08/04/2014 Daily Politics

Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. It's the expenses

row that just won't go away. Maria Miller made a lightning-fast

entrance to Cabinet this morning, with reports that senior Tories want

her out on the double. So far Number ten is standing by its minister.

The Lib Dems promised that all infant school pupils will have free

school meals by this September. But are the schools ready? We've been

investigating. Speaking of Lib Dems, I've been

talking to the former minister Sarah Teather about the direction of the

party and her decision to leave Westminster.

Both David Cameron and Ed Miliband started off as special advisors, but

to many they're overpaid and unaccountable. So just what do they

really do? All that in the next hour, you lucky viewers. And with us

for the whole programme today is Henry de Zoete. He was adviser to

education secretary Michael Gove until last year. He now runs

something called the Big Deal which is trying to persuade consumers to

join together and force the energy companies to give them a better

deal. The Daily Mail also once described him one of Britain's 50

most powerful posh people under 30. What an accolade! He is choking!

He's since got a bit older so he no longer qualifies. Welcome to the

show. Let's start with Maria Miller. It's

the sixth day in a row the culture secretary and her expenses have been

making the front pages of the papers. Last week Mrs Miller was

cleared of funding a home for her parents at taxpayers' expense but

was criticised for her obstructive attitude to the inquiry. She gave a

short apology to the Commons that has been described as perfunctory by

Ed Miliband. She agreed to hand back ?5,800 after a larger sum

recommended by an independent watchdog was overruled by a

committee of MPs. Still following? Yesterday the MPs tried to raise the

matter in the Commons. MP John Mann has been leading the criticism of

Maria Miller and raised a point of order. What opportunities might

there be for the house to have a discussion, not on the behaviour and

actions of individual members, but on the principle of self-regulation

of MPs by MPs? What mechanism is possible before the house rises on

Thursday for us to discuss this very important issue? Not this particular

case, I am not raising that at all, but the general issue of how we

regulate ourselves and recognise the amount of criticism justified or

otherwise which has been expressed outside. I thought I had better use

this before you do. How do you solve a problem called Maria? I can say to

the honourable gentleman that governments can make statements to

the house when they wish. The Government has not chosen to make a

statement today. It is perfectly possible that there could be

exchanges on the principles of the issues that concern him and others.

That could take place between now and when we rise later this week.

The speaker, John Bercow. Maria Miller is still being backed by the

Prime Minister, but Tory MPs have not exactly been vocal in their

support. According to the Daily Telegraph this morning, the chairman

of the 1922 committee of backbench Conservatives, Graham Brady, met

David Cameron to tell him he has to go. And last night on ITV, the

employment minister Esther McVey had this to say. As to what happened,

you are quite right, the fundamental allegation, which an opposition MP

brought against her, that was dismissed by an independent

commissioner. But there were two things that she had to do, pay it

back and make an apology. That was done. I can honestly say that is not

how I would have made an apology but different people have different

styles and do things in different ways. Very revealing. Esther McVey

speaking last night. Yesterday we learned that Speaker John Bercow has

allowed a question on possible changes to the way complaints about

MPs are handled following this row. Carole Walker joins us now. What

will that mean? We are waiting to hear from the leader of the house

exactly what will happen but you are right. John Mann, who raised the

issue just a moment ago, he has succeeded in forcing Andrew Lansley

to come to the House and talk about what is going to happen to this

system is investigated Maria Miller. Their concern is that this standards

committee, which is made up of MPs, with a few lay members, although

they do not have a vote. This committee overruled the independent

commissioner, to reduce the amount that Maria Miller had to repay. She

is having to repay about ?6,000. The independent commissioner originally

suggested around ?40,000. This has led to a lot of concerns that MPs

are marking their own homework. Yesterday the Prime Minister said he

was open to suggestions about how this should change. It is worth

noting there is now a different situation in place for investigating

complaints about MPs expenses. There is a new independent compliance

office but complaints about MPs on other issues and allegations of

misbehaviour are still dealt with by this standards committee. We are

expecting to hear from the Leader of the House in an hour, who will

signal whether or not the Government is prepared to back changes to make

this system more independent. Though the system may change, we don't

know, but MPs may not be allowed to judge how other Members of

Parliament have behaved. What does that mean for Maria Miller? Is it a

device to distract from her or does she still looked in a precarious

situation? Maria Miller's case has been dealt with. She has agreed to

pay back the money and has made that apology, which many people,

including one of her fellow ministers, were not happy about.

