11/09/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. Leaked letters from

England's exam watchdog Ofqual show pressure was used to revise last

summer's GCSE grades, but was the intervention justified? Shadow

Chancellor Ed Balls has been heckled at the TUC Conference after

he said a Labour Government would have to make difficult decisions on

pay and pensions. We'll look at Labour's strained relationship with

the unions. According to Boris Johnson the

Olympics has brought home to this country that when we put our minds

to it we can do anything. So can the Government learn any lessons?

And conference season is upon us, but is there a point to them

anymore? We'll find out about a radical new plan to drag the annual

jollies kicking and screaming in to the 21st century.

All that in the next hour. And with us for the whole programme today is

the lawyer and academic Baroness Deech, who's held positions as wide

ranging as Chairman of the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology

Authority and Pro Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford.

Welcome to the programme. First, a Government-backed business

bank, state intervention in industry and an end to the

Government's laissez-faire industrial policy. I'm not talking

about a new Labour policy, but new coalition plan to be announced

shortly by the Business Secretary, Vince Cable. So is this a step in

the right direction? Well, some Conservative backbenchers aren't so

sure. Mr Peter Bone. I hate to say this to the Secretary for Business

but there isn't cross-party support from this particular position. That

sounded to me like a statement that any Labour Minister could have made

in the previous administration. It talked about state intervention,

and it said nothing about cutting red tape and regulation. That was a

Labour statement, not a coalition statement. Well, the honourable

member has his own distinctive and unique style which we all admire.

Vince Cable said, without conviction! Joining me now is the

Conservative MP Margot James who sits on the Business Select

Committee. Do you agree with Peter Bone, if you are talking about

state intervention, that does sound like something Labour and the TUC

would welcome. I wouldn't use the term industrial intervention. What

we are looking at is an industrial strategy to be executed in

partnership with industry, rather than intervening into industry.

There is a big difference between the sort of policies which you are

alluding to from the 60s and 70s and what's being proposed now.

What's the difference if you have got a state sponsored bank that is

going to be lending directly to certain sectors that have been

identified, you are talking about backing winners. We are talking

about, I have spoken to Tory MPs who say yes, that's the policy

being outlined, that's state intervention. We are talking about

establishing a business investment bank but I am sure that bank will

be independently run and I think that's important. But what is

crucial is we get finance into small businesses in particular,

monitor report out this week found that 30% of SME loan applications

had been turned down. This is something I think that's been

rumbling on for a couple of years. The difficulties of small

businesses getting access to finance. It's crucial that the

Government do step in and support moves to improve that. That in

itself is the contradiction, isn't it? Without having a state

sponsored bank it's clear Government hasn't been able to

persuade those banks which we have a great deal of money in, they

haven't been able to persuade them to lend to businesses. Lending to

businesses is down on latest figures. Surely that's the point of

having a state sponsored bank so you can tell it what to do?

give terms of reference and its task, which is to increase lending

to small businesses, that's its job. But in terms of picking the

applications that are going to succeed, that is not Government's

job. That will be done independently of Whitehall. How do

you guarantee that money gets to businesses, because terms of

reference were set for RBS and Lloyds and as we have seen, not

enough money has gone to businesses? This bank will have one

task, which is to lend to businesses. Obviously the banks you

have mentioned have a much more diverse port portfolio of

responsibilities. Do you know how much money the Government is going

to put in or how much you would like to see being put in? I don't

know yet. I don't think details have been announced. We have

already invested �60 billion into the finance for lending scheme,

which is ongoing and I think that will have an effect, too. Is it an

admission that setting deficit reduction plans in the way the

coalition did and outlining cuts to the public sector and then leaving

the rest of the market, that was certainly the rhetoric, that that's

failed? Not at all. Without deficit reduction we wouldn't be in a

position to make these investments pause our interest rates would have

shot up. The borrowing is going up. The interest rates have not gone up

and they would have done had we put our foot off the peddle in terms of

reducing the deficit. What's your response to the idea of more state

involvement than the coalition has certainly said at the outset that

actually certain industries like the car industry, which are doing

well, need to be pushed further. It's a welcome direction. It's a

good thing. It's ironic, though, that another bank has to be set up

to patch up the failures of the kpeutsing ones. -- existing ones. I

think it's a little bit blinkered also, I think the picture must be

looked at more broadly. For example, the life sciences have been

mentioned, that's a great British success story. But we need to help

the brightest students who are doing engineering and biology and

give help to those startup businesses. We need to reduce the

other burdens on small businesses that they claim are holding them

back. For example, the unfair dismissal law which is an unfair

law, never mind unfair dismissal, raising the threshold on VAT,

easing the business rate and so on. Businesses are finding that as fast

as the money comes in, it's going straight back to the Government. A

broader approach is needed. Which was outlined yesterday in terms of

some of the attempts to burn out regulation which brings us on to

the next point, why has only �60 million of the regional growth fund,

�1.4 billion, actually reached the firms it was meant to? The Public

Accounts Committee from which that data is taken reported today, but

actually the hearings were finished in May. I gather that the situation

has improved significantly since May. Two years after the coalition

came in, you are setting up new measures and now we discover that

money that's been allocated is not even reaching the target? That

sounds like a long time but from inception, which was about two

years ago that the regional growth fund was established, to actually

getting the bids in, evaluating applications, doing the due

diligence. We are talking about large amounts of taxpayers' money

and I think the Government would be in for a lot of criticism if they

backed too many high risk projects that turned out to fail. It's a

balance. I agree with you that it looked as if little progress had

been made at May. But I am assured that since May there's been

considerably more progress made in getting that regional growth fund

money into businesses. Thank you very much.

