11/06/2013 Daily Politics

Daily Politics. The government says 16-year-olds should be sitting

tougher GCSEs with less coursework and more end-of-year exams. So, is

it back to the old O-levels? Should women inherit peerages even

if they have older brothers? We'll meet the Conservative MP who thinks

they should. Ann Widdecombe will be with us,

looking back at her time in politics and on Strictly Come Dancing, as she

publishes the book of her life. And, House of Cards gets the

American treatment with Kevin Spacey.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

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

Lord Dobbs, the Conservative peer and the best-selling author of House

of Cards. So, lots to look forward to. But first, Michael Dobbs, what

do you make of the modern Tory Party?

I am rather excited by it. They are going through a wonderful period.

Those of us who can remember what mid-term is always like. We have

lots of new ideas coming out, we will be discussing education today.

Some serious issues, like Syria, one issue I get hot under the collar

about. An economy which appears to be turning possibly.

Do not mention those green shoots. And the opposition in government...

Did you have reservations at the beginning? Were you always a fan of

David Cameron? I have always been a fan,

personally. He once taught me how to use my credit card to scrape the ice

from my windscreen. What about as leader of the party and Prime

Minister? Look at the polls, he is still the

most popular of the leaders. I remember, in the mid-19 80s. 356

economists wrote to the Times, saying, Maggie Thatcher hasn't the

slightest idea to run the economy. She got it right, they got it

wrong. Leaders always come under pressure.

Is he Thatcherite enough for you? I would like him to be leader of a

Conservative government which he does not have the ability to do at

the moment. I am plugging for a majority conservatives in the next

government. What is your sense of the new intake

of backbenchers and their relationship with him?

It is quite fraught at times. On the other hand, everybody says that the

new intake of backbenchers particularly the Conservatives, one

of the best intakes of a generation. There is a lots of talent bubbling

away wanting to get out. It causes problems for him. He is facing a

reshuffle. How can he disappointed even more people? That is the stuff

of leadership, the job he has to What should he do about the rise of

UKIP? He should get on with the policy he

set out, renegotiating that European deal, and fundamentally. I am

sceptical about Europe. It is right he should give it the best possible

shot of renegotiating that usually important deal. You don't think it

is a lost cause? Absolutely not, it would undermine UKIP just like that.

Now it's time for our daily quiz. Who has Communities Secretary Eric

Pickles said that we mustn't upset? Is it: a) Liberal Democrats.

B) Dustmen. C) Germans.

Or d) Hedgehogs? At the end of the show, Michael will

It's being dubbed the biggest exam shake-up in a generation, with

Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, calling today for

something more rigorous than the current system of GCSEs. There is a

statement to the House of Commons in a few moments' time. But what

changes are expected to take place, and how will the exam change

practically? We know that the Department for Education will be

consulting with Ofqual on a new grading system. The current A* to G

system could be replaced with a mark between one to eight. Eight being

the highest. Coursework will be largely abolished in favour of

end-of-year exams. In English, pupils will be expected

to read whole plays and not just sections of them.

English will also see more poetry and the 19th century novel.

Mathematics will see tougher algebra and more statistics.

While foreign languages will require a better understanding of grammar

and translations. The first course is expected to

start in September 2015, with the first exams to be sat in 2017.

And, despite previous talk of it being called an I-level, the new

exam will still be called the GCSE. This was the Education Minister Liz

Truss earlier today. What we are doing in the new GCSE is

we want more long questions, more opportunity for students to think,

more key numeracy and literacy skills so pupils are better prepared

for the world of work. With us now is the former Schools

Minister Nick Gibb. Labour's Shadow Schools Minister Kevin Brennan. And

the General Secretary of the NUT, Christine Blower.

Welcome to all of you. Nick Gibb, these sound like the O-levels I did.

There is a similarity but this is an all ability exam. What they are

designed to do, these reforms, is to equip school leavers with the

ability to face the global job market in the future, with young

people from very high performing countries like Finland, parts of

China. If we want to equip our young people they need to be able to write

essays, to apply their mathematical knowledge in an unpredictable way.

And also to become fluent in mathematics. That is what these new

exams are designed to achieve. And none of that was being tested or

taught? They were piecemeal, bite sized

exams. There was a culture of resits where people were entered for exam

exam. Between the age of 15-17, we were the most examined nation in the

world because of this culture. And controlled assessment absorbed

teaching time in schools but not delivering actual education.

One of the biggest criticisms is having an end of year exam was a

linear way of testing the achievement and performance of

pupils, hence the introduction of coursework. All that seems to happen

is a hamster wheel of changes in education where one system is

replaced by another, then it reverts to the original system.

There is an ideological debate in education. Over two decades, this

country has drifted down international league tables. This is

a way of testing what children have learned. Children are used to taking

exams at the end of the first three years so they shouldn't be under

more stress if they have practised them by the time they come to year

Do you accept the claim that the system and the performance of the

country has drifted as a result of GCSEs based on coursework weather

wasn't enough rigour, according to Nick Gibb?

It is clear in recent years we have not improved our performance,

according to OECD figures. The government has been criticised

heavily of misinterpreting those statistics. This is Michael Gove

with his fourth we sit at the exam question! First he wanted O-levels

to come back, then we had about I levels. Now, we have what seem

perhaps like O-levels but somehow for everybody. What is wrong with

this reform is, instead of making a reasonable reform, there is a good

case for reforms of GCSE. Because of the ideological battle which Nick

admitted, rather than evidence -based changes, they have swept a

lot of good things like coursework in some subjects which can be

valuable. It is wrong to assess people solely on what they do in a

two and a half hour exam at the end of two years. If there is a fault in

assessment, let us not sweep it away for ideological reasons.

Quoting one commentator, some countries are storming ahead. We are

in a global race. We have fallen dramatically down the league tables.

What is your view to these reforms from the teaching perspective? Is it

something which will be welcomed if there is more rigour as the

Conservatives are claiming? If, what has been child is what will be

announced today, it won't generally be welcomed. What we mustn't do

today is undermined and demean the things which young people hitherto

have achieved. They have been working very hard these GCSEs and

just because more people were able to pass them does not mean they were

being dumbed down. Teachers are working hard, young people are

working hard. To sweep away all coursework on the basis, yes, there

was a problem last year, but the Welsh government took the sensible

decision they would regrade children so they actually got what they

really deserved. In this country, we did not do that. Let us come back to

the point teachers and pupils working very hard, do you challenge

the assertion GCSEs have become too easy? With coursework, it was too

piecemeal, somehow there wasn't a system recognised internationally or

by businesses that our children in England weren't doing tough enough

work in exams? I do challenge that. Also because of the work being done

in Canada which has successful provinces. With so many students

doing remarkably well over a period of years. Teachers got very good at

teaching GCSEs. There is a discussion to be had about the

balance between coursework and final exams. I am not saying there should

never be a review of exams. The fact we are sweeping that away, we only

have a final exam for every subject doesn't seem to treat this with the

seriousness it deserves. Actually, we need to look at what is in the

syllabus and how best to examine These changes would be coming in, in

England. One of the points raised by the Education Select Committee is

the worry, fear and regrets about having three different systems for

England, Northern Ireland and Wales, how can that be a good thing? It is

a consequence of devolution. It is a bad thing if Wales does not accept

it means to do something about GCSEs. It is falling down the league

tables even faster than this country. Michael Gove has given up

too easily on having an exam in England, Wales and Northern Ireland,

to be sat by all. Just because there is some disagreement, he says, I am

cutting away from the rest of the UK. Extremely petulant and a

divisive thing to do. Why not seriously have discussions about how

best to keep a GCSE across the country 's even if Wales wants to

keep it more modular than England. Is it a good thing to sweep away

everything that has gone before, in terms of GCSEs and coursework? For a

single exam which would fit in with other parts of the United Kingdom?

My son last year had to go through and enjoy the GCSE fiasco. I do not

get the complacency. He had a lot of coursework which was entirely

unnecessary. I do get a problem, I do have a problem with all of these

systems being run for the teachers, the ministers to be able to say,

look how we are going up the league table, which is what Labour did a

year after year, promising education, education, education. It

did not deliver. We needed a new way to look at things. I, as a parent,

find it very difficult when I see teaching trade unions whose slogans

are, putting teachers first. As a parent... That is not a slogan of

our union. Teachers should be putting pupils first, not

themselves. Teachers should be putting education first so we have a

service working very well come to make sure what we have is educated

citizens who come through the service and who have something

worthwhile. The issue is not what is best teachers but what is best for

the education service. To simply say a linear exam at the end of two

years is best for everyone in all circumstances is not answer. What is

best for pupils. Is a single exam the best way? I think they will be

making progress. I despair of teachers because politicians have

changed the system time after time. Not all parents with a Greek

sweeping away coursework is a good thing. Many parents will be

concerned their children will only be tested on how they perform after

two years without there being any leeway for the work they have done.

A Labour government, would it reversed these changes? We haven't

had a good look at the AF changes. On GCSEs, we will have to look. We

don't want to reverse things. This is a consultation. We will look

carefully at the detail. It has been There is disagreement in the best

way to test people's. You are talking about competition on a

global stage. Are you obsessed with international league tables? It may

not be preparing pupils for the job market. Will doing more poetry and

having an exam - will it help young people get better jobs at the end

of it? The CBI says 42% of its membership are concerned about the

skills of school leavers and graduates coming into firms. It is

about improving essay writing skills and making sure young people

can understand how the mass applies to problems. At the moment, with

GCSE maths, it is very clear which formula to apply. We want there to

be a problem where they have to work out which maths applies to it.

It will equip young people very well for the international jobs

market. Combine that the changes we are making to be competing exam,

Syrian people will learn about programming and not simply using a

spreadsheet. Some of that I am very happy to support. We will support

the IT changes. In fact, the CBI this morning has said these changes

will not do what it was said they would do. What they have suggested

is we need to look much more about what the role of high-stakes exams

at 16 is in a world where the participation what everyone that

has been raised to 18. It is no longer a school leaving point. The

need to reach a consensus about the best way forward and pilot it

properly. No exam form ever works unless you try it out first.

will the teachers cope with the changes? Is it enough time? Is it

practical to change the system that automatically? There is a great

deal of change being proposed in that time frame and nothing in the

way of a pilot. Talking Rugby increasing participation and age,

that is very significant. -- talking about the increasing

participation age. Which will one young people to remain in education

for longer than 16. -- we all want. We did think there is a problem

with this. We agreed that any government should consult with the

profession and look at having the very best exam system we can have.

We do not believe that what is likely to come out today is tending

in that direction. Now, a new book, The Body Economic: Why Austerity

Kills, argues that across the world there is clear evidence austerity

measures introduced in response to the financial crisis have harmed

our physical and mental health. According to research by the book's

authors, David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu, there was an increase of

4,750 suicides above the statistical trend during the

recession in America, and around 1,000 extra suicides in the UK in

And for each suicide case, there are an estimated ten attempts and

up to 1,000 extra cases of depression. The authors argue that

the effect of austerity measures in the UK since 2010 is evident in

homelessness rates. They say 10,000 families have been made homeless.