There is no doubt that she is still under pressure. Talking to

Conservative MPs, there is a sense that the mood is hardening against

her. I think a lot of MPs are celebrated that they are out and

about and campaigning ahead of the local and European elections. They

want to be talking about the economy, lifting the tax threshold,

changes to benefits and so on. Instead they are being asked again

and again about MP expenses and Maria Miller. I think that has led a

lot of Conservative MPs to question why, for the sake of the damage she

is doing to the rest of the party, she doesn't fall on her sword. It

has to be said that at the moment she seems to be digging in her heels

and the Prime Minister is standing by her. The urgent question is at

12:30pm, I believe. Thank you. Henry, she has been accused of

handling this badly, Maria Miller. If you had been her adviser, would

you say she has handled it badly and how should she have done it

differently? I am quite glad these things are not my problem anymore! I

think there could potentially be some concerns raised about the

nature of the apology and maybe the full sum of it. But I don't think

she could really have done much more at the moment and the truth is that

it is in the hands of the Prime Minister and we have to see what he

does. There has been some focus on the role of her special adviser and

a conversation she had with journalists that the Daily

Telegraph, where the issue of the Leveson Inquiry and press regulation

was raised. Did she overstepped the mark? I don't know the ins and outs

of that. There were accusations flying about that what she did and

didn't mean so it is difficult for me to say specifically if that is

right or not. I note the special adviser Angie is a lovely person and

a adviser. -- I know the special adviser and she is a lovely person.

It could come back to haunt her in terms of relations, especially with

the press. If Maria Miller makes it to the Eastern recess, do you think

she will survive until the next reshuffle which comes up after the

European elections? If I was the adviser, I would be holding out for

the recess, because that is when the pressure lifts off and the

Westminster bubble calms down. The pressure loosens and MPs disappear

back to their constituencies. They are not walking round Westminster,

talking to each other and bumping into journalists and making the

whole thing an issue again. I think if she can get to recess, she will

be in a better place. Do you think she can expect to be reshuffled

after the European elections? I think that will depend on how the

Prime Minister is feeling about everything. We will leave that

there. It is now time for the daily quiz. For those of you that have not

seen Game Of Thrones, it is about a lot of morally ambiguous and corrupt

characters locked in a cut-throat battle for power and influence.

Sound familiar? For some reason this reminds the planning minister Nick

Boles of Westminster, surprise surprise. And on Twitter yesterday

he speculated which MP would best play the character Daenerys

Targaryen, who can walk through fire and is the mother of some dragons.

So who did he think should play the role? Nadine Dorries, Stella Creasy,

Esther McVey, Liz Truss? And at the end of the show, Henry will give us

the correct answer. Do you watch Game Of Thrones? Not yet. Everybody

is telling me to watch it but I can't quite bring myself to. That is

what the box set is for. You may remember one of the big

announcements from last year's conference that all primary school

children should get free school meals from next year. It made the

headlines but as many as 2700 schools in England are not ready to

start serving. Many need to upgrade their kitchens and others do not

have a kitchen. Alex is the reporter behind the search and Tobacco

research, so let's have a look. The time for these pupils and a

welcome break from lessons. In Dorset, most children bring their

lunch from home and eat in the classroom. From September, these

packed lunches should be replaced by a hot meal provided for free for all

pupils in their first free school years but that will not happen here.

The kitchen and dining hall are too small to serve and feed the pupils

and there is not enough money to make the changes needed. We need

facilities and certainly schools like us and others in the area need

people to serve the food. We are talking about children as young as

four walking around with trays of food and we need to be vigilant and

that costs money. Instead children will get prepacked sandwiches

delivered in. It is not quite what Nick Clegg promised when he launched

the policy for English schools last autumn. All families with

schoolchildren at primary school in those first crucial three years at

infant school, we are going to give everybody, all of the children, a

hot and healthy meal at lunchtime. Most headteachers support the idea

and investment in children's health, but they say the scheme has been

rushed through and puts pressure on some schools. Primary schools are

very singular places. Although implementing free school meals would

be effortless in many contexts, in some contexts, it provides a

significant challenge and in some an insuperable challenge given the

existing resources. We asked every council in England about schools in

their area. At least 2700 need to upgrade their kitchens, which is

anything from a new oven to total refurbishment. That is one third of

those assessed. 1700 have no kitchen at all. Meals could be delivered by

external companies or nearby schools. Some teachers say they will

have to stagger sittings and extend lunchtimes to fit more pupils into

smaller halls. ?150 million of funding has been allocated for

schools to improve dining halls and kitchens. But the money has been

allocated according to how many pupils are in each area, not on what

the school needs. So some regions have more than they require and in

others the funding falls short. The Government has enlisted the help of

experts like members of the lead association for catering in

education to help schools, especially small ones, struggling to

implement the policy. We are offering support to schools with the

help line that we are running. We are supporting schools that various

different levels, depending on how much support they need. Whether it

is a phone call and pointing them in the right direction or somebody

coming in and working with them to find solutions. Come September, all

eligible children have to be offered a free meal, even if an interim

solution means damages for some instead of the promised hot lunch.

