27/03/2014 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. Britain's politicians are

all over the energy market. Ofgem is referring the big six providers of

our gas and electricity to the competition authorities. They might

not report for two years. We will speak to the energy minister.

Who did it for you? We will look at which one sword and which one sank

in the Daily Politics spin room. Plain cigarette packaging is back in

the spotlight, an imminent report into how effective the policy could

be. We will investigate claims from the tobacco industry it could lead

to more cigarettes being sold on the black market.

And, are we facing a skills gap between what schools are teaching

and what the economy needs? Lord Baker thinks so, he will tell us

why. With us for the duration, the former

editor of the Conservative home website, now of the times, Tim

Montgomery. There will be a free vote on fox

hunting before the next election, subject to having enough time in the

parliamentary schedule. It is not exactly a packed schedule! The Prime

Minister's hopes of taxing the rules to allow more dogs to flush out

foxes have been quashed because he could not get coalition agreement.

At PMQ 's, Angela Smith asked whether the government was

considering amending the hunting act.

As she knows, proposals were made on a cross-party basis to the

Environment Secretary about an amendment to the hunting act that

would help upland farmers in particular deal with the problem of

boxes on their land. That letter is being considered. I regret to say I

do not think there will be government agreement to go forward.

14 months to the election, which will be decided on the economy, also

reform, immigration, quality of schools, what has fox hunting got to

do with it? And issued you have covered is the decline of Tory

membership, the lack of activists. What the Conservative party has used

are people like country sports enthusiasts, they have been flooded

into an urban as through Ross said. To deliver leaflets that the Tory

party does not have activists for. Did they bring the foxes with them?

There are plenty where I am! Absolutely! It is a liberty issue

for the Conservative party as well, but they need the fox hunting troops

to park your make up for the lack of grassroots activists. That is the

practical reason. Does it make good politics? No, because even in rural

areas, the main concerns are housing and access to broadband. Fox hunting

is not the biggest issue. If you look at the numbers participating in

homes across the country, they are at record levels. It is still going

on. Absolutely. You have sorted that out! It is time for our quiz. The

BBC School report is running today, schoolchildren are being allowed to

grill politicians and throw in the odd unexpected question. Tristram

Hunt has been put in the hot seat, and he was asked what his favourite

thing was about the Education Secretary Michael Gove. What was his

answer? That he is sending his daughter to a state secondary

school... ? His good manners? His enthusiasm for history? Or his

wife? -- his wife's newspaper columns? We will have the correct

and sat at the end of the show. Nigel Farage gave a brilliant

performance according to UKIP, no surprise there!

Nick Clegg was powerful and authoritative, according to the

Liberal Democrats! We only deal in unbiased opinions and analysis! What

about the real world? A poll just after the debate found that Nigel

Farage one, 50 7% to 36%, though the chucking worm that they'd used did

not show nearly that much of a gap. Here is a flavour.

We have a total open door, unconditionally, to 485 million

people, and they are the roles of the European Union. What you have

heard is not true. This is a leaflet that his party distributed in the

recent Eastleigh by-election. It says that 29 million Romanians and

Bulgarians may come to this country, there are not even 29 million living

in Rome area and Bulgaria. It is simply not true. You did not answer

the basic question. I am not claiming 29 million people have the

right to come to Britain, I am claiming 485 million people have the

total unconditional right to come to this country if they want to. We

should not be sacrificing a single job, a single job, just to fulfil

this dogmatic view that we should turn our backs on the rest of the

world and on Europe. I remember you and your gang, the big culprits,

telling us 12 years ago that if we did not join the euros, all

investment into Britain would cease, the City of London will disappear.

Thank God we did not listen to you. Otherwise, we would be in one hell

of a mess. White are countries like Ukraine keen to have another closer

ties to the EU? The British government iron neared the

enlargement of the EU so we would have more and rule of law in our

European McCarthy would. We have given false hopes to the people in

the west of Ukraine, they were so geed up, they topple their own

elected leader, that provoked Vladimir Putin, and the EU does have

blood on its hands in the Ukraine. I want us to be Great Britain, not

little England. If you feel the same, now is the time to make your

voice heard. Labour and the Conservatives will do nothing to

stop us heading towards the exit. I am British, the best people to

govern Britain are the British people, and by divorcing ourselves

from this failed project, not only will be free Britain, we will

provide a good example for much of the rest of Europe.

I flavour of the debate. I am joined by two communications supremo 's.

