07/11/2013 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to The Daily Politics. "Extraordinarily

poor", "alarmingly weak"... A committee of MPs lays into the

management of the Government's flagship welfare reform, Universal

Credit. But who's to blame - ministers or civil servants? Only

15% of us bothered to vote for them - but a year on, have Police

Commissioners made any difference? Where should more NHS money be

All that in the next hour. And with spent?

All that in the next hour. And with us for the duration today, a woman

who once held one of the great offices of state, appointed today to

one of the great offices of television, our Guest of the Day on

The Daily Politics, it's former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. It is good

to see you in the daylight, I normally see you late on on a

Thursday night. Let's start with interest rates - we've just had a

decision from the Bank of England that they are to be held at the

historic low rate of half a percentage point for the 56th

consecutive month. But with the economy now growing and unemployment

falling, how much longer? We're joined now by City analyst David

Buik. joined now by City analyst David

caught between a rock and a hard place. It is only five or six months

ago that he told us that he is forward guidance meant there would

be no change in interest rates until 2016. Unfortunately, he did not know

that the UK economy was about to pick up the cudgel and go for it. We

had it confirmed on Monday by the CBI that growth will probably go to

1.4% this year, 2.4% next year, 2.6% this year afterwards. And now, of

course, with inflation running at 2.7% and wages only at 0.7% on an

annualised basis, something has to give. So, the markets have told him,

thank you very much, Mr Carney, but I'm afraid the Guild market at the

short end, up to two years, indicates that we could have

something of an interest rate hike as early

something of an interest rate hike young people, quite rightly, to fill

their boots, so to suddenly ask them to service their debts at a higher

level, with less disposable income, it is not a quandary I would like to

be in. Indeed, but maybe Mr Carney got misled as to how strong growth

was going to be because he read the Bank of England's forecasts, which

are nearly always wrong on these matters, and particularly on

inflation. Point is, these forecasts of growth, even they might now be an

underestimate . we could be heading for closer to 3% growth next year.

That is a return to normality, so does it not follow that interest

rates therefore have to return to normal? Well, personally, I think

they have two. Also, so long as night follows day,

they have two. Also, so long as cannot have interest rates at .5%,

because you are putting a huge burden on any government, of

whatever political persuasion, to deal with welfare and pensions. And

that has to be addressed. But I think for the next two or three

months, Mark Carney has got to be steadfast, that he wants to talk

about forward guidance. Any kind of threat of any hike in interest rates

over the next couple of months I suspect may be dangerous, but there

is no question, if we are going to improve to the degree which you are

suggesting, and I agree with, interest rates cannot remain at that

level for an indefinite period of time. The Governor of the Bank of

England has been an independent figure since Gordon Brown and Ed

Balls made all of those changes, and he is now in a position where he

could become, in the run-up to the election,

could become, in the run-up to the difficult position for him. It is,

but they think it is absolutely right that he maintains that

independence and makes the judgment on the basis of the forward guidance

that he has set out and the views of the monetary policy committee. But

you are right that this is problematic. Of course, it was Ed

Miliband who said, you can have growth in the economy, but actually

you will still have a cost of living squeeze. Any rise in interest rates

will add to that squeeze on people's mortgage repayments. You may have

growth, but you have also got rising prices, and the cost of my house is

going up. You could also, I suppose, have stronger growth, as David and I

were talking about, between now and the election, but unemployment may

not come below 7%, because in this recession, not nearly as many people

lost their jobs. This recession, not nearly as many people

level of employment that there are many people who would want to work

more hours. That is the first problem. But also, you have to

identify the conflict which comes between what Mark Carney has set out

in the forward guidance, which is the unemployment cut off, for which

she was much praised, incidentally, for saying, let's set this guidance

clearly, and what we have already begun to hear, which is a chorus of

people saying, lower inflationary pressures, at what point are

interest rates going to start rising? Is it possible to have a

smooth, gentle rise in interest rates? So, there is a conflict,

which does put him in a very politicised position, and also plays

into this whole problem of the squeeze on people's pockets. In

America, where all of this originally came from, the US Federal

Now it's time for our quiz. Reserve steps

Now it's time for our quiz. And which of the following

cost-saving suggestions has been proposed to councils by the Tax

Payers' Alliance. Do they want to... A) Ask dustmen to deliver the post

on their rounds? B) Graze sheep in parks to save money on lawn mowers?