-- sandwiches. We asked very nicely to speak to a minister from the

Department for Education and nobody was available. Instead we are joined

by Malcolm Bruce, I am delighted to say, and Henry deceived, who was an

adviser at the education department. Free hot school meals were promised

and it is not going to happen. The objective is it will happen. There

may be some interim phase in, but that is the objective. The BBC

report is entirely consistent with the Department's own information

about the situation, for which they provided the money. Accept that some

schools are going to get pre-packaged sandwiches from

September, not a hot school meal, that wasn't what was promised. That

is still his stated objective. It might not be in certain

circumstances, although the department tell me they are pretty

confident most places will be able to do it by a variety of different

needs. Upgrading Kitchens, it could be a minor upgrade. Outside catering

possibilities as well. The objective is to ensure every school provides a

free meal to every child, a hot meal. You think all the upgrades can

be done by September best remark I take your point that some of the

changes may be minor, but if you are having to put in a whole new kitchen

or upgraded, that is going to take a long time. Enough from my own

constituency, where school meal provision has changed over time,

some schools have Kitchens, some don't. Some cook for other schools

and ship them between them, some use outside catering. There are a

variety of ways to do it. It can be done. It wasn't really through

properly in terms of the concept to delivery. I think it was. This

policy has been in the making for five years. Pilot schemes were done.

This isn't just about free school meals. This is about ensuring that

children who currently don't get proper nutrition will get it. It

also ensures a much better educational output. That's why it's

the Department of education that doing it. It's coming out of the

education budget because there's an education benefit, which is proven.

Do you think it was well thought through? I think there was a problem

with implementation of this policy and how the policy came about. I was

in the Department for Education in the run-up to the announcement. We

didn't know anything about it until just a few hours before it was

announced at the Liberal Democrat Conference. What that meant was the

kind of hard, detailed work that needs to be done, for when you're

doing something of such importance, a national roll-out, the hard graft

wasn't there. I think that has been proven by the fact that there has

been changes in the position of what can be done and what can't be done,

when they had to announce more capital funding, the fact it was

announced on a per capita basis. That was done because they didn't

have enough time to find out which schools did or didn't have Kitchens.

I'm not saying the policy is a bad one. The review that led to the

policy was set up by Michael Gove, he is very supportive of the policy,

but there were issues around in fermentation. Do you accept that? I

don't. The pilot schemes were well tested and the benefit of the policy

was proven. The roll-out has been determined according to needs. It

was a surprise for the rest of the department in that it was announced

with any consultation. Good political announcement sometimes

have to be a surprise to get the impact. This was a Liberal Democrat

policy. Maybe they thought that you, as they accused the Conservatives,

would steal the policy or steal credit for it. There's an

interesting dynamic at play in the coalition in particular, and also

around party conferences and announcement that happen there.

Michael Gove's team had a rule we wouldn't make announcements at party

conference because sometimes they were difficult to get right, you are

in a bubble away from Westminster, you are not with the department, you

can't do the work that needs to be done. But these things happen. But

that wasn't just to be Department. We heard that schools have been

taken by surprise. The pilot is one thing, rolling it out on the

universal bases is quite another. Surely that was a mistake, because

now you got schools who have not only got the right facilities, but

they are talking about having more teachers at lunchtime, you can't

have kids holding the hot trays of food without help, staggering the

lunch break, it will have to start at 11:30am to get them through to

2pm. If you go back decades, a hot school meal was the normal

provision. We moved away from that for a whole variety of reasons. What

the policy demonstrates is the consequence of that will stop

children from pourer families are not getting good nutrition, and the

educational performance of poor children have been undermined. It is

a good policy. If there are hiccups they should be accepted and dealt

with, but it's not an argument for rubbishing or denigrating the

policy, which is a good, sound education policy. I think people

were questioning how it was actually presented and not enough thought had

gone into it. How do you get over a problem where a school with a

certain number of teachers just won't have enough people to

facilitate this? Yellow matter what those teachers doing when the

children are having lunch at the moment? The responsibility of the

school, children still have to be that. I do find that a slight red

herring, because I'm sure schools can manage this by reorganising the

day. Do you agree they will be able to cope with it, that these problems

are merely hiccups? Or do you think those are legitimate concerns, how

you deal with it when it's happening at lunch times? I do think they are

legitimate concerns. We've heard from people on the ground to spot

problems. It's fantastic the department is reaching out to them,

but there are other issues abound as policy which I don't think were

thought through properly. Like what happens around the Pupil Premium?

Also, that's how you measure kids on free school meals, that's how you

put out the Pupil Premium. If you are a head teacher you need to know

which of your kids are on free school meals and getting them, so

you can see the performance of those children and make sure you advance

it. Those issues... Getting away from means testing in this context

is a good thing. Means testing is difficult. What is happening now is

children from poor families sometimes don't qualify for free

school meals. The problem is the cost of the free school meals would

make them qualified if it came before rather than after. What you

are doing is making sure that children who currently don't get

school meals to get them. I accept that the criteria for the Pupil

Premium, but I'm certain there are ways of administering that. This

will all come together, it's about providing support for all children,

not just to get them better fed but better educated. Will it affect the

Pupil Premium? There are some schools who will claim they really

need that for some of them all poor pupils. Will they lose out if they

can't identify those pupils in the first instance as a result of this

policy? Of the policy is every child is getting a hot meal, you don't

know who is on free school meals and who isn't. You, as a parent, sign up

your child to do it. One of the incentives is the fact there is a

free school meals. Therefore why would you tell the school, there is

a lot of stigma with those issues, if you are meeting that criteria?

You wouldn't. It is the stigma that discourages people from applying for

free school meals, and as a consequence cuts them off from the

Pupil Premium. I think there's a real case to ensure we do better and

reach more of the kids by doing I think we are improving the

performance right across the board. Let's deal with any problems that

may be, but that's not undermine this very good policy to improve

educational output. What about the other point that was made in the

film? Because was allocated on the basis of pupil numbers and not need,

you will have money going to some schools where they don't need it.

They have the facilities and are ready to go. Whereas the will be

other schools who need a full kitchen upgrade who could do with

more money. It would be possible it seems to me that you can negotiate

across the piece. Those schools that don't need money will make it

available to those who do. If those issues do exist, it should be

possible to reorganise the funding in a way that we deliver the right

result. Former special adviser to Michael Gove, clearly not you,

described it as a gimmick. You don't think that's the case? I don't think

it was me. The issue for us, they were trying to do things that were

improving children's lives, making sure education is better. There's a

debate over whether this policy will do that. Michael Gove thinks that is

the case, but we have to get the implementation issues right to be

able to deliver it. We were told we couldn't raise the tax threshold to

?10,000, we raised it. Things can be done. Coalition adds value to policy

delivery. With rising energy bills, politicians are keen to encourage

people to switch providers if it will save them money. And to help,

the energy regulator Ofgem has brought in new rules which it says

will ban confusing and complex tariffs and make it easier for

consumers. Since January this year, energy suppliers have been limited

to offering eight tariffs to customers - four for electricity and

four for gas. And they've faced stricter rules on how to advertise

these tariffs. Then on 31st of March, new rules came into force to

make sure suppliers inform customers of the cheapest available tariff and

how much it could save them. Ofgem have also introduced a Tariff

Comparison Rate, or TCR, similar to APR for interest rates, which allows

customers to compare tariffs at a glance. So, will these changes make

it easier for customers to get a better deal on their energy? Joining

me now from Birmingham is Ramsay Dunning from Co-operative Energy,

and here in the studio is our guest of the day Henry de Zoete. He's

behind a company which encourages collective bargaining in the energy

market to bring down prices. Also with me here is Alun Rees from

Energy UK. According to which, the consumer organisation, only 35% of

people pick the cheapest energy deal, despite the tariffs coming in

at the beginning of the year which were designed to simplify the

system. That's a problem, isn't it? The strange thing is that the

research didn't look at the way people switch, which is really easy

to do. All you need to do is find how much energy you use, which is on

your bill, go to a price comparison website, Bob 's your uncle, it will

give you a quote and tell you what the best deal is. If it's that easy,

why have more people not switched? Millar about 3.5 million people

switched supplier last year. But what we want to do is make it even

simpler and easier for people to come -- pair and choose the best

deal for them. In 2013, an estimated 5.8 million people switched energy

providers. That's one point three 8 million fewer than ten years ago in

2003. The recent switches, 2010, eight .30 1 million. Then it

declines. 2011, seven .48. 2012, five .62. We are getting fewer and

fewer switches, despite you saying it is easier. It's no surprise that

switching is a lot less now than it was five or ten years ago. The

reason for that is five or ten years ago, suppliers were doing doorstep

selling. That was phased out because public concerns. The market is

changing and there are innovative new ways to make it easier for

customers to switch, like collective switching schemes, like comparison

websites and like the new tools energy suppliers are bringing in to

make it easier and simpler to compare. It's clearly not quite

simple enough. We can put up a graphic to show some of the offers

from three companies. Take a look at that. Which one is the cheapest?

At a glance, you've only given me a few seconds to look at this. Show.

You are saying it's really easy, I looked at that and I couldn't work

it out and I'm not sure I could work it out even after I don't know, 40

minutes. This isn't the way that most people compared. The most

common used way is find out how much they used, which is on their bill,

pop it into a price comparison site along with their postcode and

straightaway you will get a quote which will tell you the cheapest

deal for you. Accept people still aren't taking it up. I have switched

once and I went through that process and it is quite straightforward. It

still takes quite a long time and you are reliant on the company is

doing all the paperwork for you. 60% of people have still never switched.