But the most extreme examples they give concern Greece. They argue

cuts in HIV-prevention budgets have coincided with a 200% increase in

the virus in Greece, driven by a sharp rise in intravenous drug use

by unemployed young people. The authors contrast Greece with

Iceland, which saw a collapse of its banking system but protected

social spending. And they say that not only are anti-austerity

measures good for the health of a nation, but actually good for its

economy, pointing to Iceland's growth of 3% in 2012 compared to

0.2% in UK. I'm now joined by one of the authors of The Body Economic,

David Stuckler, and the Director General of the Institute of

Economic Affairs, Mark Littlewood. Where does the UK fit into the

crease, Iceland spectrum? We have been looking at how economic

hardship and unemployment and poverty come decked, poses risks to

health. When politicians respond with deep cuts, that can be turned

into epidemics. Receipt early- warning signs come such as a rise

in suicides. -- receipt early warning signs, such as a rise in

suicides. Is it your contention that austerity measures undertaken

by the coalition government have actually killed people? What we are

seeing in cases such as Greece, effective prevention programmes

have been slashed and leading to a return of malaria has prevention

programmes were cut and HIV programmes slashed? In the UK, we

have seen cases where there has been an increase in homelessness

rates, coinciding with cuts to social housing budgets. We have

heard recently that has caught some people to end their lives rather

than leave homes they have been living in for 20 years. It is eight

too high a price to pay for individual well-being. I'm sure he

is right. If we could find a mechanism where we could ever live

beyond our means, we would be happier and healthier. We could

build many more hospitals, if we were willing to add even more to

the budget deficit of �123 billion a year. It is very difficult to say

whether austerity works. In United Kingdom, it has not been tried. We

are adding �600 billion to the national debt to the cause of this

Parliament. �10,000 for every man, woman and child will be spent by

George Osborne. Where we have seen what is sometimes described as

austerity, it is in fact fairly substantial spending and it has

been pitiful. Growth has been flatlining. Spending vast sums of

money we do not have does not seem to be doing the trick. What you say

to that? It is crystal clear that the punches with the deepest cuts -

- be can choose with the deepest cuts, have had the best recovery.

The UK economy has flat lined. has been very similar in the UK and

the US. What you mean by posterity? Are you talking about cutting

government spending? -- what do you Mistakes were made in the lead-up

to the crisis. You must save him the good times and spend in the bad.

One example comes from collective history. In the post war period,

the Government founded the welfare state. It did not break the bank.

The debt fell by half. Virtually every Western country has suffered

because of the financial crash. There are enormous differences

between the position we found ourselves in after World War II.

Getting itself heavily in debt to defeat not season seems a price

worth paying and it was sensible to do. -- Naziism. In Iceland, the

banking crisis was a huge one-off job. Underlying Iceland was a

stable situation. Underline Greece was a nightmare. A wise man once

said, when the tide goes out, you see who is women with no clothes on.

The Greeks had no clothes on and the Icelandic were not. There is no

comparison between Greece and Iceland. Iceland has its own

currency and Greece does not. Greece were denied the tools it

needed. Do you accept that the arguments over whether austerity is

the right policy to pursue - do you accept that cuts in public spending

to result in reducing the well- being of the country's individuals?

In Greece, where there have been extreme cuts, it has resulted in an

increase in suicides and depression and this has happened albeit to a

lesser extent. It depends what companies the Kurds. I am in favour

of the government taxing a lot less. -- the Kurds. We must not spend

more year on year than we bringing in tax receipts. That is dangerous

and immoral. We are spending on ourselves today, our health care

and social security costs and sending the bill to our

grandchildren to pick up. Doesn't that Ben result in a situation you

are describing - economic collapse? -- the end result. It is about

illogical argument and sound data. -- ideological argument. The fiscal

multiply, the effect on government spending on health is changing. We

have one of the biggest Malta pliers. -- multipliers. If it were

the drugs trial, it would have been discontinued. Now with the

epidemics in Greece, it will cost more. I hear what you're saying

about Greece but I think you are confusing the difference between a

bit of surgery, which is often necessary, and total amputation.