C) Use children's sand pits to grit the roads? D) Encourage badgers to

put up municipal goal posts? At the end of the show, Jacqui will give us

the correct answer. Universal Credit was supposed to be

the Government's big plan to restructure our unwieldy benefits

system and save us money. A lot of money. But the Government's flagship

reform is, in fact, guilty of "shocking" failures in management

which have already wasted at least ?140 million. The savaging has come

from Parliament's Public Accounts Committee, which has voiced doubts

about whether Iain Duncan Smith's project can still be

the programme has been described as extraordinarily poor, oversight

alarmingly weak, and ?425 million of expenditure to date likely to be

written off, according to your report, so how did it happen? I

think they have been driven by a political imperative to meet

deadlines, date deadlines, and I think that is a mistake. It is a

very compact programme, one which has cross-party support, so there is

no argument about the policy direction, but it is very

compensated, and they simply should not have been driven by timelines.

Secondly, they thought it was a little IT project, and actually,

this is a big transformation, winning six benefits into one,

trying to change the way in which you work, to make work pay, which

takes a lot of thought. Thirdly, there has been this culture of

optimism in the Department for Work there has been this culture of

it is only testing a single person, without children, dying for only one

of the benefits, job-seekers allowance. -- going for. You are

describing it as a disaster, is it a disaster? I think it is, at the

moment, it is an unmitigated disaster. Is it Solver Jubal? Yes.

If they stop having these would killers time deadlines... Which ones

are you talking about, is it 2017? Yes. It would be much better if they

stopped thinking about, it has got to be in by 2017, and started

thinking, how can we implement this properly? The second thing is, they

have got to face up to the money they have wasted so far. It is not

the ?420 million, but they have spent

the ?420 million, but they have muddle through and pretend that they

can use some of that in the short-term. I would say, let's scrap

a useless IT system we have got and start again. And thirdly, they have

just got to say, this is a big transformation, we are going to

monitor it public, we are going to take responsibility from the top,

and if things start going wrong, we are going to intervene quickly to

put things right. Who is to blame? I think it is from the top down.

Ministers? Top down. I think it is everybody involved, both at the

administration and at the top of the Department for Work and Pensions. I

am not into scapegoating individuals, they have got to think

through what they have got to do. This is an important flagship

programme for the government, and they have got to get it right. There

are reports in the papers claiming that members of your committee were

put under pressure that members of your committee were

is extremely critical of the Department and the government, and

it was unanimously agreed by all the members of my committee.

We asked the Department for Work and Pensions for an interview, but

no-one was available. But we are joined by the former Home Office

Minister Nick Herbert, and Jacqui Smith is still with us. Why can't

they get this right? You have got to sub rate -- to separate the response

of the tea from the operational arrangements. The policy is

agreed... She said that. Yes, and it is agreed cross-party, so there is

not a policy failure, there has clearly been an operational failure.

This is the second major project which has exposed, I think, failings

in relation to which has exposed, I think, failings

this? Actually, we have a sort of system of untouchables who run these

departments, the permanent secretaries, who remain in place

irrespective of these kind of failures. We have seen this in other

departments as well. So you are blaming the civil service, the

permanent secretary, for this? What I am saying is that we have got a

big rubble of accountability here. In the end, ministers are held

accountable for things. In reality, ministers cannot be held responsible

for these operational things when they have got the policy right. What

do you say to that, Jacqui Smith, because this is about delivery isn't

it? Should we be blaming civil servants more squarely?

it? Should we be blaming civil -- welfare reform programme. Nick,

come on, you have been a minister, this is the type of project where

you would expect senior ministers, perhaps weekly, to sit down with the

team and convince me that progress is going right. Either the senior

ministers were not doing that, which is an abdication of responsibility,

or the will was being pulled over their eyes. Either way it's a

ministerial failure. -- bubble was being pulled. -- the wall was being

pulled. Perhaps Margaret Hodge had not appreciated the enormity of the

task if you are merging a separate benefit payment system into one, and

putting a timeline was always going to lead to disaster, says Margaret

Hodge. I disagree with Jacqui Smith's points. But who advises the

civil service? It is open to save that they do not think

civil service? It is open to save is the operational leaders are never

touched when these things go wrong. In the end, that's a failure of

accountability and you will get a repetition of problems. It is a

systemic weakness. I agree civil servants should not be untouched,

but as a minister, surely you don't believe that as an estate you say

this is the policy, deliberate and come back and tell me when you've

done it -- as a minister. The political pressure was enormous.

