been a good idea if their own advisor had assembled

:48:38.:48:42.

the evidence. The fact that there is no evidence tells you a lot.

:48:42.:48:48.

this is a way of spuring on growth, how do you do that, if we don't

:48:48.:48:53.

have any evidence? I think we agree on that. We need the costs, because

:48:53.:48:57.

some of the coasts imposed by European legislation have been

:48:57.:49:02.

expensive and may not give the best benefits. There are limits to what

:49:02.:49:09.

we can do about that. We can look at our domestic one and draw up a

:49:09.:49:14.

budget to make sense. That should have happened before the report

:49:14.:49:20.

came forward. The fact it has not shows... It look like a shambles,

:49:20.:49:24.

if you have to ask questions, it hasn't been presented well.

:49:24.:49:27.

we're half way through and we can judge it when the ministers have

:49:27.:49:31.

the evidence and come to their conclusions. They want will Ed, I

:49:31.:49:37.

urge them to have evidence, then we can have the debate on an informed

:49:37.:49:42.

basis that we can't have tide today. Thank you to both of you. Has too

:49:42.:49:49.

much of life been taken over by the ideas of the market in his new book,

:49:49.:49:53.

professor Michael Sandel says that we have gone from having a market

:49:53.:49:58.

economy to being a market society. And he does not think that has been

:49:58.:50:05.

a positive trend. From the 1980s and the election of Margaret

:50:05.:50:11.

Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, Britain and the United States saw a period

:50:11.:50:19.

of market triumphalism. More and more area of life are subject to

:50:19.:50:23.

markets. In health and education, as well as airport and theme parks,

:50:23.:50:29.

paying extra can help you jump the queue. Sport has become

:50:29.:50:35.

commercialised and there is even a market in old Oscar statue. This

:50:35.:50:40.

comes at a cost, according to processor Sandel, markets can crowd

:50:40.:50:45.

out morals and undermine more noble reasons for action he thinks we

:50:45.:50:49.

would be better off if there were more things that money can't buy.

:50:49.:50:54.

Michael Sandel joins us now. You could say looking at the examples

:50:54.:50:58.

you have put forward, that actually this is the natural progression of

:50:58.:51:02.

things and people are motivated by money and money will enter into

:51:03.:51:08.

more streams of life. But it's happened with an intensity that

:51:08.:51:14.

didn't exist before. What about the case just recently, should people

:51:14.:51:20.

sell their Olympic torchs for private gain? What about some of

:51:20.:51:26.

other examples that you have used. You talk about queue jumping for

:51:26.:51:31.

public services. That may have been accelerated, but it has happened

:51:31.:51:36.

before. Who has created that market? I think all of us have by

:51:36.:51:40.

not having a public debate about where markets serve the public good

:51:40.:51:48.

and where they don't belong, we have allowed a kind of market faith.

:51:48.:51:51.

So I'm not arguing for, I'm not giving the answers to any

:51:51.:51:57.

particular case, but I do think that we as democratic societies,

:51:57.:52:02.

unless we want markets to govern everything, we need to have a

:52:02.:52:06.

debate about where markets belong and where they don't. Where do they

:52:06.:52:11.

belong? Stkphrie I am a great believer in freedom and I think

:52:11.:52:17.

people have a right to buy and sell things. We 45 had this debate in my

:52:17.:52:21.

youth where we have the communist system to the east and a more free

:52:21.:52:25.

system to the west and in the United States. And people decided

:52:25.:52:31.

in their millions that they would rather live in the free enterprise

:52:31.:52:36.

system. The communist system got rid of planning and they had to

:52:36.:52:41.

shoot people, because so many were trying to leave. How far would you

:52:41.:52:47.

take it? Should there be a free market in kidneys let's say for

:52:47.:52:54.

transplantation. I don't work on that. Is it communist to say there

:52:54.:52:59.

may not be a free market in kidneys. It is a state imposition of

:52:59.:53:03.

something o' above the market and I accept as a democratic politician,

:53:03.:53:07.

it is my duty from my colleagues to say there are certain things the

:53:07.:53:12.

market shouldn't do. I don't want a free market in nuclear bombs.

:53:13.:53:17.

do you, if you agree with freedom and people to make their own

:53:17.:53:20.

decisions, you can't stop the market invading into areas which

:53:20.:53:27.

you don't believe in either? It is difficult to do. As we're

:53:27.:53:33.

discovering with nuclear technology and drugs. But I'm not one who

:53:33.:53:38.

thinks you should stop somebody selling their Olympic torch. It

:53:38.:53:43.

would be intrusive to have Government inspectors coming around

:53:43.:53:47.

to check up you have still got certain items. That would not be a

:53:47.:53:54.

free society. When you try to solve the problem of babies being born to

:53:54.:54:00.

drug addicted women, by offering money to a woman to be sterilised,

:54:00.:54:04.

should such a charity operate? is the kind of thing you have a

:54:04.:54:07.

democratic Parliament to debate. You're opening implied you wanted

:54:07.:54:13.

to stop all sorts of markets functioning that are harmless.