A row over whether students who sat GCSEs this summer were unfairly

marked down continues to rumble on. The exam regulator Ofqual says that

the grades were correct, and that the normal procedures were followed.

But letters leaked to the Times education supplement show that

Ofqual wrote to one of the exam boards - who set and mark the GCSEs

- to say that grade boundaries might have to be moved

significantly to bring results in line with expectations. GCSE

results were published on August 23rd. For the first time in their

24-year history the proportion of entries achieving the top grades

fell. Questions were raised about whether

the exams had been unfairly marked, but an initial report by Ofqual

found that the summer grade boundaries were properly set, and

candidates' work properly graded. Although they said that the

assessments marked in January were graded generously. However, it has

now emerged that Ofqual wrote to the Edexcel exam board on 7th

August to suggest that unexpectedly good results this summer could mean

they had to move grade boundary marks further than might normally

be required. The next day Edexcel replied,

insisting that their proposed awards were fair and that they did

not believe that a further revision of grades was justified. But Ofqual

replied saying that Edexcel must act to make sure that their results

were comparable with other exam boards.

Speaking to the Education Select Commitee earlier the Chief

Executive of Ofqual, Glenys Stacey, defended the regulator's actions.

There would be six or 7% increase grade inflation that we did not

think to be right or justifiable. We therefore wrote to Edexcel,

pointing out that they needed to bring the qualification in

appropriately. They reflected on that and it's quite right and

proper that they should have done. The way the system is set up in the

legislation we all operate to requires us to put that challenge

back to them. It then requires them to look at whether they can justify

their outcomes and that's what they did.

Let's get more on this with the Conservative MP Graham Stuart,

who's the Chairman of the Education Select Committee, and Brian

Lightman, who represents headteachers as General Secretary

of the Association of School and College Leaders. Welcome both of to

you the programme. How do you expect potential GCSE students and

their families to have any confidence in this system? Well,

this kind of furore is bound to undermine people's confidence in

the system. There are a series of complex elements that come together

here which have no interest to the young people who have worked really

hard, were led to expect that they would be able to get the grade to

allow them to go on to other courses, enter apprenticeship, get

an A grade to get to university, whatever it was, that's of little

consolation to them. Our role on the committee is to delve into this,

try to downstand the components that led to this sorry situation.

What went wrong, what do you think? A combination of things. Three

years ago the previous Government decided to bring in mod aou hrar

construction. And graded as you go along. And 60% of the marks to be

given out by teachers who themselves were teaching pupils.

And change the entire syllabus of all three English subjects at the

same time, they were asked, ministers were asked what is going

to happen - isn't this going to lead to grade inflation? They said

it will be up to Ofqual. Ofqual find themselves in an uncomfortable

position of picking up the pieces. Are they picking up the pieces,

though? Let's just sort of go back to how this thing unfolded. Ofqual

said in a inquiry report that exam boards had set June's grade

boundaries correctly, using their best professional judgment. Why is

it that only a few months later they were writing to Edexcel, one

of the boards, saying that actually they would have to mark more

harshly than they had initially thought? Why did Ofqual change its

mind? Edexcel is a relatively small player in the English market as it

happens and it's what the regulators - it's what they do,

they talk to, they make comparisons between data from different boards

and and challenge them on it. In this case Edexcel accepted in the

end that the boundary needed to be changed in order to ensure the

comparability in standards over time which is now a requirement of

law following the passing of the education Act 2011. Are you saying

that those grades in January, do you accept they were marked too

general lousely? -- generously? We do have unfairness in this year's

results because those who banked their results in January, could get

a C grade with lower marks than was required in June. That is a

fundamental unfairness. The challenge is to understand how we

got here and what do we do about it. Ofqual said they looked, the right

thing to do, while ensuring comparability, would be to remark

January, to tell people who had already been issued with a

certificate their grade was to be downgraded. They made a decision to

leave January results alone. And be unfair on students who took the

exam in June? Brian will doubtless be able to speak about why he

thinks that's unfair. Ofqual insist that the June results were fair.

It's just that the January ruplts were actually -- results were

overly generous. Surely Ofqual has fulfilled what it was set up to do.

We have made it clear that where exam boards proposed results that

differ significantly from expectations because results are

based on predictions made, then their job is to intervene. What's

Ofqual done wrong? Well, I think that the implementation of this

examination has been fundamentally flawed. I understand all of the

points Graham has made about the nature of that examination and

amount of controlled assessment and structure of the examination, but

the issue is that when you make a new examination, when you create a

new examination as regulator and as awarding bodies it's their job to

make sure that the assessment systems are fit for purpose. Now

they clearly weren't fit for purpose. Conkwepbtly, when --

consequently, when the controlled assessments took place earlier in

the academic year, and were found to be generous, they were found to

be generous too late. Nothing was done about it. Right, but what

would you suggest that they did having then discovered it. They

should have moderated that marking at the time. They should have had

proare -- proper systems in place to make sure that marking was

robust. That's the job of an awarding body and regulator. If

they had moderated that at the time they could have said to schools you

are being too generous, this isn't a C, it's a D or whatever, and the

schools would have known that they would have needed to do something

then. We questioned Ofqual extensively. They insist, because I

asked them were there any techniques, any resources, that cow

have used that would have given us that insight earlier so we didn't

get in this position and the chief regulator insisted there weren't.