There was an awful lot at stake here. Do you feel that there was a

feeling, an atmosphere that they have to do this come what may, and

we have to tell the ministers that, if that is what happened. That is

speculation. Back row white but that is the claim. It is always --.

speculation. Back row white but that civil service. That is what

ministers inherit. Let's move on from the blame game. Do you think it

can work? Will it actually work? There is talk of a lot of

nervousness at the top of government that the universal credit will never

get online within a reasonable time frame. There are two questions, can

it work, and the timetable. There is still a cross-party consensus. But

do you think it can work? Yes, I think it can be made to work, but we

have to look without blaming. We have to look at what skills and

capabilities we have in the civil service to deliver major projects.

Do you think it should be made to work? It's a policy that ministers

over years have thought is a good idea. Many have looked at the

difficulties of implementation and the cost and then backed off. That

does not the cost and then backed off. That

piloting deceit if in effect it can work -- to see if it can work. Or is

it too much of a struggle. , let's see.

Now, curb your enthusiasm. It's almost a year since literally

several of you struggled out on a cold Autumn day to elect Police and

Crime Commissioners. It was one of the lowest turnouts in British

electoral history. So, a year on, have the commissioners made such an

impression that you're regretting your decision to sit on your hands,

or has their performance left you feeling totally vindicated? Here's

Jo-Co! That's right, Andrew. Turnout at the Police Commissioner elections

last November was a paltry 15.1%. There are currently 16 Conservative

PCCs, 13 Labour and 12 Independents. Taken together, PCCs are responsible

for ?8 billion of spending on police in England and Wales.

for ?8 billion of spending on police ?70,000 each. And the Chairman of

the Home Affairs Select Committee Keith Vaz has expressed concern that

PCCs were able to remove chief constables with little scrutiny, and

has warned against the dangers of "maverick decision making". Well,

earlier this morning, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, gave a

speech on the future of police commissioners. The first test of a

commissioner's visibility and accountability was the elections in

November. Let's be honest, at 15%, the turnout was disappointing. It

still meant that more than 5 million people voted for PCCs, more than 5

million votes than any police authority ever received, but we

should clearly want the turnout to be higher in the future. I think we

have every reason to believe that turnout will be higher. First of

all, the elections will be held in May, not November. They will be held

at the May, not November. They will be held

round, the role of PCCs will be better understood by the public.