:54:13.:54:17.

is interesting is that the reference to higher values, and

:54:17.:54:21.

that is the point of my book, there are some values, as you say, that

:54:21.:54:27.

are higher than markets, and lead us, we disagree about where to draw

:54:27.:54:31.

the line. But we need a public debate about which higher values

:54:31.:54:35.

should restprictst extension of markets -- restrict the extension

:54:35.:54:41.

of markets in some areas. If you accept that people in their

:54:41.:54:50.

millions rejected egalitarianism at the level of communism, this is the

:54:50.:54:55.

natural order and won't there be a backlash, against the market

:54:55.:55:00.

invading in areas which are too sensitive? We may be seeing a

:55:00.:55:04.

backlash now. I think that rather than have it be a blind backlash,

:55:04.:55:10.

better it be a deliberate one that, we that debate openly what are the

:55:10.:55:14.

higher values that should constrain the reach of market into certain

:55:14.:55:18.

areas, so that markets can do their work and perform the public good in

:55:18.:55:20.

areas where they belong. Do you think there should be some

:55:20.:55:27.

restrictions in what markets do? What was interesting about the book

:55:27.:55:33.

is the grey areas, we agree there shouldn't be a market in nuclear

:55:33.:55:37.

bombs. The book says a nursery which your parents have been

:55:37.:55:43.

expected to pick up their children on time, they don't soshes

:55:43.:55:46.

introduces fines, the number of late parents increase, because they

:55:46.:55:51.

want to pay the fine to get another hour at the nursery. What the

:55:51.:55:56.

conclusion from that? It is that market mechanisms alone are not

:55:56.:56:00.

enough. You need to have moral expectations, so people do honour

:56:00.:56:06.

their contracts and do what they say. But clearly they don't. It is

:56:06.:56:12.

difficult to stop a market. We see that in a country like Greece,

:56:12.:56:16.

where informal cash markets are breaking out to deal with the

:56:16.:56:20.

collapse of the state. But the point I took is that markets are

:56:21.:56:25.

not enough. You need a strong moral underpinning and unless you have

:56:25.:56:28.

those, you don't have a well functioning society. Are you saying

:56:28.:56:33.

the market invading stops people having a moral view. That is the

:56:33.:56:39.

point, if you have markets dominate, people's morals go out of window.

:56:39.:56:44.

No markets are amoral, not immoral. We live in a pluer is tick society

:56:44.:56:50.

without a single morality that everyone accepts. There are

:56:50.:56:56.

conflict of view over what is the moral position. What is your moral

:56:56.:57:02.

position in so-called death bond, life assurance that pay out when

:57:02.:57:06.

others die. That's right, Wall Street has created death bonds

:57:06.:57:13.

where you can invest in a stranger, or a bundle of a group of strangers

:57:13.:57:18.

dying sooner rather than later. I would say that coarsens our

:57:18.:57:22.

attitude to life. Be what about that. Any objection? I would need

:57:22.:57:28.

to see what was involved. Named contracts on people would be

:57:28.:57:33.

unpleasant. If it is a way of managing mortality risks, I would

:57:33.:57:38.

want to understand it. We haven't got much time I have been told. But

:57:38.:57:42.

on the nursery thing, if people are being late in the first place, that

:57:42.:57:46.

is why they were being fined, and then it doesn't work, do you just

:57:46.:57:52.

drop the whole market force in that sense? That is the market, you are

:57:52.:57:56.

in the market, to provide the place and take your child and there is

:57:56.:58:02.

cash changing hands. They have got to get their pricing right. Or only

:58:02.:58:09.

the very rich can afford to let their children stay late.

:58:09.:58:14.

Whrafrpblgts has been pointed out is central to the idea of book,

:58:14.:58:18.

sometimes markets crowd out none market value worth caring about.

:58:18.:58:22.

Thank I yo. Just time for the answer to the quiz. Which of the

:58:22.:58:27.

following cases did not result in a as bow. I think it was the

:58:27.:58:34.

helicopter. Ce you're right. reckon he was a non-Dom and nobody

:58:34.:58:39.

cowl track him down. Lord Adonis you have had too long to think

:58:39.:58:46.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS