20/12/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Another arrest in

the Andrew Mitchell case with what was Plebgate now turning into

Plodgate. What will this row do to relations between a Conservative-

led government and the Police? The government introduces a bill to cap

benefit increases to 1%. A sensible and fair economy or an attack on

the poor? A technical education as highly regarded as the best

academic institutions? We ask if University technical colleges are

the answer. And, 'tis the season to be jolly! What do MPs' Christmas

All that in the next hour. With us for the duration Conservative peer,

Ken Baker. He used to be Education Secretary. And Home Secretary too.

We'll be serving up a feast of politics for him to get his teeth

into. Let's start with the ongoing controversy surrounding the role of

the police in the resignation of former Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell.

It's emerged over the last few days that a man purporting to be member

of the public who emailed their eyewitness account of the incident

at the Downing Street gates was actually a serving police officer

who did not in fact witness the events. A police officer was

arrested at the weekend. And this morning, a second man who does not

work for the police was arrested. The Police Federation, the union

that represents rank and file officers, made a lot of running on

this story back October. We could hardly keep them off the air waves

them. But have refused our repeated requests for an interview. But we

do have with us a former Home Secretary. I said at the start,

this Pleb-gate is now turning into Plod-gate. It is clear certain

police and the Police Federation are moving into the frame? This is

a very serious crisis. The police have had a bad year. Hillsborough,

therefore supplied evidence. In Rotherham, we didn't follow up on a

young girls being turned into prostitutes and in the Leverson

Inquiry,. And now it there is Plod- gate for that this is serious

because if the public don't trust the police, you have a serious

problem in society. Now we have a serving police officer making up

complete fiction in an e-mail in which the Prime Minister almost

fired Andrew Mitchell. He did believe him and has been proved to

be right so far, so it's a big problem for the police and the

Police Federation. They politicise the police. The police must be

above politics in our country but the Police Federation decided to

become a lobbying, extremely aggressively, determined to get a

Cabinet minister. Because they were very opposed to what the Home

Secretary was doing, looking into their pay, pensions. Therefore,

they became political agencies. I'm not in the least bit surprised

they're not take your calls to come on. They are in real trouble.

police officer who was barely literate when you read the e-mail.

He doesn't know the difference between digest it and disgusted.

The one thing the police must not do is falsify evidence. They do.

They did in the case of Mendez, the man who was shot, the case of the

man who was struck down at the G20 demonstrations. They falsified

evidence there. And now, at least, an investigation is to be done into

whether evidence in that the log, and we know from this e-mail has

been falsified, too. The question therefore comes To my mind, can the

Metropolitan Police be trusted to investigate itself? At this stage,

we have to do it and the commissioner has to do it. I gather

there are 30 police officers investigating this so it's a

thorough inquiry. He has got to find out and report very quickly on

this, because this could run away, the situation. What has happened in

the last two months in this country, this been a concerted attack by the

Police Federation to destroy a Tory Cabinet minister, Alastair McAlpine.

A lot of it based on false evidence. It was going for it. Yes, the

moment, we can trust the commissioner to do this.

commander, the head of the most important police force and the

country, has said he's taken a strong public stance backing of the

police who were at the gate that night, and whose log provided the

supposedly damning evidence over which there are, as we did on this

programme yesterday, real questions about what Mr Mitchell said.

Incredibly real questions over what there was anybody on the other side

of the gate. He has backed them to the hilt. Most people watching this

will wonder how he can investigate something where his public position

is so unsafe? He could find out who those two policemen had contact

with through their mobile phones immediately after the event. Who

did they speak to? The Police Federation? Is someone their

guiding some of this? How did get to the newspapers? Obviously, it

was sold to the Sun newspaper for nothing. There was a rumour

whirling around last night, when the original story went to the Sun

newspaper, it did not contain any of the words which, in the end,

became so toxic. Let's see it that comes out in the inquiry because,

if it did, it's very damning. It's a much bigger problem actually.

You've got to re-establish trust in the police. If the country doesn't,

then it's your close to lawlessness and anarchy. It's an essential

thing. Chief constables across the country and the Home Secretary and

everybody has got to restore confidence in the police. The

police must show that themselves. Very interesting coming from a

former Home Secretary. Now, how much should benefits rise by every

year? Welfare benefits? By the rate of inflation or in line with

earnings? Or by less than both? Well, at the Autumn Statement, the

Chancellor announced a cap of 1% on increases in most benefits, which

is less than both. Today the government introduces a bill to

make that law. Here's Jo with more. Social security benefits and tax

credits usually go up automatically every year by the rate of inflation,

so next spring would have seen them But in his autumn statement earlier

this month, George Osborne said that most payments would increase

by the lower amount of 1% for the next three years. This real-terms

cut will affect those receiving working-age benefits including the

main elements of jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and

elements of working tax credit. The Chancellor says it's necessary

because benefits have risen more quickly than wages. And he says the

move will help build a welfare system that is fair to the working

the Treasury, reaching �3.1 billion in 2017-18. Labour will oppose the

move, which they call a tax on strivers because it affects many

people who work and receive benefits. It's not clear whether

the public agree, with one poll today showing a substantial

majority in favour, and the other showing the public more evenly

split. But it's clear it will be one of the big political dividing

With us now is Harriet Baldwin. A Parliamentary Private Secretary in

the Department of Work and Pensions. And Labour's Shadow employment

minister, Stephen Timms. Welcome to you both. The bill's a wording says

it will make provisions relating to the out rating of certain social

security benefits and tax credits. Should it not really be called

George Osborne to welfare trap for the Labour Party? I think that

would be a very good name for it because I want to reassure a lot of

your viewers today, a lot of pensioners watching, that their

pensions next year will go up more than inflation, 2.5%, on top of a

5% increase last year. Also, for those on incapacity benefit, the

employment support allowance, that will also go up by 2.2% in line

with inflation, as well disability living allowances. Out-of-work

benefits will go up by 1%. We don't know if inflation will be 2.2%. It

could be more or less for pensioners. Let me sideline that

for a moment. Are you sure that your benefit measures are really

that popular? There is a poll in the Independent today showing 49%

agree with the CAP and 42% disagree. There's not much of the difference.

I think these are difficult decisions in an environment where

you highlight the fact that people who are in work are seeing their

wages go up at a slower rate than inflation, so what we're trying to

do is think about the fairness in terms of those out of work on

benefit, and those in work who, over the last five years, have seen

their income to rise 10%, whereas those out of work have seen this,

by 20%. We were very generous last time around. Now you are taking it

back. Increasing it at a faster rate. The Chancellor was very

generous to those who get the child tax credit on the lowest incomes,

which went up 11% in his first Budget. We are trying to be really

fair in terms of that relationship between those in work and out of

work. The case is this. We understand a lot of the people on

these welfare benefits are actually working. They are not the figure

behind a curtain, the Chancellor is fond of talking about. 60% are

working. Exactly. If you were in the public sector, your pay goes up

by 1% after having been frozen for a while, but you are working, so

why should those on benefits be getting more than that? We have

supported that 1% cap, but what we have said is it should be done in a

fair way, so those who are the highest paid get less than 1%

increase, those lower get more than 1%. 1% does not affect those on

very low public sector work. That's right. Our concern is that this was

presented as something that only hits people out of work but it

doesn't. The majority are in work. And the terrible thing I think

about this is that, at the moment this is being done, April next year,

the Government will increase, a big tax handout to the very highest

paid, earning more than �150,000 a year. If you earn more than �1

billion, you will get a tax cut next April have over �100,000

course up can I make an important point here because under his

Government, if you are under �6,000 a year, you pay income tax under

Gordon Brown. We have raised that will the we have frozen council tax,

the television licence, and we're trying to control the bills that

families have to pay for from their income. How can they afford these

play-offs at the BBC if you have frozen the licence fees? It's not

fair. -- pay-offs. Let me get back to the serious point. We accept

that a lot of people in work will be limited to the 1% but because of

the rise in the personal allowance, there's now a substantial chunk of

income in the first part of your income, approaching �10,000, is tax

free, and that's a big help to those on the low incomes.

greatly outweighs increase from the increase... They are losing out. By

a large amount. For those on the lowest wages, that's what we're

talking about, starting out in work, trying to move up the working

ladder, where we really want to reward aspiration, taking on

additional work, we want to make sure that those decisions are

rewarded whereas, under the Labour government, effectively you were

taxed at a very low income and then had to wait for Gordon Brown to

give the money back to you. You became more and more dependent on

the state. The net effect on an average family, the which has two

children, about �534 worse off by the combination. A little bit extra

through the increase in a tax allowance, a substantial reduction

in their income through the reduced uprating of working tax credits,

and its people in work affected by this. Does that calculation include

assumptions about indirect taxes? No. Purely the impact of direct.

It's a different matter, so, in the end, you're helping them there,

limiting here, he says the overall impact is some body on average

earnings is substantially worse off. Particularly if they have children.

100 per defy pounds a year for the average person better off and

children -- �125 a year for the better of person. Effectively,

Stephen has voted for someone like myself to keep my child benefit for

I have not seen the Treasury figure in the statement. The Treasury is

saying the average family is 125p better off. Where does it say this?

I'm just wondering. I know where your figure comes from. I got my

figures from the Treasury and I can find out the source for you. It's

such a big difference. philosophical difference, there is

a difference here. We want people who want to move into work, who

aspire to earn more, move up the working ladder, with the universal

credit next year, taking out that 16 hours, where people got trapped,

to really help people move up the innings spectrum whereas the Labour

approach was much more to tax you at a lower level of income, and

give you some of your money back in We have exactly the combination of

policies we had in the 1980s which led to the highest rate of child

poverty in Europe. A cut in the highest rate of income tax and a

restriction on the uprating of benefits for up the highest rate of

tax will be higher than it was under 10 years of Labour. Exactly.

It has come down at a time when the Exchequer is in great difficulty.

Off they has issued a document over how much these tax rates Ghana.

President Hollande. Negative so Lyn Byl -- 7 billion. A negative effect.

We don't know. I predict you again, even at 45p, which is high by

international standards, it will be higher than every year of a Labour

government. We are now in a time of austerity when the Exchequer is

taking money away from that families, mainly low-income

families, this is not a time to be giving money to the highest paid.

You can have the final word on this side. I want to know why Stephen

has objected to me losing my child benefit, why he has objected to a

cap on the overall benefits that equate it with the average working

family in terms of what they can take home. Let me leave these

questions hanging. Ken Baker has been very patient. It is a good

debate. Stephen, you have a real problem in your party. In office

Ulex three things run out of control. Public expenditure in

relation to welfare payments. You've got to get away from a

society that is so dependent on welfare and that is the thrust of

what Iain Duncan Smith is doing. Increasing the level of tax... It

is now �10,000 where you don't pay tax. What you are saying is that if

there was a Labour government, we will not do much about welfare. We

believe welfare should be paid to come what may. It is a critical

test. Her I will give Stephen Timms the final word. The problem the

Conservative Party has is its central economic policy has not

worked. We were told of this policy was implemented we would have

steady growth and falling unemployment, but unemployment is

high and it is projected to go up next year. That is why these cuts

have to be made and working families are paying the price.

have record numbers of work. It is a for! -- a fall. One of the few

success stories in economic policies from this government has

been the fall in unemployment. Much to the surprise of most of the

Economist. The OBR said it would go up to 8.3%. I thought it would be

3% by next December. A very fair point. They should suspend all

economic forecasts. How can you judge how the economy will grow?

You can't! The thank you, Merry Christmas.

We will be talking about this in the new year, that's my prediction!

Speak to employers in manufacturing and engineering firms and they'll

often tell you that young people don't leave school with the skills

needed for the world of work. Well, university technical colleges,

which are popping up around the country, seek to address that.

They're supposed to combine practical learning alongside core

GCSE and A levels and the Government's already pledged to

open at least 24 of them by 2014. They were the brain child of our

very own guest of the day, Lord Baker, but how do they operate? We

sent Susana Mendonsa to take a look at one.

It might look like a factory but this is actually a classroom in a

new university technical college in Birmingham. The people operating

this machine are teenagers. Fees 14 year-olds are lose -- using the

core engineering skills that would only be taught at apprentices

usually. That focus on technical education would better prepare

young people for the world of work. That starts with the hours, 8:30am

to 5:30pm, which 16 year-olds a share and it would have only got

used. They are long. It took me a while to get used to. I could get

used to it and getting used to it is really good because it prepares

you for work. I show letter of school because she thought she

would do better here. Most grammar schools have higher expectations,

everybody is expected to be on the same level. When you come to a

place with different people, you get more of the chance to stand out

for things you are good at so you get her acknowledged more.

another classroom, another technical skill. They are making

prototypes of electronic devices like cameras. This is one of the

new wave of university technical colleges the Government is backing.

UCTs like this one came to-14 to 19 and euros they specialise in things

like engineering. They are also sponsored by the employers or

universities. The principal say they fill a gap. It is important to

have a balance in this country. They are not for everybody. Not

everybody wants to do engineering and science. Where students do one

that focus can that specialisation, UCTs are well placed to provide

excellent. Outside the classrooms that some of the young people are

also been employed as in princesses. Kaka -- apprentices. While we are

here we get the practical side of it. At university, we get Feighery.

It balances. You know what you were doing on the theory side and the

practical side. The managing director support more technical

education, but says UCTs don't get done enough to get young people

into the right mindset. challenge is to make kids are aware

that this is work, you are not going to school any more, it is not

looking up at a teacher and looking at your laptop. It is about work.

Understand what work is all about. Getting out of bed at a reasonable

time, being responsible, bringing something to the job you do.

Producing young people with the skills needed for modern businesses

is one of the aims. Teaching unions have warned that separating

technical dedication from mainstream schools could create a

two level system. -- technical education.

Joining us now is the Shadow Schools Minister, Kevin Brennan,

and Andrew Robinson, who runs an engineering firm near Bedford. Tell

us what your business does. We may control systems for people like

Jaguar Land Rover, British Aerospace. We make their kit work.

We need technically interested children to join us after they've

left school and help our company grow because the skill shortage we

are suffering from his holding our business back. For you, University

technical colleges, I would think, are a great thing? We would hope so.

We are not very aware of them even though we have promoted ourselves

and tried to get involved with many different aspects of what is going

on recently. Engaging with them we find very hard. White was backed I

don't know. One of the problems poor visibility. In preparation for

today I looked up UTC and the first reference was on page 3. What I

thought there was quite surprising. Are you losing business as a result

of the skills shortage? This year alone we've lost over �10 million

worth of business because we haven't got enough qualified,

experienced, engaging, enthusiastic engineers to help us. Her that is a

disaster! At it is awful. That doesn't just apply to our business,

that is throughout... Whether it is customers or my peers, they have a

similar problem. It is a serious charge. By 2020 we will be short

for 1,000 qualified engineers and a million technicians. If we're going

to have nuclear power stations, faster broadband and other things...

In the other thing to do is bringing them in from other

countries. Why can't we grow them here? Because for the last 50 years

we haven't had good technical schools. They were closed because

of snobbery. We made it. Five years ago, we started this concept. They

are 14-18. By then youngsters know what they want to do. At 16, when

you ask them at 16, they are not used to working day. Ours is a

working day. They have to turn up. 4-2 days a week they are doing

practical things with their hands, the other three days they are doing

maths, English and science. Because those are melded the will -- melded

into the specialism, they improve. These are successful and the one

that has been going for two years in Staffordshire, we had 16-year-

old and 18 year-olds this year. Every youngster but that you CT got

a job or an apprenticeship in college or university. Would you

like to see them rolled out in a bigger way? In terms of the model

that has been set up by Ken Baker, these are something the Labour

party would support? Absolutely. Kane came up with the idea five

years ago and we supported the setting up of the first of these

university technical colleges and Ken has got a great body of people

together to work on them. The curriculum it is exactly what

Andrew is talking about. It is getting young people more used to

practical and vocational and technical skills. Still losing all

that business because not enough people are coming through. Indeed.

We've said we absolutely have to focus on this and we didn't do

enough in government to focus on those youngsters who will get a

technical or vocational qualification. What is great about

these is it leaves the route open because they do call education as

well. It doesn't close off any opportunities to them, but it does

give them a kind of experience that will make them ready to work in

industry. The criticism is that they are still not heard -- high-

profile enough or they are not engaging with employers. That may

come in time. Do you accept the charge that successive governments

have been snobs when it comes to these things? We are now paying the

price. For the last 150 years we've been in a mess. There was a report

in 1924. What do we want students to be? Students -- schools must

produce students that are literate, but the duck of the 20 new ones we

are looking at at the moment, they are supported by 250 different

companies. I am going to get Tandy involved in the one near

Bedfordshire. -- Andy. He will get a call from me. There will be

tomorrow. Should be more money and focus be put into these sorts of

colleges so that there isn't a risk of the two A-level system? All of

the praise on the top universities, perhaps that sort of attention

should be making these colleges elite? I think so. There will be a

whole range of different schools out there and you will not be able

to have a UTC rolled out immediately in every part of the

country, but we need to focus on this kind of approach. Why not?

eventually that may be the case. It takes time. We are extremely

supportive of this approach. One of the great things about it is they

have a working day. At the end of the day, the young people have

completed their work in school. need to get the schools to want

their children to leave school and getting to engineering. That is the

problem we have. When children at a younger they are into Lago and

computers, they like creating things, but by the time they leave

school it has gone. He they would all rather do media studies! Do you

think it has been drilled out of them?

I get involved with people on the automotive Council. We have

conversations where we talk about getting the education establishment

to encourage people to do it. People are concentrating on

business. We need to integrate the whole thing together. You'll be

glad to know it there's one in media city dealing with the

technology to make this programme go out. Very positive. Behind you

there has about six or seven Engineers. We have to train more

people and I'm very glad it is part of this. A we need the Government

to focus more on this. On what 300 Just a little smile on the crews's

faces. I've never seen them so happy. It will take us weeks to be

to them back into shape! Anyway, after yesterday's critical reports

into the BBC's handling of the Savile and McAlpine stories on

Newsnight more condemnation of the corporation this morning. The

Public Accounts committee has published a scathing report

criticising the �450,000 pay off for George Entwistle, who was

Director General for just 54 days. It also criticised excessive

severance payments made to ten other senior managers. And to

Caroline Thomson, who stepped down with over �600,000 in her handbag.

A big handbag. A lot of licence fees went into that. Here's

Margaret Hodge, who chairs the committee. I think the BBC

displayed a cavalier attitude to the way it uses tax payers money

through the licence fee. This is our money, and this man had been in

the job for 54 days, and he walked away with �450,000 and a package of

benefits including a year's access to private health care, money for

his lawyers and four p are to deal with all hostility he was facing

from the media. Nobody else would get that. We still don't know what

his pension is, but we have a final salary pay scheme at the BBC, and

if his pension is based on that, that he only learnt before 54 days,

that's not right, and I think the BBC management it doesn't get to

what the public think. That was Margaret Hodge. Let me welcome

viewers from Scotland to join us from first Minister's questions.

You are now with the Daily Politics, discussing the BBC after the news

which came out yesterday. We heard from Margaret Hodge, the head of

the Public Accounts Committee who has attacked the number of pay-offs

and the size of them that the BBC and the trust have been making.

We're joined now by the Chairman of the Culture Media and Sport

Committee, John Whittingdale. And Ken Baker is still with us, who

takes a big interest in this, as a former Home Secretary would. What

do you make of the Public Accounts Committee report? I entirely agree

with it. My committee expressed concern about the size of the pay-

off to George Entwistle, and Chris Patten and it indeed the came

before us and I think they are right to highlight, not just the

single payment to George Entwhistle but it appears to have been a

culture, whenever anybody left the BBC, they went with a huge amount

of cash but this is a time when resources are under pressure and

they are having to make cuts to things like BBC local radio. It all

in these easy to spend other people's money, the licence fee

money. What do you say in response to the chairman of the BBC trust,

Chris Patten, who was on the radio this morning saying, well, if they

had fired him, George Entwhistle, he could have gone for constructive

dismissal and it would have cost the BBC a lot more. Firstly, it

raises questions over the contracts at the BBC. They need to look at

that in future but, I think Chris Patten made similar remarks before

my committee that this was the legal advice, but they should have

challenged that because the public expectation was some body who

failed in his job should not be able to walk away with that kind of

money. And Caroline Thompson? that case, she left with even more

money. We are told her position was got rid of and her duties were

taken on by the chief financial officer. Again, it's an

extraordinary amount of money for somebody to go away with for the

the BBC are claiming poverty are the moment. Don't we know it. Did

you see us at the party conferences? No, exactly. I expect

you would not have been paid as much as Caroline Thompson. There is

a difficulty here. For the sake of this discussion, most licence pay

users will side with you and there will be fury about this. There is a

problem, though, which is what can you do about it because at the

moment, the moment Parliament tries to do anything about it, you are

interfering in the independence of the BBC. It's up to the BBC to

tackle this problem which was highlighted again by Nick Pollard

in his report revealing things which were not a great surprise.

There's too many people, it's not clear what they are actually doing,

and there needs to be a much clearer line of responsibility and

fewer tears of management. The new manager will have to get on with

that quickly. This also the structure and whether that's it for

parliament and whether the trust is working as it should. The BBC trust

was a construct created for Michael Grade of. He then decided to go to

ITV instead and left us with this strange hybrid organisation. The

BBC having its own board with non- execs author and the BBC trust on

top of that. We will enter another round of charter renewal, I suspect.

What should be done? Actually, I was the opposition spokesman at the

time and was critical of the formation of the BBC trust because

it's trying to do two conflicting roles, regulating and championing.

What I think should happen, the BBC should be externally regulated like

the other broadcasters, Ofcom, and there should be clipped corporate

structure were the chairmen, chief executive, and non-executive

directors like Channel 4 and others. The trust would go. You have been

round this course many times. agree with what he has been saying.

His committee has become very influential. One of the great hopes

for the BBC, Tony Hall, the new director-general. I was responsible

for the BBC and he was in charge of the news for that I think he

handled it very well indeed. The Conservative Party other day was

absolutely loathed, even more than today. And he handled it very well

indeed and he will be a big plus. When it comes to the management of

the BBC, I would introduce that no one should have more than six

months notice of a contract for the immediately, limit the chances are

big payouts for that there should be no payments like those ones for

public relations. It's quite remarkable. When somebody leaves,

it I was in business, you try to make it easy for them, you say you

want a happy lever, so you become generous with other people's money

and that's not fair in these cases. I think the Pollard report was

accurate and the fact nobody has been sacked at the BBC, you are a

member of a cosy club. The BBC is a cosy club. I haven't got a pension.

You might be different. There will be no pay-off when I go. Excellent.

That's an example which should be followed. It will be zero. That's

very good. Why doesn't has become the standard for everybody? Apart

from the two BBC managers which were told they were incompetent,

they were not sacked, but given other jobs, presumably on existing

salaries and those jobs have not been specified at the BBC. They

have no respect for authority. Everybody will know does two are

clean to their jobs by their fingernails. Their authority and

respect will go. I agree and that's something I raised and I'm told by

the BBC disciplinary measures have been taken against a number of

individuals. Who? They haven't stated but I'm sure we can make a

fair guess. They haven't been able to say it publicly. But I hope

further assurance of that kind will be given because the public will

expect measures to be taken a gives people who have failed. More BBC

execs come before your committee in the new year, do you think? It I

think we will want to look at the way in which the BBC runs.

consider the way changes should be made. We've got a lot on it would

be Leverson Inquiry as well. It's a busy time for my committee. It's

something we will want to look at. It's still a great institution, in

spite of all these difficulties. What we are going through his

management who could not deliver the high profile case and they

panicked. They could not deal with it themselves and there was bad

management course of it's still one the greatest broadcasters in the

world. That's a good note to end on. Let's quit while we are ahead.

Merry Christmas to you. Now, how would you like a day named after

you? Yes, hold your horses! Our guest of the day's managed it.

Baker Days. That's a day off school for the kids. A childcare headache

for parents and the teachers? Well, they are working hard brushing up

on their teaching skills of course. Lord Baker's time as education

secretary was also, of course, marked by teachers' strikes. Here's

How does Kenneth Baker a boy had a dilemma that impelled his

predecessor? -- avoid the dilemma that impaled his predecessor? Today

was designed as a show of strength as one union leader put it, a

demonstration that the teachers were prepared to put their money

Appropriately, the first of Mrs Thatcher's Cabinet onto the streets

this election was the Education Secretary. His critics were waiting.

There is a great deal of support And we're joined now by Kevin

Courtney of the National Union of Teachers. Just before I come to you,

Kenneth Baker, Michael Gove has written to every head teacher it

demented take robust action against teachers involved in industrial

action and dock their pay. Do you agree with that? I believe teachers

should strike. The strike in 1986 had been going on for 18 months. No

one could settle it. It was my first priority. I settled it by

doing something quite dramatic. I took away, by law, all knitters

fishing rights from teachers' unions and introduced a committee

which would determine teachers' pay which did a much better deal.

review body. It was much better than its predecessor, a much better

deal for teachers, who came out of negotiating procedures. That's a

different approach Michael Gove is perceiving. Do you think his

approach will work? I think he selling to a conflict with the

unions over this but is taking a very tough line and I support him.

What do you say to that? We are not striking at the moment, but it's

not disrupting any education. It's improving education Bilal and

teachers to focus on teaching and learning instead a bureaucratic

nonsense. You operating a work to rule, aren't you? We don't call it

that. For example, we are not saying don't to a football club on

a Saturday, music after school, we're not saying those things. What

we are saying is, in system of professional standing. If your head

teacher says to you says you have to hand in a week's planning on a

Sunday afternoon when you know it's not the right way to plan the

lessons, don't do it. The how does this end? We look at the way

Michael Gove is dealing with it and he has made this threat, if you

like, and you are responding in the way you have just outlined. You

can't go on like that indefinitely? In many schools, you can't see it

happening because head teachers are happy with it. In many schools, you

can't see it but we think Michael Gove wants to excavate the so, in

the Sunday Times last week, he said is on a war footing, with teaching

unions. We think it's with teachers in practice, and he wants to tear

up the entire pay framework created through Lord Baker's dealings. He

wants to have paid determined at the level of the school for that we

think it's a huge craziness. Why? In every one of those 26,000

schools, head teachers, governors and teachers are thinking about

paying teachers instead of think about learning and teaching.