Nick Herbert is a former policing Minister, so we're getting twice the

value here. And we're joined from Kent by the county's Independent

Police and Crime Commissioner, Ann Barnes. What has been your biggest

success this year? The biggest success I have had is making the job

my own. And actually commissioning an independent review to look at

crime recording in Kent. It is a matter of trust, and I did ask for

an independent review of that because I needed the people of Kent

and myself to be sure we can trust the crime figures, so that was using

my new powers. How much are we paying you for that? You are paying

the ?85,000. paying you for that? You are paying

to lots of local people and I'm able to react to local problems. It's

still hard to see what we are getting the money. Have you cut

crime in the county? Unfortunately crime in Kent is slightly going up

compared to last year, which is a real disappointment. But the force

has lost a fifth of the workforce and is trying to do the same as it

did last year and the year before but with 20% fewer officers on the

street and in the staff. That is difficult. It will be more

challenging when the budgets are cut even more. Crime is going down

everywhere else, and they have all had a cut in the police force as

well. So if crime is rising in your patch, that would not suggest we are

getting mal -- value for money from your ?85,000 a year. You need to

look at other places. It's going up in other places as well. You have to

remember in other places as well. You have to

will tell you that the force is creaking. And he uses that

expression himself. The thin blue line is a very thin one. They all

say that. Have you found another youth crime commissioners to replace

Paris Brown? I have 15 on the long list and I am short listing

tomorrow. And that is run ?15,000 salary? How big is the budget? The

budget is ?317 million. For your own office and staff? ?1.5 million, the

same as last year. Quite a lot of money. Are you enjoying the job? I

am absolutely loving it. It is challenging, exhilarating and it has

made me realise more than ever that you really have to talk a lot to

local people, because at the end of the day it is what local people want

that matters. Jacqui Smith, former Home Secretary,

that matters. Jacqui Smith, former I did. I accepted the problem of the

old police authority is not being very visible and directly

accountable -- police authorities. I argued at the time that the problem

with trying to put one person with responsibility for a police force

the size of Kent, or even larger than that, was that that person

would not be able to have the impact you would want a directly elected

person to have. To a certain extent, I've been proved right. Why is it

that and Barnes wants a youth commissioner? Why do various other

commissioners tried to appoint in dubious way a range of people to

help them? It's precisely because that one person is not able to

deliver the accountability and scrutiny that they would want to do,

which is why the sort of ideas I tried to developers Home Secretary

may be had an element of accountability, but more than one

person in each force -- accountability, but more than one

them have between them hired almost 450 staff since taking office. A bit

of empire building going on here. A couple of things. There's no reason

why the system would cost more money because the police authorities have

been abolished. The key here is transparency. They have to account

for how much money they will take out of the policing budget for their

own activities. They will be held responsible for that. We did not put

an artificial limit on it. We said that you answer to the local

community for what you are doing. You have to be careful about direct

comparisons. Some of the PCCs have taken on responsibilities that are

things the police force were doing, and one of those will be complaints

going to the PCCs, that wouldn't have gone to the authority because

they were anonymous. Let's deal with the cost issue. That is a very small

part of the overall policing budget and there will be some

could go back over, but they do now. We know 75% of the local population

know about their police and crime commission and by the next election

will be higher. Then that person is held to account for delivering

effective policing in the area and they hold the police force to

account. I think that direct accountability we have seen in

London with the mayor is something people will not want to turn the

clock back on. There seems to be a bit of cronyism going on. At least

ten of the appointments that they make are going to political or

personal contacts. Firstly, one of the things I put through as minister

was that they are not allowed to be political positions. We made them

all so they were not allowed to be. Secondly, the key is transparency.

You say it is on the register and they have to declare the

appointments. It didn't stop them doing it. I

appointments. It didn't stop them Has this person being useful? Have

they done the job of holding the police to account? And then they can

be chucked out. That was not the case with the police authority. Let

me go back to and Barnes -- and Barnes. Have you appointed any

friends, colleagues, cronies? I don't have a deputy or any assistant

at all. So you have not indulged in any cronyism? I appointed to people

to help me with the campaign on a short-term basis but they are not

with me. I needed their skills right at the beginning. Do people in Kent

know who you are? I think they do. I have comments of community

engagement programme. Last month I spoke to about 1500 people at

various events, just even in the street. I go out in my second-hand

camper van in the street every weekend, which is

camper van in the street every police authority I have on average a

handful of correspondence per week. Since I have been a commissioner

I've had 9000 correspondence. That is one good statistic at least. When

the Plebgate issue moved to the West Midlands and blew up about Andrew

Mitchell, your equivalent in the West Midlands seemed to become a

spokesman for the police and to take the side of the police. Who do you

represent? Are you there to represent the people, or are you

speaking up the police? I am there to represent the people of Kent. I

think Plebgate and Hillsborough has planted a seed in the minds of

people that perhaps the police should not be investigating

themselves any more, which is why I did my own independent report at the

beginning. For high-profile difficulties and complaints, I think

beginning. For high-profile learn something from that. Do you

think Labour should keep this going, have another round of elections, see

what happens? I think we should be trying to get more democracy into

the system. So... You see, you want a shortened answer. You have not

answered my question, should Labour keep this going through another

round of elections? In terms of the timing, it is likely that the next

set of elections will happen before a new initiative comes under way,

but my argument is, do not do away with it, find more ways of holding

the police more effectively to account. Do not do away with it,

that is the key. Thank for giving us a double whammy.

But NHS England is considering changing the funding formula, which

could lead to deprived areas losing out to people with large numbers of

elderly people. Mark Denten reports from Sunderland. This is a place

which is used to facing problems like high unemployment and

anti-social behaviour. These have been challenges for years in

Pennywell. If you live in this area, you are more likely to die earlier.

Life expectancy is three years less than the average for women, and five

years less for men. Certainly, there are high levels of cardiovascular

disease, which is heart disease, and respiratory disease, principally

from smoking, but also because of the history of heavy industrial

diseases. There are also concerns around high levels of obesity. Those

are based on poor diet. But despite those problems, could

are based on poor diet. But despite That could leave a hole in the

Health Service funding for the North. Sunderland could lose ?41

million, Newcastle, ?15 million on Cumbria could lose more than ?60

million. Inevitably, commissioning groups will have to look at cutting

some of the provision that they give now. That may well mean some of the

hospital services, or it could be some of the community services, such

as obesity clinics, smoking clinics. That may well have an

impact on people's health. But they see things rather differently 70

miles away. Just over there is the North Yorkshire market town of

Hawes. One in four people in this area are pensioners, so their

doctors have to travel long distances to get to

doctors have to travel long So, the doctors have got a lot of if

they were to put the emphasis on age, and it should benefit the

practice enormously, and help to put us on a secure financial footing.