What you've just shown in terms of the different options kind of sums

it up. It's really confusing, you are not sure what's going on. Is

that going to save you money or not? What we are trying to do is say,

actually, if we get a whole bunch of people together, we can demand,

through the fact we've got more people, collectively bargain a

price. It's the easiest and simplest way of switching. It's easy to do,

easy to sign up and we do the difficult job for you by finding the

best possible deal. It sounds like a great deal, but Which made the same

offer. Is this any different? I think it is different because what

we are doing is reaching out to people that have never switched

before because we've got over 60% of people involved who never switched

before, people who are slightly older. These other groups who have

most been badly... I wouldn't want to say exploited, but certainly been

the ones who have not been able to save money, they've been ripped off,

they are spending up to ?300 more than they should be doing. We think

we can get them a really good deal. This is a commercial operation, you

will profit from this. How much commission will you take from each

person? We don't know what commission we will get at this

stage. We will know that when we've done a negotiation with the energy

companies and we will be open about that. One of the issues some people

have had the price comparison websites is those guys, they are

taking commissions but no one knows what they are or what they are

doing. The whole point about what we are doing is about saving people

money. If we can save them money then we've done what we've aimed to

do. Ramsey, thank you for waiting. Should private providers, like Henry

de Zoete's be operating in the energy market? I don't think there

is a problem with having private providers in the market but previous

discussions have highlighted that the public needs a completely

independent, dependable and public saving service that provides all the

information neutrally. The problem with commercial services is that

their primary purpose is to make a profit, and they do that out of

commission. They get commission from some companies and not from others,

and therefore they will give the customer the best product that they

will earn commission on. You are not going to get a private service

saying to a customer that this is the very best deal on the market

even if we don't make anything from it. The public really needs that

completely independent service. Who is going to provide that? A number

of people could provide it. I think it needs the Government to come

behind it. It does not necessarily need the Government to set it up. It

needs to be overseen by the Government or Ofgem. They could set

it up. They don't need to. It could go out to a consumer organisation

like Which? Or Consumer Focus. Organisations like that. If you can

get a better deal and you can negotiate with more clout against

the big six, then that would be a benefit, surely? The idea of people

coming together collectively to get a better deal for themselves, we

absolutely wholeheartedly support. That after all is what co-opts are

about. The consumer co-operative model. Private services are not

going to give consumers a completely independent and neutral view of what

is out there. Well, we try to save people money and if we can do that,

yes, we will make some money. We are not like a traditional switching

site. We are not about getting people to switch again and again,

which is how they make money. The people who have joined us are people

that have never switched and have never done it before and don't want

to switch every year. They want a longer term deal and have peace of

mind and relax, knowing they have a good deal, without worrying about it

for several years. Wood energy companies respond to that? Energy

companies support anyway to get consumers engaged. Except for

charging less. Gas bills have risen by 41% since 2007 and electricity by

20%. The prophet of the energy companies has risen from 5% on each

bill in 2010 to 6.7% in 2013. Energy companies are working really hard to

keep energy prices as low as possible. A loss of the costs within

the bill are outside the companies's control. They are all

fighting really hard to win business on price and service. What about

investment? Investment is really important. This is why we need a

healthy energy sector to invest ?100 million over the next three years to

build the new power stations that we need to keep the lights on for our

children. Do you agree with Labour's plans to break up the big

six energy companies? I think there are certainly some issues about

vertical integration and suppliers and selling on bits. That plan is a

year and a half away from the election and it will take time to

implement. But it is the right plan? We would have to see how it will

work. The issue for consumers at the moment is that they want price cuts

now. We have seen prices doubled. Huge profits from energy companies,

quadrupling from the big six. What we want now is a way of saving

people money. Thank you very much. When Sarah Teather entered

Parliament in a by-election in 2003, she was seen as a rising star. Two

years later, she was on the Lib Dem front bench team, and when the

coalition was formed, she became minister for children and families.

In 2012, she was reshuffled out of the Government and has since said

that she will stand down at the next election. She said she feels

desolate about some of the Government's policies. Yesterday I

joined her in her North London constituency. The London borough of

bread is said to be the most ethnically diverse in the country.

The MP, Sarah Teather, shocked everyone by saying she would stand

down at the next election, disillusioned by the coalition's

policies on immigration and welfare. Cases like that of this Nigerian

constituent have angered Sarah Teather. She was working legally as

a care assistant for three years that her application to stay longer

was rejected at first. The Home Office then changed its mind, but

left her in limbo for a year. Because the Home Office did not

follow the rules, she found herself effectively in the position of being

illegal, and denied the right to work and support her family. When

the Government talk about wanting to target people that they describe as

illegal, they often mean people that they have screwed up. What was it

like during that period when you were in limbo waiting for the Home

Office to make a final decision about your application? It was hell.

I had no access to public funds. No more housing, no more benefits. It

was very sad for me. Did you manage to work? I could not work because I

was suspended. I had no visa. So what did you live on? Nothing.

Sarah, will you be sad to leave your constituency behind? In lots of ways

I will be very sad. I have loved being an MP here. Nothing can change

your mind? No. I took a long time to make the decision and I thought

about it carefully. I am not going to change my mind. Sarah Teather

says that she still has friends in the party but does she think Nick

Clegg should continue as leader? I mean, I can't see anybody else who

would stand in place of him. Hardly a ringing endorsement from someone

who feels that the Lib Dems have stopped standing up for what they

believe in. Do you agree there should be a limit on immigration? I

think the immigration cap is a very silly policy and the end result is

what? British families being split up. Students coming here to pay into

the system being turned down. Teenagers getting deported. At the

same time, people driving around places like this in a van saying go

home. That is the end result of making silly policy. Theresa May

coined the phrase the nasty party for her own party. Do you think the

Tories still are the nasty party? I think it is very difficult to work

face to face with people in a constituency like this and see the

inhumane decisions that get made to sanction benefits and turned down

immigration cases when they have a legitimate right to be here. It is

difficult to work face to face with people like that and not see the

Conservatives as the nasty party. There is a certain irony with it

being Theresa May making the speech, pointing out to the Tory party that

they were in danger of being seen as nasty, when it is Theresa May

pushing forward a deeply Draconian and unpleasant bill that will have

no benefit for the UK. Sarah Teather joins us now along with a

Conservative MP Philip Davies. You saw Sarah Teather in the film

describing the welfare cap, sorry, the immigration cap as a silly

policy. What do you say to that? I want us to control immigration and

the general public wants us to control it and my constituents do.