So that's going to be - as this story goes on and there's a lot of

questions to answer, that's one of There is a major set of questions

to be asked there about - many of the things I heard the chief

regulator saying this morning whereabout engshrish a difficult

examination to assess. These are excuses which are not acceptable. -

- English is a difficult examination. He let's go to Leeds

and talk to John Townsley the executive principal of academies,

he was an Ofqual board member until March. Welcome to the programme.

What do you think went wrong? Is it Ofqual's fault? I believe it is

fundamentally Ofqual's fault. I believe what has taken place is

that Ofqual has failed to regulate in the early part of this GCSE

process, so in particular June 2011 and in January 2012, which is

interesting that June 2011 is barely mentioned but in fact we

know that for foundation tire AQA alone, that's 85,000 students.

Ofqual failed to regulate what was taking place at that time. This

isn't just billion coming in at the end of a process, it is working in

partnership as an effective regulator during that process. But

as a consequence of that the grades awarded at those points appear to

be inconsistent, varied and a significant number of C grades

awarded, well beyond what would be expected. Quite simply what then

has taken place is Ofqual have moved in at the end of the process,

at the end of a two-year process and demanded that the forecasted

percentage, that must be met at the end of that two years is met.

That's resulted in young people citying the exam at the end of the

two years being compromised in terms of their equality of

opportunity. Right and what do you think should happen now? I believe

Ofqual and the chief regulator are not fit to conduct any further part

in this process. They have compromised their position by their

failure to do two things, someone to regulate, their key

responsibility. The second thing is to ensure fairness for candidates,

which they have failed to do. I believe they need to be brushed to

one side, we need an independent inquiry and we need to put the

results right immediately and in the medium-term we need to look at

the way in which the awarding body works. You are calling for

regrading. You think these students in June should have their GCSE

regraded from D to C? There needs to be a raped process to put that

right quickly. If I can give you an example. The C rates on the

foundation papers were with AQ A on the foundation stage... Hang on a

serbgsd the foundation papers is the ones taken in - hang on a

second Two two tires, the foundation paper and foundation.

The foundation has a maximum grade of a C. That's the paper which in

our view has been targeted by Ofqual to reduce the number of Cs

overall to be allocated. My issue is if there has been generosity

with 85,000 students with June 11 and January 12 was it a coincidence

that we ended up with the right overall percentage at the end of

the overall two-year course it. Wasn't, it was manipulated. You say

it is manipulated. In the end, what is most important, is it not that

the students get the grades they deserve on a consistently-marked

basis Well, that's right. But the discussion is all a bit artificial.

I mean very briefly the background is many employers and universities

don't find students to be of the quality, or as well-prepared as

they were many years ago. And over 25 years, the number of A grades

has tripled and the number of fails has gone from 10% to about 3% but I

have three remedies for this particular situation. One is that

the discussion is rather artificial because we are talking about who

should get a C. If we had the raw marks, the actual percentage, 58,

60, 62, then you could decide, you shouldn't have to decide whether it

is a C or D. Let's have the actual marks and then sixth forms and

others can decide where the cut-off point is. Secondly, what is

completelyeds un-- completely unjustifiable is to have five

different examination boards with a race to the bottom. There really

has to be one examination board for one subject. And bring on the time

when, as Michael gef has said, let there be O'level and get rid of

this GCSE, which has fallen into disrepute. -- Michael Gove.

Let's see what you think. Do you agree let's see that the standard

needs to be higher With all due respect. It is an irrelevant

discussion in relation to this particular issue, which is about

the administration of one particular exam. I do agree that we

need to look at the examination system and we need to have a proper

discussion about what would be a fit-for-purpose system for the

future but this is not the conversation we are having at the

moment. At the moment we are talking about many thousands of

young people who have simply been done an injustice by the way this

particular examination has been administered this year. What do you

think should happen? What about calls for this independent inquiry?

Surely that has to ha. We know now the Welsh Education Minister has

call for that. -- surely that has to happen. Ofqual, has said in

Wales, because standards are not improving, they seem to be keen on

raising the standards. What should happen here and what should happen?

You can't regraifpltd it is not possible. You can't engineer it.

The teachers will have to give the children the right reference to

enable them to go forward saying... We need answers to the questions.