Let's see how good they are! The chief spinner for UKIP, and the

former chief spinner for the Liberal Democrats. That was round one, round

two is on the BBC next week. What will you advise your man to do next

week, what improvements can he make? I am not going to give away

any state secrets. You have not got any! We will be looking through, we

will be doing a comprehensive debrief, going through the video

footage, looking at all of the issues. What was the high point and

low point? It was high in general, and the polling numbers should it,

which surprised the metropolitan media bubble. It could not all be a

high point, because that would not mean anything. What was the high

point? The best bits that people would have connected to the

questions on immigration and the effect of the compression of wages,

youth unemployment, pressure on public services. That was the

strongest argument? What would you advise your leader to do next week

to improve his performance? Overall, both of them did quite

well, speaking to their own markets. Both of them gave strong

performances. If you were minded to support either of them. What was the

high point for Nick Clegg was in the dissection of the poll, 50% of

Labour supporters say that they are minded to support him, and that is

precisely the thing that he wants, and 27% of conservatives. If I was

advising both of them, and a few less statistics. You have just given

statistics! I understand that you have an elite audience here! You are

not trying to reach beyond... A good recovery! You will see the transfer

to your bank account! I would reduce some of them, but they fundamental,

they are part of the argument. If I was an ordinary punter watching,

that is what I would change. Do you think Nigel Farage would regret

saying that the EU has blood on its hands? Absolutely not. We were the

first political party that broke out of the establishment consensus over

Syria, and opposed military intervention. We were told we were

being irresponsible. Then, the House of Commons voted the same way. Then,

the Americans and French fell into line. In this case, field or reason

outside the way to conduct foreign policy is to speak softly and carry

a big stick. What the EU has done is shouted its mouth off while carrying

a matchstick. It has given the western Ukrainian is false hopes of

a future based on EU funds. That is a respectable line to take, that the

EU overplayed its hand. But why does that give it blood on its hands?

People have died, radio men and women, thinking the future was up

for grabs. The EU for over a decade has been giving this false

perspective -- prospectus to people in western Ukraine. The EU is the

root of all evil? What Vladimir Putin has done is wrong, I do not

blame the people of Ukraine for referring the EU to Vladimir Putin,

any force, given that choice, would go for those -- for that option. But

I blame it for giving them false hope and destabilising the country,

part of the country is annexed and a long Russian shadow over the rest of

it. I want to bring you back to one statistic, Nigel Farage said about

75% of laws come from Europe, we cannot find anything to back that

up, but Nick Clegg said that 7% of UK law is made in Brussels. He

quoted the House of Commons Library. The finest researchers in this

country have been to the House of Commons Library. 7% is only one

figure with regard to statutes. The House of Commons research paper says

that the figure, depending on which laws you take and the nature of

them, could be anything between 15 and 50%. Read the small print. The

evidence that I saw what the House of Commons Library evident. This was

about laws that went through the House of Commons, as I understand

it. Acts of Parliament put in place by the UK Parliament with EU

influence, ten to 14%. What Nigel Farage did not do is sourced to 75%,

did they make it up in the pub one night? We had a commission coming

over to London and saying that over 70% of laws come from Brussels. That

is your own commissioner speaking. Not mine. I do not distinguish the

Liberal Democrats from the European project. I have my own commissioner

in my pocket, right now! Don't you think that the Prime Minister should

have been in this? I do not know, but what is clear is that both

parties did well in their own terms. We have seen this historic decline,

90% of the British people voting for the main two parties 40 or 50 years

ago, now it is 70%. This kind of debate will institutionalise the

fact that three, four or five parties are in party politics, which

is a huge problem for Ed Miliband or David Cameron. They would not have

addressed it by being in the debate, but the split in the electorate is a

big problem. For parties means it is catching up with Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland, we are a complete United Kingdom. It is a four party

system in each of the goods that you are in each of the goods that you

part. Kuwaiti rooting for? -- who were you rooting for? I was

supporting UKIP, it is where I agree with Tony Blair, -- Tony Benn, we

should be allowed to change the politicians who make our laws, we

should not have unaccountable bureaucrats deciding how we govern.

Preaching to the converted, do you think anybody switched as a result?

I do not think... It was not preaching to the converted, you know

where we are in the opinion polls, so if you are saying there is a 36%

who are minded, and some people in the Labour Party said Nick Clegg

stood up for staying in Europe, and we will lead him our vote in May,

that is precisely the kind of thing that brings some joy to some quite

tough polls. I agree on that, but we took a leadership of that much

bigger, broader community in Britain that are fundamentally Eurosceptic,

and Nigel was the champion. Are you enjoying going over to the dark

side? I'm loving it. Won't this mean having a real job, like a

journalist. Thank you both. Come back and serious after next week.

Both Labour and the Conservatives are claiming they are not that

interested in yesterday's debate that don't believe a word of it.