North Yorkshire is a very popular place for people to grow old. As we

live longer, people who are elderly have more complex health and social

needs, and this has to be reflected in a higher health care budget.

There is still time for town and country to make their case. NHS

England will make a final decision next month. The funding challenge is

to give areas with very different health needs a fair deal. And we are

joined by viewers in Scotland, who have been watching or listening to

First Minister's Questions from Holyrood. With me now is the Labour

MP for Newcastle East, Nick Brown, and the Liberal Democrat

MP for Newcastle East, Nick Brown, poor health outcomes. The

Conservative Party neither proposal is to alter that so that money

shifts from people who are poor and who die young towards communities

where the well, elderly live. What is wrong with looking at age? If you

think about the burden age puts on the NHS, if you have a rural

population, for example, with a large number of elderly people, are

they not going to be the ones putting more pressure on NHS

services? I am not arguing that health care should be taken away

from anyone, I am defending my constituency, and those who, because

of the industrial heritage of the area, have a lower life

expectancies. My constituents would like to live to a healthy old age,

but they don't, they die younger. But there are Conservative MPs

saying, this is not fair, money from the poor, those who have

the least successful health outcomes, and spend it on people who

are relatively better off. What do you say to that? Nick is absolutely

right. We need to take away from the fog of political dispute all of

this. Just as under previous governments, in fact since the

1970s, when methods to independently establish the advisory committee on

resource allocation, for example, which then advises government as to

how the funding formula should be manipulative overtime, the main

thing is to take it out of the hands of politicians, and that is largely

what this government is doing, as the previous government did as well.

But this is a question about need. The NHS funding formula says there

should be equal access and need should also be made equal.

should be equal access and need factor, because we are the poorest

in terms of the wages and the GDP that we receive, and that was used

as a method by which allocation was established which actually put as

very low down the funding league table. Certainly, having a top-heavy

age distribution, if you like, does not help. But it is certainly

something which needs to be kept under review. At the end of the day.

It should be directed towards achieving the best possible health

outcomes across the country as a whole. We are talking about cost

here, Nick Brown, and thereafter I like resources, so if you are

looking at the funding formula, and at how much each area costs the NHS,

your constituency may be poorer than somewhere else, in Cambridgeshire or

Hampshire, for example, but actually, they cost more, so should

the funding not match that, rather than saying it is

expressed in terms of life expectancy, across the piece, my

constituents died three years earlier than Andrew's. That is not

right. Right, but per capita, another MP has said, if you are

going to be ill, better to be ill in Hackney, where they will spend ?100

more per head on you, than to be ill in Herefordshire. If I said to a

citizen in Hackney, where would you rather live, they would move to

Herefordshire, and if you said the same thing the other way round, you

would not get the same response. It is very difficult for MPs living in

these areas which have a very different make-up of constituents,

to see what would be fair? Yes, but I think there is very clear evidence

that what would happen if this formula were to be put into place

would be a shift of resources, as Nick has said, from those people who

have the greatest Nick has said, from those people who

?40 per head. In Hampshire, your healthy life expectancies is 68. You

are going to be gaining money. Of course, older people need health

care, but the first issue is, have you got the health care and the

resources to actually get you to be old in the first place off what do

you say to that? Obviously, you need to distribute the resources very. --

fairy. -- fairly. But the question is, who is making the decision? If

you put it in the hands of politicians, there is always a risk

that there could be tweaks to achieve political advantage. Of

course, people in Nick's constituency should be advancing...

It is taking money from the poor areas, which by and large are

represented by Labour members of Parliament, and shifting it to the

wealthier areas, Parliament, and shifting it to the

hood in reverse. The key issue is that you need to take the ultimate

decision and evaluation out of the hands of politicians, which is where

NHS England, and the advisory committee, has to take an objective

view. Thank you for coming in. There is a rumour doing the rounds at the

moment that Ed Balls and Chuka Umunna went to some fancy do last

night. I was not invited. And apparently, their hosts, business

people, got them a ?800 bottle of wine. Do you believe that, Jacqui

Smith? I was not there! . But could you believe it? So, if you are

watching, U2, let us know, we will put the record straight. We have had

it confirmed by BBC Wales that the Welsh government paid ?48,000 for a

windmill, or a turbine, Welsh government paid ?48,000 for a

bottle of wine. We move on. It has got them thinking! If you are

looking for a school place for your child, it can sometimes feel like

you need to go to school yourself to navigate the application process.