The Select Committee is there for that. Whether the Select Committee

will interview the Secretary of State tomorrow morning and we'll

then decide on a recommendation, either an inquiry to be conducted

by the Select Committee or recommendations on whether we think

a separate inquiry should be undertaken and undertaken quickly

for exactly those reasons. Every day at the moment, if a change is

required, as what happened in 2002 when a Secretary of State lost her

job at the end of the process, a very similar situation, we do need

answers, we need them quickly because every day has an impact on

the life chances of the children concerned. Are you backing an

inquiry and having a regrading chair a cross-party committee who's

job it is to do that. I have said let's hold the line and we'll

decide together, and that's what we will aim to do tomorrow. Your

response to what Graham Stuart has said? I'm confident that Graham

Stuart and his committee will recognise, because of their track

record, just how appalling this situation is, and that time is not

on our side for thousands of students who have been robbed of

their rightful grade. This is an isolated, small area that needs to

be put right now. The bigger picture about the awards market and

how it works in the future, is a few fewer debate. Thank you all

very much. The row over universial credits

continues, with Labour holding an Opposition Day debate on the scheme

this afternoon. Under the Government's plans the benefits

system will be simplified and ministers hope this will lead to

work becoming a more attractive option for claimants. It's been

described by ministers as the most radical redesign of the system in

the history of the welfare state but there are fear abouts how the

scheme could work and whether it could harm the most vulnerable.

Yesterday Iain Duncan Smith faced questions from MPs on his plans.

meet regularly with a local single mother's support group and some of

the mums there have expressed concern about monthly budgeting and

are worried it'll be assumed they can manage. Can my right honourable

friend will confirm under universial credit my constituents

can be reassured that that support is in place. Of course people will

be concerned about it. But there are positives to take from this.

The most important thing is by trying to move people on to a

monthly payment that brings them much more into line with the world

of work. One of the problems we have had is when people going to

work, we have been unemployed, they find it difficult to cope with

having it take on and manage their arrangements.

One of the parts of this strategy is the expansion of food banks,

would you condemn that? The reality is when we came into office I was

told by the department that the last Government, despite the

constant requests from a variety of people who provide food banks, they

asked if they could put their leaflets and advertise what they

were doing in the job centres, they were told no, by the last

Government who didn't want the embarrassment of them being

involved in it. We immediately allowed them to do that, which is

in part one of the reasons why there has been an increase in the

numbers seeking food banks. When universial credit is fully rolled

out in 2017, the OBR says the extra costs will be �3.1 bill yob. The

Treasury, in its Budget, says the price must be no more than 2.5

billion. -- 3.1 billion. Who's estimate does

the Secretary of State agree with? Well the OBR agrees with me, which

strangely enough agrees with the Treasury which is our view that we

will roll this out at �2.5 billion per yeefrplt It is clear the

Treasury thinks there is a state of Kay othe Cabinet Office thinks

there is Kay oNumber Ten thinks there is chaos, surely it is time

he told the House what exactly is going on? We are committed to the

�2.5 we will deliver it on time and on budget We were told that

universial credit will mean every additional hour people works pays.

Is the Secretary of State concerned that many thousands of families

face a cliff edge at the point of which el be giblt for free school

meals kicks in. -- eligibility. are looking at the best way to

bring this in so we rerad Kate those problems so it is a seamless

process which allows people to engage their lives and improves the

quality of lives, rather than negotiating around the edges of

those difficulties. The Work and Pensions Secretary,

Iain Duncan Smith, defending his universial credit. Adam south on

the green with more. Afternoon with a windy College Green. This is the

Government's big idea, a capital B And I when it comes to welfare but

is the universial credit heading for big trouble? Well we have two

MPs on the committee that scrutinised the original

legislation. Kate Green and Charlie. Making work pay, two good thing,

aren't they stpoo They would be good things if it was going to do

that, but first of all this isn't a simple benefit. If your

circumstances start it change within the month, some of your

benefit will be recalculated, some won't. If you reach a certain

cliff-edge you will still see things like school meals being lost.

If you are self-employed, it'll assume a certain income, whether

you get it or not. It is going to be very bad for people who might

gain something from the Government's raising of the tax

threshold but who will lose universial credit as a result and

it'll not invent size work for certain people. For example, there

will be some people who would be better reducing their hours or

stopping work, which can't be what the Government wants. Kate sounds

concern, do you share those concerns? We think it is about

making work way, enurging cans people back into the workforce,

saying you are needed, you have a role to plai, don't sit on benefits,

join the workforce and help get Britain growing: the way it is

structureside to incentivise making work a good thing and encourage

people to be better off in work B2.5 family families will benefit.

The fact is it sounds like Number Ten and the Treasury were concerned

about it. So much so that they wanted to move Iain Duncan Smith.

What is that about? I think Government is committed to

universial credit. Rightly so. There are some concerns, I have

read about, will the computer stems work, considering Government and

computer systems don't go together too well but with the way they are

doing it with a phased introduction to iron out teething problems and

get it work wling when it is fully implemented. You mentioned IT. What

are your corners when it comes to your constituents accessing this

benefit. They will have to log on to manage it. The Government has an

ambitious target to get people to apply online. We know a high

percentage of benefits claimants don't alie online and would

struggle to put together all the information online to put nan

accurate claifrpblgts the Government say 78% of benefit

claimants are on the internet. Yes but nothing like that amount are

using it for benefits claims. We have to realise there is complex

information and no advice to help them because of the cuts to funding

for Citizens Advice buersyos and advice agencies they'll struggle to

get the help. -- Citizens Advice Bureaus. Are benefits claimants in

Dover aware that this is happening from next year and are you aware of

them getting help to imagine the transition. This idea that people

can't use the internet or budget on a monthly basis is stupid and

patronising. The message that the Labour Party is sending to these

people is you are really thick. I don't agree. I think people are

able to tkhees things and we should be optimistic. -- able to do these

things Do them if you don't have enough money. People are concerned

when all the money is in one big pot and pressure boils up and there

will not be enough money to make the commitments, particularly when

the payments that are intended for children or childcare and the

payments intended for your rent are all going to one person, who may

not be the person responsible for those bills. Iain Duncan Smith

yesterday addressed a lot of those points bfortnightly payments rather

than monthly. He did very much so. The Labour Party want to spend

money on giving people advice. I want to spend money on making work

way and helping people who have more money in their pocket to

incentivise them and to work harder How about paying for this system.

There are suggestions from the OBR it'll cost �600 million a year more

than was planned. We had that discussion in work and pensions

questions yefpltd I don't think an awful yesterday. I don't think an

awful lot turns on that. I think we need to get this system in place,

get it working and encourage more people into the work place and

driving the economy for growth for the long term. Thank you very much.

I'm sure we'll hear many more of these discussions this afternoon.

As we heard the first pilots are going to be in Manchester of the

universial credit in April 2013 then next year people will

gradually be moved on to it. It hasn't happening overnight. All

benefits claimants won't be on universial credit until 2017. A

It's an interesting and important subject because it's a radical

reform, isn't it, having a universal credit? If it sounds good

in theory, do you think it will work in practice? It's a good idea

in theory. I greatly admire Iain Duncan Smith and for many reasons I

wish he had moved to the Ministry of Justice, but anyway that didn't

happen. He didn't want to go! bothers me is the assumption that's

made that people can handle things online. 8% - no, eight million of

the population have never approached a computer. Apparently,

another 20 million or so really don't have the necessary skills.

That's unrealistic. I am worried there will be a sort of meltdown

with people unable to use it or computers crashing as happened with

the income tax and has happened with NHS data. That's a problem. To

access broadband apparently is something like �30 a month which is

an additional expense. This issue is tied up with the Government's

approach to broadband. I happen to sit on the House of Lords select

committee on communications and we have pointed out that with

broadband it really ought not to be our priority to get it faster,

tpwou make sure that everybody in the country can use it. So you have

an underlining problem with using the internet. The other one is I

would be very worried if the universal credit went to the men in

the household, because it's the women who will be spending it on -

I would be worried - it's very sexist this, might spend it on

something else. An interesting point.

Now it's the the Budget that just won't go away. Nearly half a year

since the Chancellor read out his statement the controversies are

still rumbling on. We have had rows over pasties, caravans and Church

improvements. One issue they're holding firm on is forcing

universities to pay VAT on any alterations to their listed

buildings. Here is Giles Dilnot with more. Under the dreaming

spires of academia whilst Professors profess, building

managers and pursers are having a financial financial headache. It's

after the Treasury stuck an oar in after the Budget. You see, up until

now if you repair a listed building, well that's the full fat 20% VAT.

But if you want to alter it in a major way, well VAT was at 0%. The

Treasury tell me this is a confusion that cost man hours and

queries over what is altering and so it's been simplified. Now

everything is 20%. Some universities suspect this was

thought acceptable because the kind of people in institutions affected

could frankly easily afford it. a country we have to find money

from somewhere. There's no money, good luck to you, as Liam Burn said.

We are borrowing �4 million plus a day. This change over this this

lifetime of this parliament will bring in about �300 million to the

Treasury. We have to effectively try and make sure that all these

small changes take out anomalies but raise money so we can deal with

the deficit. Here in Reading we are not necessarily talking about

dreaming spires, chocolate box iconic listed buildings. These two

gate houses are listed, from the Victorian estate upon which the

university stands and before, if the university wanted to alter them,

well, that was 0% VAT. Now, from the 1st October it will be 20%,

just like everybody else. That's a financial constraint the university

doesn't really want. The question now is how often do people want to

change these buildings? Cutting out research and teaching requires fit

for purpose building. When a proportion of your estate is in

listed buildings, you are always going to be making those

alterations. We are altering here all the time. The Treasury insist

this sim play play -- simplification is overdue. But if

politicians want to visit academic institutions again and get a hearty

welcome, they may have to answer one countercharge. I am sure that

it's been underestimated how many people this hits. I think as a

whole many institutions, it will be just one small added burden on top

of the other. But if you look at the institutions who have got

greatest proportion of their estate in listed buildings, we all

immediately think of Oxford and Cambridge. Actually, they're a way

down the list. It's the small niche institutions that are going to be

greatest hit. Baroness Deech is still with us. We

heard there supporting the Government's line that this is

about a a fundraising measure and simplification of the tack system -

- tax system. It's a bad situation indeed and the story is broader

than appears at first. What the Government is doing is giving

universities money on the one hand, and then taking it away. The

calculation has been carried out that this change in VAT will cost

the whole sector �150 million over the next few years, which ekwauts

to something like like -- �780 million needed in additional

endowment which isn't there. The universities, to meet this bill,

will have to make money out of the resources they were putting into

bursaries for poor students. will affect the - they will take it

directly from there? universities have a limited budget

and they can't really go to their alumni and say give us money to pay.

I bet they do. They will give money for causes close to their hearts

like student bursaries and my guess is this will come from bursaries.

suppose cow say is now they've changed that tax system, are

alterations needed that often? Unnecessary alterations I am sure

were undertaken because they didn't have to pay VAT in the past?

universities don't have money to do unnecessary alterations but they

have to do alterations all the time. Laboratories, which are an housed

in old buildings need changing all the time. Student accommodation,

you need to fit in more teaching rooms. I can assure you that right

through the year universities are planning needed alterations and

scratching around to find money. So this is really very bad indeed.

It's bad news all round. The Government could get itself off the

hook by... Another you-turn? Yes, they won't do another U-turn. They

did one in this ill-thought out Budget over pasties, which is a

shame because pasties are not good for you and caravans, what they

could do here is exempt charityably owned buildings from this new tax

and that would help universities. But they really must do something.

The universities cannot spend �150 million on this. Many people will

say look in these times that doesn't sound like a huge amount of

money in the scheme of things over a period of years. It's very large.

The universities scrape pennies and every extra they possibly have goes

into supporting students. Let's look at another issue, and that's

access to universities. Cambridge admissions tutor said over the

weekend lowering entry requirements in an attempt to widen access would

be cruel, which is an interesting word to use. Do you agree with him?

Absolutely. I am very glad to say that Cambridge and I think Oxford,

I am sure, are standing firm in the face of pressure. As we were saying

earlier with GCSEs, you can't engineer the grades to meet a

particular Government objective. Cambridge and Oxford and most

universities have quite enough candidates with good grades to

choose from. What about access? What about access from the state

schools system when you look at the figures and and it still shows a

high percentage of students from the private sector getting into

Oxford and Cambridge and the only actually have 7% of the population.

Coy go on about this for a long time. First of all, what's damaging

to access are the messages given out occasionally by Professor Edon

indicating, suggesting that universities discriminate which

they certainly don't. They want to have a broad base of students.

course they do. There is no discrimination. The problem is the

schools and sometimes the families with a great deal of poverty of

aspiration, they say to the students no, you can't do this or

we don't want to you leave home or universities is not for you. It's

not a question of poverty, because if you can manage to get to

university you are supported and subsidised all the way through.

It's a question of getting families to adjust their thinking and say to

every child, you too can go, we will not stand in your way.

right, thank you. The Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls,

has had a difficult time at the TUC Conference. He was heckled after

suggesting that a Labour Government would have to make difficult

decisions on pay and pensions. Mr Balls then went on to argue that

Labour has to be honest with the British people in order to gain

credibility and he said the last thing the public want at the moment

is any more strikes. Here's a flavour of what he had to say.

say strikes must always be a last resort. I am sure the last thing

the vast majority of trade union members want at a time of such

uncertainty in our economy is strikes over the coming months.

It's not what we want, it's not what the public want but when

coalition Ministers warn they will have to act and legislate if they

see a return to the unrest of the 1980s, what we are really seeing is

Tories itching to provoke a row about strikes so they can blame the

stalling recovery on trade union members and working people.

APPLAUSE. Let's be honest, it should be David Cameron and George

Osborne and Nick Clegg, they're the ones who should be admitting now

their plan has failed and change course. It's them who should be

changing course in the coming months. Let us say loud and clear,

nobody here wants a return to the 1980s. We don't want a return to

the hatred and division and confrontation of the is the 80s. We

don't want a return to the strikes and lost working days.

And we're joined now by Labour's Shadow Financial Secretary to the

Treasury, Chris Leslie. Welcome back to the programme. We heard Ed

Balls say no one wants a return to the 1980s with lost days of work

but that he understands that the unions want action now and that it

is the Tory-led Government that is trying to provoke a row. What is

Labour's policy, does Labour condemn any strike action? Well, we

are sort of seeing Ministers licking their lips at the prospect

of strike action. We haven't actually seen ballots taking place.

We have the promise of ballots taking place and we have had

teachers unions saying they will take days of action. Does Labour

support that? Or condemn it? have to recognise is there is a lot

of anger. A lot of impatience for a strong critique, challenge to the

Government's policy. Of course people are going to be impatient,

particularly if they're public sector workers. You have to

recognise also for the public a lot of strike action is very

inconvenient. It causes a lot of disruption and so we want to see

strike action avoided. We don't think that strike action is always

the best way of voicing a grievance but that's not the same thing as

saying we don't stand on the same side of many of those working in

the public sector who are fed up with the way that they've been

treated by the Government. Just to be clear, Ed Miliband said the

public doesn't want to see strikes nor do members, nor do you, nor

does the Labour Party? We don't want to see strike action, of

course we don't. You will condemn it in ballots take place, you have

set out it's not the right time, if strike action is voted for, you

will condemn it? The trade union members themselves have to make

their own decision about how they express their discontent and of

course there are long-standing rights for working people to

organise and to express their view. Our point of view is that strike

action can be harmful and in many ways plays into some of the sort of

hand-rubbing of Conservative Ministers who want to have another

way of pointing to a blame for the failing economy so they point to

the snow or the Royal wedding or bank holiday. They would love to

point to strike action and those nasty nasty 1970s trade unions as

they characterise them as responsible for all the economy's

woes and that's what Ed Balls was saying today, be careful not to

fall into the trap that the Government is setting here. What

about the trap that's being perhaps set for Labour? Why don't you make

it clear in the way that Ed Balls clearly set out in that speech,

that there will be difficult difficult decisions on pay and

pensions. He was heckled. That might help you, of course, seeing

Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor, heckled in terms of the public

perception of the Labour Party, but if you can make difficult decisions

on pay and pensions and back the public sector pay freeze why can't

you just say we condemn strike action? Because all the trade

unionists have their right, as working people to look at their

collective bargaining in their own workplace. Our point of view is in

a hypothetical scenario where we haven't got strikes such as people

have been pointing to in the offing, we want to say let's avoid them.