Where the Government has got itself into a mess is that while we are

still in the European Union, we cannot control immigration into the

country. We cannot cap immigration. I am all for having a proper cap,

but that only way to do that is to leave the European Union. So you

admit that the immigration target is nonsense because the Government

cannot control immigration so was it a silly idea? I think it was a

mistake to have a cap and a target when you have no control. You can

only have an effective target and cap if you have control over it.

Absolutely, I think that was a mistake. The policy objective of

reducing immigration into the country is a good one and certainly

one that the overwhelming majority of my constituents agree with, and I

suspect the overwhelming majority of the country. Why shouldn't there be

some limit on immigration? Would you like an open door policy with

limitless numbers coming in? No, but immigration policy has to be a

balance of what is good for the country and for the people coming

here. You need to balance those needs and look at individual areas

and understand what skills are required and the corrugated ways in

which people contribute, which is not always economic. My trouble is

that this policy is not looking across the country and thinking

about the wider good of the society. It is about opinion polls, which is

not a good way of making policy. That is how people feel. Should they

not feel the burden of pressure on schools and hospitals as people do

in constituencies where there are high levels of immigration and the

place is too small to absorb immigrants? In places like London,

the difficulty is caused by the draw of the South East. People are moving

from all over the country not just all over the world. People want

politicians to show colour -- courage and leadership and not just

to do what was in favour at the last opinion poll. You were a minister

taking decisions in the last Government so what were you and your

Lib Dem colleagues doing? I was certainly fighting a lot of them

behind the scenes. Many colleagues still are. That you failed to make

an impact. A lot of things were changed but I would like to see more

change. That was the price of coalition, if you like. You got your

way on having some kind of immigration target, even if the Lib

Dems were not wholly supportive of it. You have admitted that it was a

complete waste of time. How else would you bring down immigration? At

the moment the only way is to leave the EU. We need people with the

right skills for the economy and I totally agree with that but with an

open border policy, with the EU, anybody can come in whether they

have the skills or not. Most people coming from the EU are coming to do

low skilled jobs, entry-level jobs, while we have 900,000 people aged 16

to 24 who are unemployed and capable of doing the jobs. It is the low

paid people in this country that have suffered as a result. I think

it is more complicated than that. A lot of people are struggling to get

a job and they are frightened and nervous. We need to focus more on

what we can do to get them chances of getting into work. School

reforms, apprenticeships, where there has been enormous investment

from this Government in making sure people have the skills to get the

right kinds of work. But I am not sure pulling out of the EU will be

good for Britain as a whole. What will happen to all the jobs that we

hope will be available for people if we pull out of the EU? That is not

sensible policy either. We have a trade deficit with the EU. We buy

much more from them than they buy from us. The idea that Mercedes and

BMW will stop the German Government trading freely with us is utter

nonsense. We want free trade with Europe but we do not want to be run

by them and have unlimited immigration coming in from the EU.

Do you think the Tory party is the nasty party? I never did and I would

not want to be part of a nasty party. We have a different

perspective on things. I think Sarah's views are stupid on many

things. But she is entitled to have an opinion, we live in a democracy.

Cheers! Just because we disagree does not make one of us nasty and

one more pleasant. So why the nasty party? When you asked me the

question yesterday, when you work face to face of people and see the

consequences in their lives, and you see people left destitute by changes

in welfare, people left destitute who want to work, and really had the

right to work, and eventually the Home Office accented that my

constituents should have been able to remain and to work and they had

made a series of errors. -- accepted that my constituent. They had made a

series of boxes, which is the Home Office, unfortunately. Do you accept

that these policies are leaving some people destitute? Look at the

welfare cap. You have to burn ?35,000 a year to get their welfare

cap of ?26,000. I think it is nasty to get people to go out and work for

less than they are paying in their taxes for somebody else to get food

without working at all. I think that is nasty. We have a different

perspective on what is nice and nasty. I don't see any great

pleasantness about expecting people to go out to work and earn less than

people on benefits. The sanctions regime which we were talking about

yesterday in the context of that conversation, I have seen people

have their benefits removed for having missed their appointments

because they were having surgery for a tumour. That is just inhumane. It

does not do any good for society and it causes huge damage to that

individual. OK. Let's look briefly at the party itself. You have

announced that he will step down. Jeremy Browne has said that the

Liberal Democrats are too timid, but coming at it from a different

political perspective, what do you say to him? He wants profit free

schools. Henry is delighted! It see more of a Conservative than Liberal

Democrat, Jeremy Browne? I am not going to get into that stuff. Do!