While it is the prevailing view that it is the Tories that suffer when

UKIP do well, there is a theory that Labour could do well -- be harmed

when you could go on the march. Nigel Farage addressed the issue of

whether support was coming from when he spoke to Andrew a couple of weeks

ago. You seem to be in an impossible position, because the better you do

in the election, the less chance there will be a referendum by 2020.

No, no, no, look at the numbers. Only a third of the voters we have

our Conservative. When we have polled voters who, to us, whether

they are Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and we ask who

wait -- they would vote for, less than one in five say they would vote

Conservative. Less than one in five UKIP voters would be tempted to vote

Conservative under any circumstances. That was Nigel Farage

talking to Andrew a few weeks ago. He was a bit rattled by that. I was

poking him with a cattle prod. I am joined by Matthew Goodwin who has

just written a book with fellow academic Robert Ford which looks at

the rise of UKIP in British politics and where their current level of

support comes from. Welcome to the programme. You have a party that

started off with just 1% of the vote 20 years ago and now are on track

for victory in this year's European elections. UKIP has come a long way

from its humble beginnings as an anti-EU pressure group. We analysed

almost 6000 UKIP voters but we also tracked the party support over the

last ten years, so were not just looking at the opinion polls this

year, and what the party will do in 2015, and it shows that this kind of

revolt has been a long time coming and has been building amongst the

1970s among particular groups, working class, old, unskilled, low

educated people people who feel left behind by Britain's economic

transformation and were the first to be hit by the crisis. Do you dispute

the claim that the majority of support comes from Tories in ex-oil?

Right now the support comes from conservatives -- in Excel. But the

support has been building for some time. In 2010 we found it actually

came from disillusioned Labour supporters. And where would these

voters be if UKIP were not in British politics right now? Would

they be going to the Conservatives? Unlikely. They should, under the

current reality go towards the Labour Party which is why there are

big questions for them. You say it's been a long time coming. What are

the conditions that have brought these people together and led to a

rise in support, fairly recently for UKIP? A lot of this is about social

and value divides in Britain. UKIP is a symptom of division within our

society. It's not so much interesting in terms of Nigel Farage

on the party, it is telling us something about Britain, and the

deep division between those who have been left behind and those who have

the skills and education to adapt and prosper. How worried are you buy

that analysis? And if you look at the polls today, it is the Tory

suffering in terms of bleeding support to UKIP. If David Cameron

could design a puzzling -- opposing leader and Chancellor, he would come

up with Ed Miliband and Ed Balls. I do disagree with Matthew on one

thing. Conservative Party that wins a majority does need to be winning

the kind of Labour voters are disgruntled with Ed Miliband. That

is the kind of person that Norman Tebbit, when he was party chairman

in the 80s, reached. The Conservative Party was brought.

Every successful Conservative leader keeps the centre-right coalition

together and David Cameron has failed to do that during his

leadership. Is it then a mistake for David Cameron and the Tory

leadership to present the sort of policies that some Tory backbenchers

would like to counter what they see as the rise of UKIP?

Anti-immigration, rhetoric around that, more Eurosceptic things,

because you could end -- alienate the centre ground which most people

think you need to win. Absolutely. This is the big challenge for

Cameron. One of the misunderstandings is will go away if

you give them a referendum. If you promise a net content migration,

they will go away. But their polling has been stubbornly resilient to

those promises and that is because the vote is not about instrumental

public policy offers. This is about the heart more than the head. It's

an emotional reaction in the sense that Britain isn't going in the

direction that these voters wanted to go. So it has almost been a waste

pursuing those policies by David Cameron in order to counter a threat

when that is not really what UKIP is about. If David Cameron had not

given the in or out referendum pledge he would be in a weaker

position. But it is a broad phenomenon. We see the tea party in

the United States, and the rise across Europe of people losing out

from the global economy. Michael Heseltine said on this programme

that he thought it was a racist party and a protest party. Is that

completely wrong? It's not simply a political process. It's a knee jerk

reaction to the voters there. The feel -- they feel strongly about a

specific set of issues. In Westminster we need to get away with

the obsession of what UKIP will do in 2015 and ask what the party tells

us about the divisions within society. Matthew, thank you very

much. If all that whetted your appetite, tune in next Wednesday for

the BBC debate with Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage, which is on BBC Two at

7pm. We will, won't we? We certainly will. Every minute of it. It is an

issue that has troubled consumers through a number of years, domestic

energy prices rising above the rate of inflation and earnings. While

there were questions over whether the privatised electricity and gas

markets have been competitive enough to give come -- customers a fair

deal. Now there will be a full-blown competition enquiry and Joe has the

details. I do. In the last six years electricity bills have risen by 39%

and gas bills by almost two thirds over the same period. Critics argue

that with only six companies supplying 95% of need, the market

has failed. And that the size of those companies, their foreign

ownership, and the fact they both produce energy and supplies makes it

impossible to work out whether they are giving us a fair deal or

profiteering. It is an issue that Ed Miliband has seized on. Last October

the Labour leader said that he would freeze prices for 20 months and

replaced the regulator, and break up the gas and electricity companies to

make them more transparent. Yesterday SSE said they would freeze

prices and split the company into separate generating and retail arms,

with the suggestion they were pre-empting the Labour policy. But

David Cameron said the SSE decision was down to his cut in the eco-levy.

This morning off Jim said there was possible tacit coordination over

price hikes and referred the companies to the markets authority

which has the power to break them up -- this morning off Jim said --

OFGEM said. Don't hold your breath. The enquiry alone is expected to

take 18 months. In the last hour, Ed Davey explained why they would be an

investigation despite the risk. A market investigation reference is a

course of action that should not be lightly undertaken, especially when

the energy market is going through radical changes to introduce new,

low carbon generation while ensuring security of supply. But tackling

these issues through the authorities provides confidence for investors

and customers that the process will be evidence -based, fair and just

and free from political interference. We can now speak to

Richard Lloyd from the consumer organisation Which. You must welcome

this. This is the right thing to do. There's been such a cloud of

suspicion hanging over the industry, and what we now have is an

independent investigation back and get to the bottom of what is going

on. But this is a huge moment for the suppliers, in particular the

biggest suppliers. We want to see them get on with putting customers

at the heart of their business and getting their costs under control,

and trading more transparently, whatever happens in the

investigation. They should do that rather than threaten to turn the

lights out if it doesn't go their way. It is a pivotal moment. It is

make or break the big energy suppliers. And it will be, I hope,

good for consumers in the longer run. But as you rightly said, don't

hold your breath it won't happen overnight. Nothing is going to

change for at least two years, so one of the questions is, when you

look at other markets, like the supermarket, for instance, there

doesn't seem to be a problem with them being more competitive on

pricing. Why hasn't it worked for the big six energy companies? Have

you failed as a consumer organisation to some extent? One of

the interesting things about the OFGEM report today is that they say

there is a clear evidence of a lack of competition and it has not worked

in the market. We and they have known that for years. They've tried

to tackle it through changing the rule book, making the market a bit

more simple, getting more liquidity into the wholesale market, but

everyone agrees that that hasn't gone far enough and there is still a

huge number of consumers sitting on the same expensive tariffs, paying

way over the odds, potentially a couple of hundred pounds a year or

more, so the suppliers know people don't switch around and it's too

confusing and complicated. There is the suspicion of the vertically

integrated companies that sell themselves power and sell it on to

consumers. And it's right to have a look at those things. But at the

same time, OFGEM needs to show it is for tackling those problems in the

market at the same time. In effect, we have a parallel process going

on. It has to have the consumer welfare as part -- at its heart.

Listening to that, the energy minister and the shadow energy

minister. Michael Farren, why did it take you so long to work there was

something wrong with market? We have been reforming the market ever since

we came into office. They used to be 400 different tariffs and we have

simplified them, and they will be easier for independent suppliers to

compete against the big six. We have reformed the market as we have gone

enough -- along. Well, busily not enough. This is great news that the

competition authorities have overlooked at the energy market and

it will be welcome to the consumers and companies themselves because

they will have more certainty. One of the great reforms you talked

about was designed to make people -- easier for people to switch. The

number of electricity transfers fell by 20% between 2011 and 2013. There

was a drop in the switch after the mis-selling allegations, but that is

one of the key issues they will investigate. What is the right level

of switching? Should switching be higher than it is? Why is it easy to

switch your mobile phone provider? Why do people find it easier than

switching an energy supplier. That's a key part of the any of the

investigation. Is it not convenient for you because it kicks the issue

into the long grass into the run-up to the election? It's not the long

grass. They are under the floodlights. They will have to

answer questions and will be forensically investigated. Allowing

people like you to say you cannot comment until the investigation is

over. We have time-limited. It can't be longer than 18 months and we will

get the answer long before two years. It's important this is taken

out of party politics. People make claims, and the Labour Party have

been all over the place on whether its right to have vertical

integration or whether the profits are too large. Let's have it

investigated out of party politics and we get the answer we need. Does

the Labour Party welcome this? Yes, but the point Richard Lloyd made,

that doesn't mean nothing should happen while this goes on. We have

set out a package of reforms that we are consulting on, and we are listed

in 2015 we will take those forward. Let me go through with that. If you

win next May, the competition commission investigation will be

ongoing, but you will proceed with your price freeze in the middle of

the investigation? We will proceed with the price freeze and the

reforms we set out. That's interesting. I can see why you might

want to proceed with the price freeze, but why would you proceed

with substantial market reforms until you have read the

investigation conclusions and the work of the competition commission?