Let's be more mature about these things, let's have an approach

where people sort these things out, rather than play politics with it.

Sometimes the politics is on both sides of the ekwaugs but the --

equation but the Government are licking their lips at the prospect

of mass strike action. That's the worry we have. In terms of Ed Balls

being heckled and someone shouting oud "rubbish", do you think trade

union members are out of touch? Look, they want the best deal for

their colleagues, the workforce in the public sector have been working

under quite difficult circumstances recently. The pay freeze has been

really difficult. In an ideal world of course we would all want to see

people get pay which could keep pace with the cost of living. The

difficulty we have is because of the poor management of the economy

and the state of the public sector finances, we can't say yes we would

give wonderfully large pay awards. Because they're unaffordable.

have to protect jobs and making sure tkpwu for job creation ahead

of high pay awards for public sector. That's a difficult message

to give but it's important that the Labour Party is clear, we won't be

frightened of making those tough decisions. Should we end up having

to mop up a big deficit that George Ed Miliband also criticised the

coalition, for cutting the top-rate of tax. The Labour Party has

criticised it. Would you reverse that? We don't know what

circumstances we will inherit. say you will stick to the pay

freeze. Would you reverse the 45p. We are not in the position to write

manifestos. We are saying during the course of this Parliament, it

is perverse to be cutting the top rate of tax from the wealthiest 1p

at a time when you are raising it for pensioners and raising VAT for

everyone else. We don't know what the state the public finances will

be in 2015 but I have to say they are not looking pretty good. Andy

Murray did his bit last night. It was a fantastic win in the US Open

but with the Olympics Parade finishing yesterday, it definitely

feels that the summer of sport is coming to an end. The Olympics and

Paralympics have captured the imagination of millions up and down

the country, not just because of the incredible achievements of the

athletes but also because of the games volunteers. The servicemen

and women and the organisers who made it all possible. Here's what

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London had to say at the parade yesterday.

This was euro achievement. You, you brought this country together in a

way we never expected. You wroughted the doubters and you

scattered the gloomsterss. And for the first time in living memory you

caused tube train passengers to break into spontaneous conversation

with their neighbours, about subjects other than their trod-on

toes. You showed every child in this country that success is not

just about talent and luck, but about grit and guts and hard work

and coming back from defeat. And by the way, you showed fantastic grace

in victory, and amazing courage in defeat. Boris Johnson, stealing the

show as he so often does. What lessons can our politicians take

from the Games and can any of it apply to other parts of the

Government? That's one of the themes Matthew Taylor the Chief

Executive of the RSA and former executive of Downing Street who

joins us now with Jesse Norman, takes up. It is all very well

saying it has been wonderful, and it has and the coming together and

will it ever apply to any other part of Government? I think there

is an important lesson to be learned. I think the reason it was

so amazing was it combined three things, the three forces that make

changes happen in society. One is authority, the state. The

organisation was great, the planning was great it, all worked.

Surprisingly from a lot of people's perspective. Secondly what

sociologists might call solidarity. So the nation was behind it, the

volunteer force, people giving their own time and thirdly,

individual aspiration because in the end it is about athletes

winning gold medals. That combination, individualism, social

solidarity, hierarchy, that's a combination that you need to solve

problems. The problem is that generally speaking, outside of the

Olympics, we don't have that combination. We don't trust the

Government. Big organisations have all sorts of problems and in many

ways social solidarity has got weaker, which is why David Cameron

had the Big Society. As a society we are individualistic and we have

to restore our faith in our capacity to do big things.

Government the agent to do that. You have just said trust in

politicians is at an all-time low. Really you are admitting they are

not going to be able it harness the goodwill created. You can see the

pictures of the public support. Incredible. Even 1 million out

yesterday that. It will not be possible to translate that into

something as important as social poll sifrpblgts I have suggested

beforehand, that one of the reasons the Olympics worked was once the

bid had won we had to deliver by that certain date. However much

people might have moaned about Olympic laenges or planning

permission or the money, we had to get on and do it. -- Olympic lanes.

Look at runways around London, Government hasn't the capacity to

say - we have made the decision, we will stick to it. Do you think

that's enough to bring in a local organiser to do this. Is he really

going to be able to achieve what has been outline bid Matthew

Taylor? He has phenomenal credentials, for me the great

lesson of the Olympics is that actually it allowed us to Quarry

something in our own character as a country which is why the opening

ceremony was amazing. It reminded vast numbers of people up and down

the British Isles that we have an extraordinary history. If we go

back to that we can see the combination of individual endever

and collective industry. And the big "Big society". It hasn't been

talked about but it encapsulated the "big society", or at least I

think what was intended by David Cameron. I think it Zwhat was

interesting was it was a vision of society which involved a degree of

state spending and prieming but it really relied on the games makers

and volunteers -- and priming. And anyone who went to that was

staggered by the lifting of the spirts from the volunteers.