You don't agree with him on any of that? I don't. I felt awkward about

the way that video was cut to make it look like I am attacking Nick

Clegg. I don't want to get into personal politics. But he is talking

about policies. You don't agree with cutting the top rate of tax. I don't

think cutting the top rate of tax is going to help those people in my

constituency to get on or pay into the system, to make sure we can

provide quality public services. This is a dilemma for the Liberal

Democrats. Is generally mean Brown looking more like a conservative

these days with those policy suggestions? -- Jeremy Browne.

Looking at the Liberal Democrats over the last four years of the

coalition, there's been an internal battle from the very start. I think

it was first formed when the decision to go into the coalition

happened. Perhaps the grassroots of the party, looking at the

conferences and seeing the motions they passed, knowing that wasn't

exactly what they wanted or the direction that is. There's always

been tension between the Jeromy Brown's in the party and the

grassroots, Sarah Teather Dunne views within the party. I think

that's healthy, but fundamentally, they are going to have to make a

decision quite soon about where they are going to go and what's going to

happen. It doesn't seem like it can carry on. You are on the culture

committee, should Maria Miller stay or go? Like Sarah, she said we

shouldn't get into personalities and views. This is the biggest issue

that's been running in Westminster. Rune whether she resigned as a

matter for her. The whole thing is extremely damaging for the

Conservative Party, it's damaging for Parliament as a whole and

politicians, we all get tarnished by the same brush. It's damaging for

the Government and the Prime Minister. The sooner the matter is

resolved the better. What would resolve it? It's for the Prime

Minister and Maria Miller to sort out themselves. It's incredibly

damaging for the party, the Government and for all of us in

Parliament. The rules have all changed. What has happened couldn't

happen now. This is a spill-over from the previous regime. But it

still tarnishes all. Ed Miliband has been making a speech in Birmingham

this morning and it's all about giving the cities and regions of

England more control over housing, transport and employment. Labour

says ?20 billion that's currently controlled by Whitehall will instead

be handed to local bodies over the lifetime of the next Parliament.

Here he is speaking earlier. Labour's message at the next

election will be clear. It is about devolving power from Whitehall to

our towns and cities. Because it is essential to generate the jobs we

need. We propose a new bargain. Cities and towns come together with

local businesses will be given historic, new powers over

transport, housing, skills and economic development. We're joined

now by Andrew Adonis, he's the man behind this plan and he's also

shadow Infrastructure Minister. He is in Birmingham.

Sometimes you do interviews with people who aren't even in London.

Explain this in everyday language. We are talking about devolving more

budgets to the level of the cities and the areas around the cities, the

city regions and the counties where that make sense, so they can take

charge of their own provision in two key areas. Skills and

infrastructure, being transport and housing above all. If we are going

to drive growth and get more growth companies, we've got to raise our

skill levels and have better local infrastructure. We need decisions

taken closer to the scene of the action, closer to the companies and

areas affected. Departments have been too centralised for too long in

this country. I hear every politician saying that, particularly

in opposition. All oppositions talk about giving away power until they

get power. It will probably not happen if you win the Lex

collection. You'll a-macro to be fair, Labour in government took two

very big steps on the road to devolution. We set up the devolved

governments of Scotland and Wales. We also set up the Mayor of London

and the Greater London authority. What happened to regional

assemblies? The big issue for us is how we get properly functioning

devolution in the cities and counties of England. But that didn't

work. It was never implemented. The attempts in the North East to create

a regional assembly, we're not talking about that, not a wholly new

tier of government. We are talking about bringing together local

enterprise partnerships which exist at the moment. We will not do what

the present government did and abolish what was there before when

we abolished -- they abolished the agencies. We will take those

partnerships, which are doing good work and need more power and four

budget, and put them together with the local authority leaders that

cover their area so they can make decisions jointly and have joint

control over budgets, which puts business leaders and local authority

leaders in charge. In Birmingham, the local enterprise partnership

covers Birmingham, the area around it and Solihull. That is a travel to

work area with a really important growth driver in terms of jobs. They

would then be able to do much more of the planning of their

infrastructure and their skill set. If this were to work that would be

great, but in terms of grabbing voters, in terms of it being one of

your headlines in your manifesto, when people are still going to be

worried about one of Labour's other themes, the cost of living, and

generally about the economy, it's just not going to do it, is it? You

need a manifesto full of policies. The key game here is putting in

place arrangements that will promote more and better jobs. Let's take a

concrete example. There's a message -- massive shortage of youth

apprenticeships in this country. The number has fallen since 2010, which

is why we have mass youth unemployment and local employers,

including employers here in Birmingham, crying out for young

people with skills. One of the key functions we want to devolved is

responsibility for promoting apprenticeship to local employers.

We've got Jaguar Land Rover, a fantastic local employer here,

expanding and wanting to create new jobs in companies that supply them,

but they are desperately short of apprentices. Who is more likely to

deliver those apprentice? A business body with strong roots in the

locality or quango in London? The quango in London has clearly failed.