There's a central issue here whether there should be national

pay bargaining in the whole of the country or regional pay. I have

come to believe regional pay would be reasonable. In the private

sector there is certainly regional pay, no doubt about that. People in

the north-east and north-west get low wages than in the south and

south-east, which is a cauldron of activity. Deprived areas getting

low wages, a race to the bottom? that is the line-up Michael Gove is

moving towards full that what do you think of the idea schools will

themselves, within pay banding, negotiate and dictate teachers pay?

One of the most significant changes I made was to give to school

control of their budgets, delegating budgets, and some people

tell be they would not be able to control them. They controlled them

perfectly well. They should be able to determine their pay as well.

What's wrong with that in individual schools? I take your

point they could be too much focus on deciding teachers' pay but head

teachers could conclude that they know their staff, they know who is

stronger, and who is less able to deal with a heavy workload and pay

We don't want the focus for head teachers to be on that. Think about

it from the point of view of one of the teachers. The responses we are

getting at NUT headquarters is a real hostility for this for several

reasons. How will you know whether your head teacher's decision is

based on your competence or on the school's financial position? If it

is because of the school's financial position, if your face

doesn't fit, where do you were Peel? If you're in a big

Association, you can appeal over the head teacher's head. There is

no independent appeal body. There is some evidence that black

teachers find it harder to cross the performance threshold. We think

there is already evidence of headteachers making wrong decisions

and has no appeal mechanism. We are taking away a teacher's career

structure. At the moment you move up based on part on years of

service and on the head teacher's assessment, but with these

proposals you lose any security you have any move to another school.

Our members don't like that. Let's go back to the approach. You talked

about how you dealt with that strike. His Michael Gove's approach

working? Talking about a war footing. Is that going to resolve

it? What I was surprised to hear from the union was that the action

taken in schools doesn't seem to be visible anywhere. Members are

taking action, but it is not affecting Saturday football and the

other things. Why are you doing it then? It is having no effect on

education so what are you doing it for? I don't understand that.

didn't answer my question about Michael Gove's approach. But we

have to finish there. He played for time!

Could a gas rig be coming to a field near you? Last week, the

Government gave the go-ahead to the controversial technique of

extracting gas from rock known as fracking. It was halted after earth

tremors near Blackpool were blamed on drilling in the area.

Communities affected have been campaigning against any further

drilling, but what if there were financial incentives for local

people to support fracking? That was an idea taken up by Lancaster

and Fleetwood MP, Eric Ollerenshaw, in a Westminster Hall debate

yesterday. He will join us in a moment, but

first let speak to Helen Rimsha of Friends of the Earth. Are there any

conditions under which you would support fracking? No. Looking at

the community benefits is the wrong place. We need to look at this in

the wider context in the future of the energy policy. We need to move

away from fossil fuels. We need to reduce reliance on glass -- gas and

move towards renewable energy. There are potential impacts for the

environment in Lancashire. There are risks of water and air

pollution and this region of Lancashire has important... We are

taking a huge risk. We will be dependent on gas for quite some

time. It is becoming -- it is coming from Norway and other areas.

Given that we are going to use gas for the foreseeable future, it

would be sensible to have some home-grown gas. Another thing the

Committee on Climate Change said last week is that a UK share of gas

will have no big impact, it will not be a game changed on energy

prices. We have rising energy prices because the price of global

gases going up. We need to reduce the reliance on gas and develop

clean energy sources. That would not only cut carbon emissions, but

create thousands of new jobs, particularly in places like

Lancashire. 9,000 people are already employed in the renewable

energy sector. What do you say? agree with the date -- great deal

of what she says. We are long way off this. We're just resuming one

Test site. If it is going to happen, Lancashire need to pay back. Surely

Lancashire would get a payback. You would be the crucible of the

activity. We are just very generous people in Lancashire! But we are

not Texas. In Lancashire at the moment before these wells go ahead,

the company will get the profits and if Starbucks don't do the

drilling, the Chancellor will get his taxation. The mineral rights

belong to the Duchy so we will get precious little. Have you been to

Aberdeen? Yes. Have you seen what Coyle has done for Aberdeen? Why

can't it do the same for Blackpool? That is drilling under the sea and

coming in. In Lancashire, you are talking about 800 wells across

rural Lancashire. Why don't you go along with her? Why bother if you

are so miserable. We are not miserable people, but we are trying

to put a marker in the shale about what should happen if this proves

to be the bonanza the national press claim it might be.

national press know very little about it. I was brought up in

Lancashire. You can tell that from my accent! They are canny people. I

am strongly in favour of a fracking, it will transform the British

economy. To turn your back on fracking means that you might as

well... It is samba -- as important as North Sea oil. America but --

America will be self-sufficient with energy into of three years.