Total amputation is life-changing. You think it has been wrong in

Greece. It has been a nightmare. Almost criminal. The UK has a

political choice in how to respond. Posterity has not stimulated

recovery. It is causing harm. -- austerity has not stimulated

recovery. A generation has been left behind. About the cats being

in the wrong place, what about the amount the work and pentathlons --

work and pensions paid? With the cats, the deficits continued to

They are trying to stamp out fraud. We are looking at about 1% per

annum. George Osborne thinks we should spend �600 billion of money

we do not have over the course of this Parliament. Do you think

things will get better if we spend 700, �800 billion that we do not

have? I do not understand where the limits on that come from. It all

sounds a bit Downton Abbey. But a real political battle is starting

up over whether aristocratic daughters should have the same

rights as sons when it comes to inheriting the estate. Mary Macleod

worked for the Queen before becoming a Conservative MP. She's

calling for a new law to scrap rules which state that younger

brothers are given automatic preference over older sisters. In a

moment, we'll talk to Mary. But, Viewers of Downton Abbey may

remember the story of the Earl of Grantham who cannot leave his

estate and title to his eldest daughter. Some may think it is

depicting a quaint and historic era but that is still the situation

today. The time is right to do something about it. Currently, in

most hereditary peerages, there is no preference cognitive

primogeniture. That means the first born son will inherit the title and

the state. Give them are no more sons, the title could go to someone

who does not even live in Great Britain. The aristocracy is now

well behind the monarchy on this issue. The Queen was able to

inherit the throne in the absence of a brother. If the Duke and

Duchess of Cambridge have a bail, she will be able to be Queen

evening she has a younger brother. integral role in our country and we

want everyone to fulfil their potential.

That beautiful building was the National Trust's Ham House, in

Surrey. Mary Macleod is with us now. And with her is Charles Mosley, the

former editor-in-chief of Burke's Peerage. What you make of that

suggestion? It is bogus league egalitarian,

trying to slot an interest group, the females, into a privilege which

is currently the privilege of another interest group, the males.

There is nothing wrong with that provided you say that is what it is.

Are you being dishonest, Mary Macleod? That is the most outrageous

thing I have heard. We make up half the population and it seems

ridiculous in the 21st-century we do not value women as much as we do

men. Don't you value women as much as men? I have been married twice,

if that isn't an example. We will let that be a measure for you.

the aristocracy, daughters of the nobility get better treatment

whereas the younger sons do not. you saying this bill does not cover

enough of the complexity of what happens in terms of aristocracy and

titles. Excellently put, it doesn't cover the issue of baronet who

outnumber the peers. Surely this suggestion is a good start. If she

wants to make women, give them a leg up in terms of title, she should go

for the bigger group of baronet. would be happy to include the

baronet within that as well. This is not a leg up but fairness and

equality. I feel, nowadays, when you have more than 50% of girls

graduating from university, and doing better at schools, let us have

equality, saying it is the first born who inherited it is. Society

has moved on. If the monarchy can do it, the Queen is way ahead by

allowing the Crown succession bill to go through. It is out of touch

discrimination and you are backing it. My objection is the poor old

younger sons and daughters get the short end of the stick, age

discrimination is just as wicked. But surely you are using that as an

excuse to mask what is an equal and unfair. Life is unequal and unfair.

Ladies should angle also for peerages then. Michael Dobson?

conservative, did I mention that? You are welcome to mention it again.

At the heart of that is not equality, equal opportunity, you

cannot discriminate against people. If you have a hereditary system, I

think it is impossible nowadays to justify it, to have only one sex and

not the other. There are real practical problems. If you have

brought up your family, your daughters and sons, to say when I

die, this is how it is going to be, the life they have become accustomed

to come it is difficult to change it. There are practical problems. In

principle it must surely change in the 21st-century. This affects only

if you people but symbolically it is something we need to address. It is

saying nowadays we should have men and women with equal opportunity to

succeed, and at work. Or abolish hereditary peers, all of them.

peerages to the whole population. Make every female a duchess, every

mail a duke. You are using the Gallup Terry and argument in a bogus

way to try to prevent something which appears to be fairly natural

and inoffensive. Equality is the most pernicious inheritors of the

French Revolution. In practice, it inhibits freedom and the liberty

which is its brother. We are talking equal opportunity rather than

equality. Where do you start your opportunity? Whether you are black,

white, gay or straight, a man or a woman. That is where you start, at

birth. What about the practical difficulties raised by Michael

Dobson, being raised to expect a title, then all of that is taken

away with you -- from you. There are ways to open the bill to make it

voluntary for this generation. Then it would change for the next

generation. To make it easier in transition. You will find the

majority of peers will support this, they feel it is time for

change and we should not discriminate. It is not just titles,

but complex property laws. There is an expectation as you said if you

have been brought up to inherit an estate and it is taken away.