Matthew said, the things about volunteering it was for a time-

limited period. People gave their time free, they weren't earning

kawe ply that model to business? feel sad about it. I think I'm an

Olympic spirit dissident. The day the Olympics ended, the trade

unions announced strikes. The teaching unions don't want to do,

are refusing to do supervision of after-hours school sport and so on.

So where is the spirit? Should they be made to do that free of charge?

You can't make them but where is the great big social solidarity?

And individual aspiration? It is a wonderful thing but when it comes,

you know, in the Olympics you start with taking people who have natural

talent. You choose them, you take them out of school, you train them

especial li, you applaud them, they work 45 and win gold. Why doesn't

that apply negligentcation and business? I agreement it is a

special place. That's what I'm saying in my lecture. We have to

understand how it is we rebuild social solidarity, which has been

weakened by the fact we are a more diverse population and we have less

money. All the things that undermine solidarity of people

living in communities just like them. We have to see how we restore

political authority. Barack Obama was trying to say some of these

things last week in his speech. He was saying in the end changes isn't

about me, if you elect me to do it I'm not going to do it, it is about

citizens themselves doing it. We have to explor how we rekindle the

sources of power. -- explore. This weekend hundreds of thousands of

parents all around the country will be making little football matches

work with their kids. Absolutely. That's the level at which it stays,

which is what I'm trying to say. take issue with Ruth, if I may, the

whole point is if you put people in a hierarchy, you take away their

individual incentives to get out and make changes in their own

families and neighbourhoods. If you money advertise their incentives,

you take a lot away -- monetaryise. We have to do something, starting

small and growing bigger bigger. has to be something that people

believe in. The counterpart is you are viewing someone as a creature

of habit and once you start it, you can build on, that rather than

saying everything is about money. One of the problems of the "big

society" there was no kft why individuals would want to do more

about this. -- no account of. If the Olympics, you get a uniform, it

was exciting, for a time-limited period.

Chapter 6 of my book. Thank you for that little reference. Thank you.

Bars are stock up, the speeches are being written and restaurants being

booked. Ye, it is the conference season. The TUC gathering is

already under way and in just under two weeks, the Liberal Democrats

kick off for the three main parties is. There any point in them any

more? A report from the Policy Review Intelligence think-tank

suggests it isn't working suggests having all three konchess in one

city over a tele-week period. -- all three conferences. Here is a

# Can't get away it marry you today # My wife won't let me... #

You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning.

Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Government.

And you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour Council, a Labour

Council hiring taxis to scuttle around a city handing out

redundancy notices to its own workers.

I've got a little list, of benefit offenders, who I'll soon be rooting

out, and who never would be missed. They never would be missed.

So there you have it, the final proof, Labour's brand new, shining,

modernist, economic dream tpwu, wasn't Browns, it was balls -- but

it wasn't Brown's. Hubble, bubble, toil and trouble. The Tory Party's

reDawesed to rubble. The quiet man is here to stay and

At least I don't have to worry about her running off with the

bloke next door! Some of the best conference joke

there is. It takes you back a bit. Gavin and Stewart with with me now.

Gavin we can see from that little collection of films and clips that

this is the highlight of the political year? Absolutely. But I

think the problem we have got at the moment is that the party

conferences have somewhat got a bit sort of out-moded and, of course,

no-one's particularly seriously arguing that we should abolish them,

but the point being that they need modernising, transforming. There

are issues of accessibility. If you are attending the conference, you

can easily spend �1,000 on accreditation and accommodation, so

you have access problems. If you are an organisation, you can

literally spend tens of thousands of pounds, you know organising

fringe events, exhibiting, all the rest of it. We have actually, in

this country, got some really interesting events that take place,

like the Haye, festival and Edinburgh Festival. Maybe our

political conferences should be models a bit more like that. If we

cut the costs and perhaps shorten them - they have been a bit - and

make better access, they would be fantastic. Well looking at the

greatest hits in conferences takes me back to really what they were,

which was policy-making for ordinary party members which could

engage with serious people making decision abouts the country. They

are far too corporate. I remember the conference in the waifbg our

exit from the Exchange Rate Mechanism when Norman Tebbit got up

and gave John Major one between the eyes. Whru agreed or didn't, it was

electric, hence -- whether you agreed or didn't, it was electric.

And also the Neil Kinnock speech's. It is more corporate and dull.!

MPs want to go? No, I don't think they do. I think the whole naturer

of political campaign changed. The idea when I was in the my teens, I

would go to a conference, and sit and listen to a cabinet minister,

drone on for 20 minutes and have a few clap lines, it is all gone now.

You could do the things you are suggesting to modernise it, but in

the end they are no longer the great debating centres they used to

be, policy and ideology is already decided. That's the point why I

make about the fringe because the vibe Rabcy and the exciting element

is not the main event in the centre which is all contrived for the

media, it is what goes on, on the outskirts. We have ten seconds. Are

you going? Stpoo I try to, but I can't see how you get there. I

logged on to see if I could. They are too expensive and stage-managed

but give members of the public an unrivaled opportunity it see these

people in action. For those of us who don't want Parliament live,

this is the chance to see it. I wouldn't have done without those