Anyway, a new website launched in the capital this morning aims to

take the mystery out of it all. Giles met the creators of the London

Schools Atlas to find out more. So, what are we looking at, what is this

schools Atlas? It is an online, interact to map of every school in

London, at primary and secondary school level, allowing people to

browse to a particular area of London, and then to use the

drop-down list to select a school. It will show where the children that

go to that school actually live in London. So, you get an impression of

the catchment area. What is London. So, you get an impression of

live. You want the public to be able to use this, so what is the driver,

you want people to to use this, so what is the driver,

choice? Yes, data is power. People need information, objective

information, to reach decisions, and this is exactly what the GLA should

be doing, providing that data, providing those things which will

enable people to make a decision, and Is to certain school. I going to

understand what this is telling me? The challenge at the moment for

parents is that all of this information,

parents is that all of this now. Welcome. Who is this for,

primarily? Parents or government? All sorts of people. Parents but

also people who want to set up free schools. It's for the planners. You

have to think about where schools might be needed. It sounds like it

might be more useful, I might suggest, for government, who have to

look at pressure on places. Parents are normally just looking at the

Ofsted results. They are looking at where they might want to send their

children to school. The idea that parents send them to the local

school in London is not quite true. You can see from the atlas that lots

of parents will look quite widely and look at schools in other

boroughs. Mainly cause of the results. They will look at the

school with the best results. They will say that is where they will try

and get them into. It is useful for them to know how much demand will

grow them to know how much demand will

beyond the boundaries? At secondary school, that is where it happens

most, it is about 20% that go to a school that is not in the borough

they are living in. Quite a high number compared to other parts of

the UK. Is this more about London? Is this tool going to help parents

in London where there is a lot of pressure and they are more mobile in

terms of sending kids because of that better transport? We are the

Greater London authority, which is why it is a London atlas. We have

children coming from outside the city coming into schools as well.

House prices are a huge factor in dictating the education choices in

London. Is it fair that some parents are able and can afford to choose

where to send their kids because they can move to the expensive areas

around the best state schools? The reality is there is all sorts of

choice in the system already. reality is there is all sorts of

forced to spend a fortune on independent school fees or moving

house. And the schools in their area are good. The tool like this is

important. If free schools and academies look at where there is a

need for places and the need for good schools, they are more likely

to set up there. At the moment, the information is too obscure. It's not

available to them to do it and we hope this allows them to do it.

Isn't the reality about who can afford to move around London? If you

want to send your job and to state schools, parents will move to the

areas where there are the best schools, and price out a lot of

families who can't afford to do it? I think this map is a good idea.

Anything that gives parents more information is good. It was

something I did is an education minister and it is a good

initiative. But I agree with you that in an odd

initiative. But I agree with you people to look further afield, but a

Labour politician will say that you should go to the school up the

road? If that is a good school, the standards will it improve. That is

your characterisation of a Labour politician. This Labour politician

thinks parents should have a choice of good schools and acted to ensure

that would happen when I was education minister. If it helps

people to help that -- if it helps people to think about what best

suits their child, that's fine. My problem is that I'm less optimistic

that this will cause a big growth of free schools and academies and solve

the problem of a lack of places. Simply providing information will

not solve the problem. It needs a plan, frankly, and it needs more

action than either the government, and it isn't the

action than either the government, everything either. You do want some

plan of the places. That is the purpose of the tool, to work out

where the gaps are and where schools are needed. PricewaterhouseCoopers

have brought out a clear correlation between house prices and decent

state schools around them. A second way of buying your education,

really. The other way is to just pay fees.