Wouldn't that every -- wouldn't that happen every time you make a new

law. The principle has to be clear. Whether we get there right now or

whether we phase it in is an issue we should discuss. If the bill going

to get anywhere? Private members bills don't often get anywhere. But

actually not. It is something we can fight for behind the scenes. It is

something I feel personally about strongly. It is something I can try

to persuade as many people as possible to support. But not you?

Not me. I can give you technical advice but purely on a business

basis. She has been a government minister,

a novelist, and a celebrity ballroom dancer. She has tangled with Michael

Howard, and tangoed with Craig Revel Horwood. The Daily Telegraph's

expenses investigators described her as a "saint" among members. But that

didn't stop her starring with the baddies in an episode of Doctor Who.

I wonder what Ann Widdecombe found to write about in her new book? In a

moment, we'll ask her. But, first, What does something of the night

mean? I don't think I will elaborate on that.

He has formally proposed a policeman should approach a junk and blog and

demand a �100 fine. Correction-macro published the story of her life:

Strictly Ann. The book starts with your early life

in Singapore. Very sheltered, no TV, no sex education, nobody got

divorced. How much of your later political beliefs were forged in

those early years? I think very few people find their

political beliefs based on their life experience. The reason I chose

conservatism over socialism was precisely because I believed in the

individual over the state. And I hated what in those days wasn't some

muddle about the tone -- centre ground, it was out and out

socialism. You never dabbled in any ideas of socialism? I was never

attracted by it, I always believed in the individual right to grow.

What about religion in terms of affecting your political life, it is

a huge part of the book. The parable of the good Samaritan, he was a

businessman, a successful guy. He put it at the disposal of the man

who needed it. You complain about the lack of Scripture in schools,

you oppose women priests. How did it affect your political career, in

terms of the ministerial jobs you did and didn't get? I was pensions

minister and prisons minister, highly complex posts. I can't say

that influenced any of them. Would becoming Health Secretary have been

difficult? I could not have taken on the role of licensing abortion

clinics, so I would have had a difficulty with that.

You wanted to be a politician all your adult life. That is right, I

developed political ambitions very early, but did not get into

parliament until I was 39. What did you do before? I began by marketing

with Unilever. I went to London University where I looked after

buildings and medical equipment. there too many special advisers when

in Westminster? I wouldn't say there are too many now. But if the trend

were to grow, my answer would be yes. When you have ministers who are

themselves special advisers and little in between being advised by

special advisers who have come straight from the research

departments of their party HQ, you have a problem.

Having been an MP... Constituency selection panels will look at

anybody up to the age of 45 but it would be a healthier system if they

said we will not look at anybody below the age of 45. By that age,

you have experience, and outside world. You have some independence.

What is very important for MPs is to be independent to themselves.

said you admired the young new intake. Surely that is a good

thing, not full of old fuddy-duddies. Winston Churchill

became an MP at the great age of 20. There are exceptions to every rule.

We are talking about a balance which has shifted nowadays to the younger

generation. Where do you stand in terms of the leadership? The MPs

reduced the list to two people and I knew I simply didn't have sufficient

support. I did have some. I suspect, if you ask people about Ann

Widdecombe, they would remember the something of the night description,

and Strictly Come Dancing. With that oppress you? That would not depress

me at all. I had to address it for the first time for the sake of the

book. Margaret Thatcher, she would never have won the next election in

1992. Undeniably, we secured ourselves that election. I would say

ideally I wish we had lost 1992. Would you have like to see Ann

Widdecombe stand for the election? do not think she would have won. The

Tory party is strange. We elect leaders not because of who they are

but because of who they are not. Maggie was not Ted Heath. We made

sure we would not elect Ken Clarke or Michael Heseltine. Which is why

we have had the range of leaders we have had. It would be good to vote

for candidates positively. Wasn't John Major the perfect antidote to

Maggie Thatcher? He was a very underestimated Prime Minister. The

problem was everyone expected him to do what Thatcher was doing without

the majority. At one point, no majority at all. You are saying you

would rather have lost the 1992 election? We had to go through the

ERM disaster which damaged us irrevocably. If Labour had gone

through that it would have damaged them. Do you agree with that?