There are two issues. One is about transparency in the market, and one

is about the competitive behaviour. Obviously the commission will do

their work and if we are in position in government we will reflect on

what they come out with at the end, but the other issues we've

identified in the Green paper which we are consulting on, are about

bringing transparency to the market which is woefully lacking. SSE's

decision in relation to their generation and supply business

indicate that the issues around trust are not just about being

competitive it's also about transparency. You won't know for

sure that the market is anti-competitive or if there is

tacit price-fixing going on, and you won't know for sure if there is

something going wrong between the wholesale and retail markets until

you've read the full investigation. Because at the moment, you don't

know. But we know there is an element of self supply between the

companies, that there have been issues around liquidity, and we are

in a situation where small companies... Transparency is key for

the small companies. The investigation should be done by

independent, academic experts, you cannot say profits and prices are

too high and then say there is a lack of transparency and you do not

know what they are. Do not misrepresent me, the issues around

transparency or around the weight in which the trading functions, in the

price that people are paying. Transparency is needed to get trust

back, people do not trust their suppliers or the industry. We have

major capacity shortages looming, and the government said it is

looking for ?100 billion of fresh investment between 2015 and the end

of the decade to create new capacity. The big six were already

not investing much before you announced this, are you assuming

they will not invest anything until this investigation is over? They

have known about this, they are continuing to invest. SSA have just

pulled out. Centrica pulled out of Hinckley, then EDF replace them. We

have had billions invested in renewables, plenty of interest in

our market reform, to replace the capacity that is ageing and needs to

be replaced. This is not going to delay investment. So why every year

have you added less new capacity than capacity to have closed and

mothballed? It takes time to build a nuclear power station, we have done

that now, the first nuclear power station for 25 years, we have had

the two biggest wind farms in the world opened last year, there are

formal under construction, a wave of other investment in renewables, and

plenty of interest in our contracts which will be advertised in the

autumn and in the capacity market, which is our reserve supply. Do you

accept you are not replacing capacity as quickly as you are

closing old capacity? We need to go faster, old capacity is being taken

of the system because the previous government failed to invest, and

signed up to commitments. We are running to catch up with a legacy of

underinvestment. We are talking about electricity and gas prices, I

welcome our viewers from Scotland. How much spare capacity will be have

next winter? Sufficient capacity. It gets tighter, I cannot give the

exact figure, in the winter of 2015/16 and 2016/17. But that is

only if nothing is done. We are considering bringing some mothballed

plants back into service. There is only going to be a crisis if nothing

is done. That has been rejected, the gas company will not do it. There

are many of bald gas plants. The major one that you wanted, S S E

said it would not be available. Some are available and some are

withdrawn, it is Ofgem's job to make sure there is sufficient capacity

will stop we will only have a shortage if nothing is done. What

can you do between now and 2016? You can bring unit back on. There are a

series of mothballed stations and units that they are looking at. Is

it true you have got diesel generator parks over the country,

ready to click in? No, we do not need diesel. There are mothballed

units of existing stations that can be brought on. Are you telling our

viewers that diesel generation is not part of any back-up plan? I do

not know the number of diesel units that there are. Over 300. It would

be hard to think of anything generating more carbon dioxide. I

will look at those for you. But there is sufficient capacity that

can be put back onto the system other and Ofgem and the National

Grid have been charged with that, making sure that the margin of

capacity does not tighten in those winters. If there is a need for big

investment, and there will still be, if Labour continues with the

price freeze and reform the market even before you have seen the

competition report, there is no chance of a single pound of fresh

investment from the big six under Labour until that happens. Look at

what S S E said yesterday, they are instituted part of the reform

package, and they are still investing significant amounts. It

works out at 1.5 million pounds a day. It is a significant amount. The

investments they have pulled out from, they are not happening, but

the people are coming in, and there is a difference between the big

six's investment. The investment will not all come from the big six,

but it will still come, but only if we have a long-term policy framework

for the future. So much more to ask, but we need to move on.

Yesterday, there were reports that there may have been a sizeable

rebellion of Labour MPs voting against the government's proposed

welfare cap. The idea put forward by George Osborne in the budget would

in future sea limits set at the beginning of each Parliament. Labour

had said they would support the measure, but a number of MPs were

unhappy. Only 13 Labour MPs defied their party whip and voted against

the measure. This is the key point that I would

make to those people opposite, this welfare cap brings responsibility,

accountability and fairness. Those who want to unto our welfare reforms

will now have to tell us about the other cuts they will make all come

clean and admit to the public that what they really want are higher

welfare bills. We support capping Social Security spending, a policy

the leader of the opposition advocated last year, and with

welfare spending now ?13 billion higher than the government planned

in its Spending Review, we will make different and fairer choices to get

the Social Security Bill under control and tackle the root causes

of rising spending. On that basis, we will support this motion this

afternoon. I am one of the few people in here who have been a

recipient of benefits, there will not be any on that side of the

house. I was proud to get a job and that the company got be back to

work, and I was not a benefit cheat, as some of these people what have

you believe. I will welfare system should be based on the facts, it

should be based on need, whatever short-term political advantage

people think is gained by voting for the cap, it is outweighed by what is

problematic. I will not be voting for this cap in the lobbies tonight.