Now, until relatively recently we didn't even know their names. We

certainly didn't know what they looked like. But this afternoon

history will be made when the three heads of the intelligence services

appear in public before a parliamentary committee. There will

be a two-minute delay on the TV feed in case Iain Lobban, the Director of

GCHQ, Andrew Parker, Director General of MI5 or John Sawers, the

Chief of MI6, divulge any national secrets. I can't believe they would

do that. secrets. I can't believe they would

the chief of MI6 looks like because we've seen pictures of him in his

swimming trunks. His wife posted them at the time he was about to be

appointed. It caused a huge row and they had to be taken down in a

hurry. He is quite a familiar figure, John Sawyers, because he was

a Foreign Office man for a long time before we took the job. But coming

out of the shadows, as they are, is a real milestone. This is never

happened before. The free intelligence chiefs, who prefer to

stay in the shadows, will appear not only in public -- free intelligence

chiefs. They also appear on television. They will be talking

about bugging President Obama's phone? Of course not. They will be

talking about current operations. They will be pressed hard by the

committee of MPs, I hope, as do just what is the extent of their

surveillance operations, generically?

surveillance operations, will tell us something we don't

already know? I think it will. -- I think they will. It will be a

fascinating insight into the world of spies. They will talk about how

they recruit. We will hear about the growing threats, cyber terrorism,

the persistent threat to the UK and its interests. That we have heard

before. But we will hear more about the methods and challenges faces --

facing them. These people are generally not terribly exciting.

They are not show men, not like you, the gift of the gab that you have.

Don't expect scintillating television or angry exchanges. But

if the committee do their job, they should get some interesting answers

about Edward Snowden. If you were on the committee, and I wish you were,

because we'd get decent questions, what is the one question above all

because we'd get decent questions, partner in the face at the end of

your career and say you never broke the law? Will you be going along or

will you watch it on the telly? My co-correspondence will be there. He

will be warming the seat, so he will be stuck inside. He will hopefully

ask questions himself. I don't think he will get the opportunity,

actually. I will be reporting live from here. Thank you for joining us,

because I know it is a busy day for you. A good idea? I think it is.

It's an idea we talked about when I was Home Secretary, so it's been a

long time in the making. One of the reasons it's taken quite a long time

to come to fruition is because there is some worry, and it will be

interesting to see if it's justified, that what might happen,

of course, is that although it is in public people are quite restrained

about what they say, and public people are quite restrained

powers? I don't think it is the same as the Congressional court? The

powers are strengthening. They can do more investigations and go into

the agencies. Personally, I think the quality of people on the

committee is actually very high. I know there are some people who say,

look, it's chaired by a former Foreign Secretary, Hazel blears, who

had responsibility for security and the Home Office is on it as well.

Somehow that means they won't ask difficult questions, but it does

mean that they know where to ask the questions and the way in which

thinks function -- thinks function, so it is a big opportunity. We have

learned that the ECB has cut its interest rate, which is a surprise,

from 0.5, and you didn't think it could get any lower? It is now

0.25%. could get any lower? It is now

the head of the ECB. They appear daily in our newspapers

and have lampooned politicians and prime ministers for generations. I'm

talking of political cartoons which can capture in a flash a

politician's character or a key event. In a moment, we'll be talking

to the Jim Benson, the editor of a new book on political cartoons. But

first, let's take a look at the world of politics through the eyes

of some of the countries leading cartoonists.

Tim Benson, is here now. 186 cartoons in the book, thousands to

choose from over a year. Added to the decision? I tried to cover the

whole year -- how did you make the decision? I tried to cover the major

events of the year. Every single cartoonist in this country is

featured in the book, and there is some wonderful material. This is the

first anthology. I think we have one of Boris Johnson. Let's see if we

can see that,. That is a great silhouette. What makes it a great

cartoon? It is fantastically drawn. It portrays not such a conjugated

political issue, but in a simple, visual manner -- conjugated. It is a

visual metaphor. Here we have Boris Johnson

visual metaphor. Here we have Boris isn't it? And it is a play on the

great escape. Steve McQueen style. Andrew Mitchell liked this so much

he bought it from me. The death of Margaret Thatcher created a lot of

cartoons as well. We have one of these to show you. This is from the

Daily Mail. Mac does a visual gag, making a joke from the news, and

this is on the protesters who turned their back on Mrs Thatcher. I see.

Very clever. We have run out of time. What is the title of the book?

The best of Britain's political cartoons, 2013. It looks great. I

will get one. There's

post, sheep grazing? I think it's the sheep. Clever old you excavation

mark we need to go while they are still working. I will be back on BBC

One tonight for this week. With comedian Shazia Mirza, architect

George Clarke, plus Quentin Letts, Michael Portillo, Alan Johnson and

Miranda Green. And I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big

political stories of the day. Do join me then. Bye bye.