wrong to win the 1992 election? was a point put to me before the

1992 election campaign. Seeing the future and not liking it. As a

political activist and a personal friend of John Major, I could not

support that. I have to say the historians will look at it and say,

it did change the course of British politics, not necessarily in the way

the Conservatives wanted. Before the election, I would have said we

wanted to win, I was euphoric when we won. I desperately wanted to win

What we your tactics on Strictly? Just having fun. Would you ever do

that? Maybe you have been asked. wife said she would shoot me be for

ever letting me go on to that programme. There are many gorgeous

women on there. I do not have the moral rigour that Ann Widdecombe

has. There are worse things you can do. There is the book. Are the

Government monitoring your e-mails, Facebook and Google searches? Well,

quite possibly but, according to William Hague, the data-gathering

centre GCHQ are not doing it illegally. The Foreign Secretary

gave a statement to MPs yesterday in which he denied UK spies were

using their partnership with the United States to get around UK law.

It has been suggested that GCHQ uses our partnership with the

United States to get around UK law, obtaining information they cannot

legally obtained in the United Kingdom. I wish to be clear this

accusation is baseless. Any data obtained by us from the United

States involving UK nationals is subject to proper UK statutory

controls and safeguards. They quote back the words of that Foreign

Secretary in a BBC interview yesterday when he stated, if you

are a law-abiding citizen of this country going about your business

and your personal life, you have nothing to fear. Nothing to fear

about the British state or intelligence agencies listening to

the contents of your phone calls or anything like that. This assertion

however assumes that the state is either incapable of error or

incapable of advert and or inadvertent wrongdoing. On the

point of sharing intelligence by the G C H Q, Camber find sexy

clarify where the United Kingdom provides occasional intelligence --

can the Secretary of State clarify whether of the United Kingdom

provides occasional intelligence? cannot comment. How does the United

States used materials gathered from network and service providers and

offer it rather than having sought from them in a way that makes

authorisation extremely difficult? I am so sorry, Mr Speaker, I was

getting up to leave the chamber. are sorry the honourable lady is

taking Halle that we will hear from her on other occasions. -- her

leave but we will hear from her. Joining me is an Taylor. Just

before I come to you, can politicians and spy agencies be

entrusted not to misuse our personal data? The problems with

the whole Iraq war showed that the intelligence agencies have to be

willing to answer questions. We cannot give them a blank cheque to

go and do as they, in their own view, feels they are doing.

they being given a blank cheque? Technology is advancing beyond all

of the political normals and operational regulations we give

them. That is a constant battle to keep up-to-date. What do you think

about the whistle Blower? Is a hero has he harmed the cause of national

security? Probably a bit of both. We need to get a sense of

perspective. There is a balance to be struck between privacy and

security. The agencies, as far as we have no, have kept within the

law. They cannot have a blank cheque. Commissioners look at

warrant issued. They can go into a great deal of depth. Part of the

problem is that we hype these things up. We say every individual

is threatened. Collecting and analysing intelligence and using it

properly is very difficult. There is a massive amount of information.

It is honing in on the things that are relevant. I think we need co-

operation with other countries. You need checks and balances. What

Michael says is correct. Part of the real problem is keeping ahead

of the game from those who want to do us harm and coping with the

changes in technology and information that is out there.

you worry about foreign spy agencies trawling through data?

course. We all need to be concerned about that and have firewalls

wherever possible. That does not mean you do not co-operate with

other people. The point that David Blunkett raised, in your clip, is

the most significant. If we are offered intelligence about British

nationals, by a third party, then how do authorisations actually

apply? That shows you how you have got to keep changing things in

order to keep up-to-date? In terms of individuals, our supermarkets -

hour credit card agencies - have far more information on us than

anyone else? Haven't we just given up our right to privacy because of

Facebook and all of these sites where people are handing over their

personal details, financial, private? Why be surprised when spy

agencies are trawling through a data? We are all told them up risks

on the internet. Both of us -- most of us use the internet in a shallow

way and do not take provisions that we should use. There is a balance.