I listened to what the honourable baby -- honourable lady said, at no

point she think about the other side of the coin, the people referred to

by my honourable friend, the people who have to pay the bills. They have

needs and requirements, and many low-paid people have to pay the

bills, she never mentioned them. To acquiesce to this nonsense that

piles more pain on our poorest pensioners, and low income families,

would be a failure of leadership, and a betrayal of the people of

Scotland who elected us, and who have the right to deserve better.

Joining me now is one of the Labour rebels, Diane Abbott. Why did you

vote against it? If we vote for a benefit cap, we are locked in to

Tory benefit cuts, and whilst I believe we need to bring down

spending on welfare, and we can do it by introducing a national living

wage, Patrick cuts would be counter-productive. Ed Balls has

said you would have different priorities, you would be able to

stick to the spending cap on welfare by cutting different things, the

bedroom tax, as Labour would call it. I was in the chamber, George

Osborne challenged him on the detail of the benefits cut package. To

everything George Osborne said, Ed Balls nodded. You have to believe we

are locked into the Tory cuts. If you are not going to agree to any

cuts, how are you going to bring the bill down? By putting up the living

wage, so we are not spending on tax credits, by building housing so we

are not pouring millions into housing benefit. There after short

things you can do to bring down welfare over a Parliament. But with

an annual cap, you are locked into the cuts. Tim will say it is popular

with the public, George Osborne was swaggering around, he is putting the

layabouts to the sword. But over a lifetime, he will all be the

recipient of some sort of Social Security, whether it is child

benefit or the pension. It is whether people will believe you will

do anything about it. Tim, what do you say to what Diane has said? The

Labour Party does not have credibility, they have opposed the

welfare cuts and almost every card that the government has made. The

great thing they needed to do was to establish fiscal credibility, that

they could be trusted again. Ed Balls has signed up to it. They made

an 11th hour effort to show some could ability, but what -- but if

they were really bold, they could take on the coalition on protecting

older pensioners' benefit. What's you could say is unfair is that

working age people are bearing a disproportionate share of the

burden. But like the other parties, they are afraid to tackle the issue,

because older voters are numerous and vote twice as often as young

people. The cap is going to increase, there will be more

spending on welfare. George Osborne has said they plan to take a further

?12 billion out, so where else would you take it? Things are going to be

cut. A lot of effort to get more people into work. We have data

showing there are 500,000 fewer households where nobody works will

stop in terms of this coalition's achievements, I would put that near

the top, work is the root to prosperity. What kind of jobs?

Agency work? Low-paid work? It is to be subsidised by tax credit. You are

out of date. I live in Hackney! The number of people getting full-time

work is growing. A lot of them are not ideal jobs... Less than ideal.

The problem is changing. It is better to have people in part-time

work than the problems of previous recessions. The jobs miracle is

that. I would not call it a miracle. Encouraging people to scapegoat

benefit claimants is the nasty party back with a vengeance.

You were at Tony Benn's tunable. It was really my thing -- it was really

moving, they had Jerusalem, William Blake, his children all gave a

testimony, and his brother spoke about him. It was a gathering of the

left. A moving occasion. Michael Heseltine was there. Westminster

Abbey? Just around the corner. Consider yourself our official

correspondence. The issue of plain cigarette

packaging caused headaches for the government last year. First it was

going to be introduced, then it was not, then an enquiry. The report has

come out of the long grass, the coalition will be forced to look at

the issue again. Tobacco companies are claiming plain packaging could

lead to an increase in black-market cigarettes.