Let's put local people in charge. How much money would you have to put

into the city and county regions? We haven't been precise because we are

looking at it individually. The present government is devolving only

a tiny sum... So you'd have to cut at the Department's budgets to pay

for it? We're not talking about cutting budgets but devolving them.

If you just take skills, a budget held centrally of more than ?1

billion. It's all run by a quango which sits in Whitehall. The

question which is facing us is whether that money would be better

spent and produce much better results for companies and young

people if it were devolved locally, so that local business leaders and

local authorities, which are much closer to the scene of the action

and they would have a much bigger say and how it is spent. When

special advisers are in the news it's safe to say it's probably for

the wrong reasons. Spads, as they're known, are meant to help ministers

with the kind of sticky issues that are too political for the civil

servants to touch. It could be briefing the media or injecting the

party line into a new policy. It doesn't always go smoothly - let's

take a look. If they ever get into the press at all, which they

shouldn't, it's always an episode of when Spads go bad! Joe Hind Lee is

this week's flak magnet, special adviser to Maria Miller who did or

did not threaten a newspaper. Maria has been having quite a lot of

meetings around leaves on. But she still standing tall and in a job,

unlike her predecessor as a culture secretary Spad. He went into hiding

and the press hunted him down. It looks like a Spad, walks like a

Spad, talks like a Spad, but he wasn't and lost Liam Fox's job.

Damian McBride was the ultimate killer Spad. Ruthless, reckless,

ready and refreshed. He came a cropper after a career of mailing

opponents. He made up stories then resurfaced to tell his own in a

book. Message to Stephen Byers' special adviser, there is no good

day to bury bad news, as she famously, callously e-mailed

colleagues. And, with spectacular irony, promptly became bad news and

was buried. If ever there was a Spad and from a young age was born to the

calling, branded crazy zealot by his enemies and a reforming profit by

his supporters, Dominic Cummings, this disciple of the Lord Michael

Gove Almighty, has now himself consigned his Spad Korea to the

grave. After that trip down memory lane, we're joined by the Daily

Telegraph's Whitehall watcher Sue Cameron, and Henry de Zoete is a

former special adviser. How crucial is your old role to a cabinet

secretary? I think special advisers are very important, but I think

there's a bit of a misunderstanding about what we do. Of course there

are the examples that were picked up on film, which is fair enough. To

give you what I was doing in the department and what Dominic Cummings

was doing, we work... Well, we were mainly focusing on the priorities of

the Secretary of State and project managing them to the department.

Dominic basically spent probably about 1% of his time on any sort of

media issue, I spent a bit more because I was more of a media

special adviser. But what we have to do was pick out the policies we

wanted to get most traction to get through the department, to happen on

the ground as quickly as possible. Then we will project managing those

through the system. Do you accept there was a level of ideological

zeal being injected by you and Dominic Cummings in the education

department to get Michael Gove's point across? Absolutely not.

Obviously we believed in our policies, but what we were trying to

do and, unfortunately, I worked with some brilliant civil servants and

they are brilliant, but the system itself that they are in, it makes it

very difficult to ensure that the project goes through and is

delivered properly at the end. There are countless examples where we had

to do it ourselves. There were reported highly personal attacks on

a certain journalist, that came from the education department and a

Twitter feed. Those things were reported as coming from a Twitter

feed. They weren't from you? It was nothing to do with us. Is that a

more sanitised view of what a special adviser does? I think it

partly reflect the fact they are a very mixed bunch. A lot of them do

very different things. Some of them do concentrate very much on the

media, others are more policy. A few, though why they are needed I

don't know, politicians should be their own advisers, but some

actually advise on the politics of things. One of the problems with

them, there are some very good ones but they are not civil servants, who

are totally impartial, and nor are they democratically elected. They

are basically minister's mates. That is one of the difficulties. Some of

them, as the ones you've just seen, go rogue. They were supposed to be

cutting the number of Alun Reess but they've increased. -year-old one of

the reasons for that is because we are in coalition. Poor old Nick

Clegg was sitting in Downing Street and he's meant to keep an eye on

everything in every department. He had one man and a dog to help him.

That's one of the reasons why there is more of them. Is it up to

ministers to rein in special advisers who do end up doing things

that are unacceptable? Yes, I think it is up to ministers. But I think

it is an unsatisfactory situation. I think there needs to be some way of

bringing special advisers into the democratic setup. Whether they have

to be approved by backbench MPs or by the civil service commission,

some kind of system. Watt -- I think the idea of getting more highly

qualified people into those roles is a good one. What about the vetting

side a bit? There is such a crucial role they play next to a Secretary

of State, that the Secretary of State has to be able to decide who

that is. If there is some sort of system, it should be looked at. I

remember sitting, when I wasn't in government but I used to work with a

whole load of Labour special advisers, and David Cameron

announced he was cutting the number of special advisers. They all said

that was the worst decision he'd made. The question was, who did Nick

Boles speculate might be the best MP to play the game of Thrones

character Daenerys Targaryen? I can only think of Nadine. Nadine Dorries

is the right answer. That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. Andrew

and I will be back tomorrow. Goodbye.