The balance I would suggest witches from time to time. Just supposing

tomorrow, there was another nine/11. -- 9/11. In which, it was said, why

I went the agencies following these guys? -- in Woolwich. Now people

complain that somebody might be looking at somebody. We need checks

and balances but we cannot stop the agencies from doing their jobs

because that is protecting us. Intelligence agencies and the

regulator must not be run by headline writers on newspapers who

will see the worst in everything and will demand that life is

perfect. Life very rarely is perfect. Let's talk about scrutiny.

You have said they need to be laws governing privacy. Is the committee

of MPs really equipped to scrutinise organisations like GCHQ?

Yes, organisations like GCHQ and MI5 and MI6 have had to come to

terms with the bat they have got a responsibility to Parliament. --

with the fact. It was said that beforehand they would hardly give

their name and number. That approach has gone. I think the

Intelligence and Security Committee has become more proactive and far

more able to keep the agencies on their toes. Now for the dark arts

of politics. And our guest today, Michael Dobbs, has seen plenty of

that. He was with Margaret Thatcher when she took her first steps into

Downing Street as Prime Minister. He was there again with John Major

when he was kicked out. In between he got bombed in Brighton and

banished from Chequers after a row with Maggie. He ran plenty of

election campaigns and cracked any number of heads together. It was

one of those behind-the-scenes political careers that, it was once

said, in Latin America would have got him shot. And in a quiet moment

on holiday by the swimming pool, he thought he would have a go at

putting all that experience into a novel. The result was House of

Cards. It was a great success, it got turned into a memorable TV

series and it has recently been remade by Kevin Spacey and

Garrett Walker, to ride like him? No. Do I believe in him? That is

beside the point. -- Dubai like him? Look at that winning smile and

trusting eyes. After 22 years in Congress, I can smell the way the

wind is blowing. It is now out on DVD. Ann Taylor, a former chief

whip, of course, is still with us. The brutality of politics. Is it

still as dirty today as it was in your day? I think just banned in

many ways. Anne macro was a whip in the extraordinary days of the

collapse of the James Callaghan government. Heady days!With all

these allegations of sleaze, it is worth reminding ourselves that

Labour MPs and Tories put their lives at risk. They got out of

their sick beds and came to vote for what they believed in. But

ignited Jimmy a passion for politics and the values of politics.

-- that ignited in me a passion. The heady days, you say, of the

1970s and having to get people to turn up for votes otherwise the

Government may have collapsed. Later on, during the 80s and 90s,

do you think the dark arts - the spin - what has been ducked with

Lord Mandelson being the Prince of darkness, did that takeover? I do

not think he ever got near the Whips Office. We would not let him

and he would not take any notice anyway. That did not matter.

Politics has changed. It was a team event, a team-building exercise all

the time in those days. You felt you were part of something. One

thing which has happened in the House of Commons is that people do

not know each other and feel as much a part of that team. That has

changed things in all parties. Recent figures about the number of

people who have rebelled in the last three years, or in the last

three years of the Labour government, show a great

independence. Perhaps it also shows less communication between the top

and the grassroots -- the grass roots. You are once dubbed the

baby-faced assassin. Is it about MPs becoming more independent or

have whips lost the power to impose the will of the leadership? A bit

of each. In the days of the Callaghan government, the Thatcher

government, politics was black and white. There were fundamental

issues on a tribal basis. Everybody, you said trade unions, and everyone

knew which side of the fence used baton. Issues are now much more

complex. Environment and green issues. They are issues which need

to be debated much more and do not allow for the sort of very

straightforward decisions which politicians came to in those days.

Do you think it is a good thing? MPs are not as predictable as the

party line. I'm a great believer in politics being a team game. That

should have plenty of room for independent souls. The best

politicians know what it is they want and are willing to make

sacrifices for it. They do not win on ill-discipline or the gears. I

can remember going back to the 1970s, people thought it they'd

vote against the Government, the Labour government is rubbish, vote

for me. They lost. Hard lines will do what people want to see is

people who are able to deliver. You do not live at as an individual. It

might make you feel good but you do not deliver. There's just time

before we go to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was: Who

has Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said we mustn't upset? Is

it: Liberal Democrats? Dustmen? Germans? Or hedgehogs? It has to be