The industries in America which had become uncompetitive are being re

created. We have a huge opportunity. Although Greenpeace are full of

nice people, if you had been around in the 18th century, you would have

said don't dig coal mines. You have to recognise that this is

transformation of. On your question of whether Lancashire should get a

benefit, with nuclear power stations the villages around it got

free energy. In the United States, shale Gas has cut the price of gas

by a third. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs created as new

industries relocate back to America. They call it a homecoming in the US.

You are Friends of the Earth... Ken Baker caught you Greenpeace! I do

apologise. Why should Britain lose out on this if that is the

prospect? A lot of energy analysts agree it is a different scenario in

the UK. It will be more expensive and more difficult to extract. It

is a different environment, it is more densely populated. We don't

need to extract this resource, it is not worth the risk. You would be

against it anyway. You are against fracking in the US. Her absolutely

because of the climate change impact. It is quite amazing that

the Secretary of State gave the go- ahead to fracking without even

having conducting the environmental assessment. How come, even though

the US economy has been growing, unlike the European economies, how

come US carbon emissions are down substantially since they moved to

shale gas? Europe, which hasn't been growing, his way over its

carbon targets. We still need to move away from fossil fuels. That

is the answer to my question. are many reasons why the US

economy... It is a lesser carbon fuel than coal. Unconventional Gas

has a higher carbon impact than conventional gas. We can't afford

to extract this gas. It is clear from the science that we can't

afford to burn this gas and we don't need to. We have fast

renewable resources. We could meet our electricity needs by six times

over with windfarms. P it was under question I asked. We will leave it

there. Has the postman been yet? Because

it's that time of year when the post can bring you something a

little more welcome than the usual bills and junk mail. Here in

Westminster, ears are straining to hear the thud of Christmas cards on

the mat in the hope that there will be a card from Dave or Ed or even

Nick. In a moment, we'll be discussing what it all means with

political commentator Simon Hoggart. But first, here's a selection of

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 49 seconds

Don't know how that last picture got in there. I'm not sure I like

myself with a beard. It is like an estate agent's Christmas night out!

That is a complement! We're joined now by Simon Hoggart from the

Guardian. Have you had yours from Dave, Ed and Nick? I must have

dropped off the list. That is terrible. An amazing one from Keith

Vaz. A cartoon that shows Keith in the middle of the Olympics Opening

Ceremony with the cream parachuting down -- at the Queen. Are they the

bane of a politician's life, having to sign all of those cards? It is a

way to keep in touch with your constituents. Be it has now become

very expensive to do. It is 50p per card. Not if you e-mail it.

they are not really. They are boring. E-mailed Christmas cards

are not the same. They don't have the same glow about them. Do they

filly with joy? Politicians always do things for reason and on their

Christmas cards, what of the messages? It is all on the cover.

Let's have a look at David Cameron's Christmas card. That has

got a lot of messages. You've got Kate Nisbet, a military hero and an

Olympic torch carrier. You've got Dave and Sam. They have not brought

their children out this time. have before. Tony Blair always used

to bring out his children. Gordon Brown never did. The message is the

Olympics, our brave or roads -- heroes and summer. Let's have a

look at Ed Miliband's. Him with his family. A slightly different

message. That's as I'm a human being -- and that says. What is

puzzling is his wife, a highly intelligent woman, they've chosen a

picture which makes her look like the joker in Batman. Sign an! --

Simon. Do you think it is unwise to put your family on? I think so.

Christmas is a Christian festival. This has become common fodder for

politicians, they send out hundreds of them. Show us your card. This is

a cartoonist. He low Ruth Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair even more.

-- Pirlo moved Margaret Thatcher. At Cap we have run out of time. I

will be back with this week at 11:50pm tonight. Our I will be

joined by Michael Portillo, Alan Johnson, Sir Ming Campbell, Mary

Ann Sieghart, Nick Watt, Kevin Maguire, Quentin Letts, John