We all know smoking is bad for your health, successive governments have

tried to stop people sparking up, whether through hefty taxes or the

smoking ban. The idea of standardised packs bearing little

but a health warning was reignited recently. They are already in place

in Australia. The idea is they make cigarettes less appealing,

especially to young smokers. These are Australian packs. No matter the

brand, they look the same. The industry claimed the lack of

markings make it easy to fake them, which could lead to a rise in

illegal and counterfeit cigarettes. We start of the top, then works out

towards Pimlico. This ex-policeman now works for tobacco giant Philip

Morris, and his team travelled the country to assess the illicit travel

-- tobacco market, unlike his employer, he says plain packs could

make things worse. In counterfeit currency we had to keep ahead of

them by putting in normal security measures in. Then overnight, most of

the measures would be removed and instead of counterfeiting hundreds

of types of brands, they only have to copy one, and the whole market is

so not. His team want to remain anonymous because they go into shops

to buy illicit tobacco from research and then refer illegal activity to

trading standards. They claim it's easy to find. Sometimes they will

come out from behind the counter, or they will be in behind packets of

cornflakes and things, so these are ?3 50 a packet, and Marlboro

cigarette you can get for ?8 a packet, the legitimate price, and we

are getting them for around ?5 per packet. There is no dispute the

illegal tobacco trade exists, whether counterfeit cigarettes all

real brands smuggled in to avoid tax. But HM RC says the market has

halved since the year 2000. Many claim there is no evidence that

standardised packs were affected, saying it is a myth peddled by the

tobacco industry which wants to keep advertising brands. The industry

data, until 2011 when plain packaging was discussed, was similar

to government data and other independent data. Suddenly the

possibility of plain packaging was discussed and industry data shows an

increase in illicit tobacco which seems false. The tobacco industry

cannot be trusted. The arguments are false and should be seen for what

they are, a PR ploy aiming to derail the legislation. We don't yet have

standardised packaging so there's no impact invested -- impact data. In

Australia, where the plane packets were introduced in 2012, there are

different interpretations of data, but Customs said it does not appear

to have had a significant impact on illicit tobacco import. In the UK,

an independent report is due imminently and will no doubt spark

further debate about whether it should be introduced here. Still

with me is Diane Abbott, the former shadow public health minister, and

joining Mrs Simon Clark, the director of the dash and joining us

is Simon Clark. We heard that the tobacco industry can't be trusted

with the data and will do anything to advertise, but surely anything

lowering the number of deaths from smoking is a good thing. The

government talks about evidence -based policy that there's no

evidence that the plain packaging would reduce youth smoking rates.

I'm 54 and I don't know a single smoker who started smoking as a

teenager or later because they were attracted to the packaging. It's

nonsense. I have only ever heard to ex-smokers who were attracted by the

packaging, and they were politicians who were both Junior health

spokesman, which says everything. We can't introduce it if there is no

evidence for it and your report shows that illicit trade is a

problem and we don't want to do anything that might exacerbate that.

Let's ask the politician and former health minister whether you will

back up the claims made by Simon that you just put out this policy

with no evidence? That's nonsense. There have been major studies done

by scientists and doctors about this, and all of the medical

organisations support plain packaging. Can you explain what the

studies actually are? The doctors want plain packaging because they

believe it will help to bear down on levels of smoking. Let's not forget,

smoking is not a harmless pastime, it's one of the biggest sources of

cancer. To be honest with you, I'd rather believe a doctor than the

tobacco industry lobbyist. The point I want to make is that one of the

reason why the Tories have been reluctant is Lynton Crosby politics,

a penny off the point, and you can have your fags as well. It's

appealing to the UKIP voter. Is there evidence, and it's been

introduced in Australia, and it's only been a year, and it's not a

long enough time to give proper data, but interestingly, there has

been a 0.3% increase from 2012 in the amount of tobacco smoke. It's a

very small increase in new can't say it is conclusive. So what is the

evidence that plain packaging would reduce the number of people who

smoke? Doctors are convinced it is an important measure. When we

introduced the ban on smoking in pubs and bars and they said that

would do -- no one said that would do anything, but levels of childhood

asthma drop. We're talking about health charities and doctors and

cancer charities and they all say it will reduce the number of young

people who start smoking who are attracted to the idea of colourful

cigarette packaging. It's just nonsense. Are you saying they are

all wrong? I'm saying it's based on conjecture. They ask basic groups,

focus groups of 15-year-olds and they showed the plain packaging

which is covered in grotesque images and then they showed them the

current cigarette packaging and say which do you prefer. It's like

showing a child a picture of a Lamborghini and a beaten up for

their school, and ask which one you prefer? It's not a real-world

situation -- a beaten up Ford Escort. I'm more interested in the

electronic cigarette revolution which gets people of smoking. It

doesn't have the tar which causes the health problems but still has

the nicotine. The European regulation of that industry is the

real threat to public health. I think we have to finish it there.

I'm sure we will have you back on the programme about the subject. Are

we teaching our pupils the right skills for the economy? The former

Conservative Education Secretary Lord Baker thinks not. He wants more

emphasis on vocational skills and more schools that specialise in

so-called stem subjects like science, technology, engineering and

maths. Lord Baker chose a group of technical colleges which aims to do

that, and we will get his thoughts, but first we can speak to Moira

Green, a principle of one such college in Elstree. Welcome to the

programme. Tell us what your college specialises in. We specialise in the

technical aspects of the entertainment and film industry,

things like postproduction, lighting and sound. We make sure that

students have a really grounded technical and academic curriculum.

What is your offer to the students? I understand it opened last

September. What is your offer in terms of guarantees of a job or a

university place at the end of it? The aspiration is that all of the

students will seek a route through to employment, and that might

involve university, it might evolve up an apprenticeship -- involve an

apprenticeship, and it will definitely involve work experience

with partners. You have links setup that you can offer, proper work

experience for the pupils. Of course. We are working with our

employer partners. We have recently worked with the Big Brother

producers. Our students spent three days being the crew for the next set

of contestants and will work with the design team on the design of the

next house. We are also working with the MOBOs and our students are

lighting, doing the sound, and then web packaging the contents for the

website in conjunction with their design and editorial team. This is

for 14 to 18-year-olds? Yes, and it's already happening. We've been

open seven months and we have real links with partners providing

incredible opportunities the young people. Moira Green, thank you very

much. The man behind the movement joins us now, Kenneth Baker. Welcome

back. Interesting listening to the headmistress there. How many UTC

colleges are there? We have 17 open and 12 more will open this year and

we will have another 12 more approved. It's not just a few cases.

Are you getting to a critical mass? Yes, I think it's now unstoppable.

That is wonderful. She will guarantee that her youngsters will

get a job, an apprenticeship or go on to college and do A-levels or go

to university. Very few schools can say that. And they are doing it

because those companies can come and teach at the UTC. They talk to the

students every day. Those students will have experience of doing things

with there. These colleges are very typical. Where does the funding come

from? From Michael Gove. It comes from you. The state. They are

taxpayer funded. We are allowed to spend up to ?10 million on the

building and equipment and no more, and then they'll run like academies.

I tell you why I want them, because there is a massive shortage of

technicians. You were talking about Jackson electricity earlier and that

industry is 23% short at the moment of technicians -- gas and

electricity. Manufacturing is 30% short. We are not producing. We need

the technicians in our universities and schools. You want a new breed of

career colleges? How would that differ from a UTC? Career colleges

are like catering or hospitality or tourism, creative arts. One will

open up an old in Lancashire, linking graphic art with computing.

-- open in Oldham. Another one might open in Liverpool. It's the same

sort of thing. They are from 8:30am until 5pm every day. Shorter

holidays. They wanted and they are very popular. Her school is heavily

subscribed. The government has boast about the increase in

apprenticeships, but when you look at the figures, quite a lot of

apprenticeships are in business studies or health management. They

might be needed, but they are not what you would traditionally think

of as an apprenticeships. You would think about science, technology,

engineering, mathematics and we don't seem to have another

apprentices. You are very well briefed. There are 49,000

apprentices in managerial studies. That was never an apprentice in the

Park -- in the past. That is rebranding somebody doing studies. I

met two people sweeping the corridor, and they said they were

apprentices. We want more of these colleges. We are going to get more

of them, and the thing I'm most proud about, Andrew, is that the

target for all of them is when you have a lever at 16 or 18 and nobody

gets a jobseeker's allowance. We have targets and we have met them. I

think this is a fantastic achievement. Do you think the

government should get behind it more? Absolutely. If we're going to

compete with emerging economies, I think it's fantastic. Some viewers

think politicians are just in it for power and glory, and I don't know

how old you are. Don't answer! I am about to become 80. Michael

Heseltine is still touring the country with the cities programme.

There are generations of politics -- politicians dedicated to serving the

country. You once described Michael Gove is very dedicated. Was that

good or bad? He's a bit too interested in the academic side. He

could do with more interesting in your side? Well, I am spending his

money, but wisely. We want a bigger network, and which saw David Cameron

saying he wants one of these in every age can the country. We will

keep an eye on it. A very interesting development. Sticking

with Michael Gove and education, because there's just time to find

out the answer to our daily quiz. Can you remember, what is the Shadow

Education Secretary say was his favourite thing about Michael Gove?

Was it that he's sending his daughter to a state secondary, his

good manners, his enthusiasm for history, or his wife's newspaper

columns? He does have good manners but I would say it's sending his

daughter to a state school. Is that right

no. Michael and I share an enthusiasm history. Is based on a

deep and sustained reading rather than Michael's more superficial

understanding of the past. How very touching. What a backhanded

condiment. I think we are done for the day -- backhanded compliment.

The one o'clock News is starting on BBC One right now. I will be back on

BBC One with David Starkey, Warwick Davis and Laura Greensburg, Alan

Johnson and Michael Portillo, and I will be here tomorrow to continue my

TV apprenticeship. It's going very well! Goodbye.