25/10/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The government backs a new third runway at Heathrow, but faces

opposition from rival airports, and government ministers.

Remember the newspaper hacking scandal?

Today a new press regulator could be approved which could trigger

new rules described by the press as "draconian".

Billions of taxpayer pounds are paid by the government to companies

Does out-sourcing ensure value-for-money, or put

And we talk about politics being an art, but it's also a science,

It's not going to explode, we shouldn't stand back?

I'm fairly confident it won't explode!

And I can confirm it did not explode!

All that in the next hour and with us for the whole

of the programme today is Kulveer Ranger, head

of public affairs for ATOS, the IT services company which has

contracts with the UK government worth over

Kulveer also worked for Boris Johnson when he was London mayor.

So, the big decision on Heathrow expansion has been

Theresa May's Cabinet approved plans for a new, third runway

But there's to be more consultation in the new year,

Speaking in the last hour, the Transport Secretary Chris Grayling

said building a third runway at Heathrow was the best option for

This is a really big decision for this country,

but it is also the clearest sign post the referendum

that this country is very clearly open for business.

We have thought long and hard about this,

the committee considered all three options.

There were three very good options on the table,

but we believe a third runway for Heathrow is the best

option for our future, it is the best option for the whole

country to create better connectivity to the different

regions in the United Kingdom, and to provide the best

So we think this is the right decision for Britain.

My message to Gatwick, I know this will be a disappointment

for them, but Gatwick remains a really important part

of our transport system and will continue being so.

But what today is about is doing the right thing for Britain,

doing the right thing for the whole country,

delivering the best option that will secure all of our futures

and working to create a country that works for everyone.

The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling. Already opponents have

expressed their anger at the decision. The Conservative MP for

Richmond Park is that Goldsmith tweeted:

He had always threatened to resign if they gave the third runway at

Let's get the latest from our correspondent, Eleanor Garnier.

It was working at the's worst kept secret. Nearly 50 years of delay,

dithering, enquiries and commissions and we have finally had that

decision, that it will be a third runway at Heathrow. It has been the

preferred option of successive governments and the Airport

Commission had recommended that plan. But it will be controversial,

there will be legal wrangling is, appeals, concern over the impact on

the environment. But today was a big moment, we finally got the decision,

and there will be criticism on both sides. Things will not move quickly.

We will have a year-long consultation before MPs get a vote

on the Heathrow option in the Commons next year. We could see a

by-election with Zac Goldsmith, the MP for Richmond, threatening to

stand down as an independent if Heathrow got the go-ahead. But do

not expect things to move quickly. We know about splits, Boris Johnson,

Justine Greening, in the Cabinet, to name just two. What will happen to

them? That is why we got an inkling last week that it might be Heathrow.

Theresa May said she would be listening to limited Cabinet dissent

and they will be allowed to voice their opposition to this idea for

Heathrow. But they will not be allowed to be critical in the

Commons, they will not be allowed to campaign. Those in Cabinet who want

to express their opposition to the plan must have done so already, they

must have already established their views. Already on the TV and in the

papers they have said publicly they have opposed the idea, but they need

the green light from Theresa May. The idea that many of us had Boris

Johnson lying down in front of the bulldozers, I do not think that will

happen. What about the others in Parliament? We know Jeremy Corbyn

does not like the idea of expansion at Heathrow. They are yet to decide

whether it will be a free vote for the Labour Party or not. But the

government will not have a problem with numbers getting the vote

through. We know the SNP will vote for the expansion at Heathrow

because it will help conductivity to Scotland and we know the SNP are

behind this idea. You work for Boris Johnson very closely with him and

for him and his views are clear about airport expansion. Where do

you stand now? Boris and I were never on the same flight path. I am

a child of the flight path, I grew up in Hounslow in west London and I

understand the challenges local people face with Heathrow expansion.

But also the businesses, the local economy, the national economy and

conductivity. This is what we are talking about, collectivity.

Infrastructure, transport, rail, connections to the south-west and

Birmingham and beyond and Heathrow is ideally placed. It is at capacity

and it has got half a billion or more of Crossrail link being built

to it, which will help to get people to and from the city. The worries

about airport noise and pollution, those issues will be met. The

government has put strict stipulations on times of flights.

That was one of the areas that many campaigners thought it was the late,

because pollution concerns. You always got Boris Island was a mad

idea? No, but what we must remember is how far the Conservatives have

come. At the end of the last Labour administration, Jeff who made an

announcement that it would be Heathrow and then the Labour

government road back. The Conservatives in 2005 and 2006 said

it was only going to be rail capacity that would be driven and

they did not see any aviation increase. Boris in his time as Mayor

made the case for why they are needed to be an aviation capacity

increase in the and the Thames estuary was an option put forward.

Will it ever happen? We have talked about how long it has taken to get

to this point, a decision. It will not happen very soon in terms of

building work, will we see a third runway at Heathrow? We have got a

convergence of issues. We have a Prime Minister who has a vice like

grip on the Cabinet. Other Cabinet ministers are given scope to

undertake this, but there is a limited amount of criticism. We also

have a country that is looking in a post-Brexit and post-referendum era

and saying, how do we demonstrate our ability to trade? How do we

demonstrate we are still a powerful nation? We need some real power that

comes through, showing we can build and deliver things like this which

is crucial to our economy. I think it is the best time for it to get

The question for today is: The London Mayor, Sadiq Khan,

has landed a cameo role in which TV programme?

At the end of the show Kulveer will give us the right answer.

In a small meeting room in central London, a group of little-known men

and women are meeting right now to make a decision about the future

The Press Recognition Panel was established following the newspaper

hacking scandal which led to the closure of the News

At the heart of all this is the question of how

much should our press be regulated in a free society?

In 2011, following the phone hacking scandal, David Cameron set up

the Leveson Inquiry to examine the culture, ethics

Following Lord Leveson's recommendations, the government

enacted a Royal Charter which in turn set up

a Press Recognition Panel to choose a new press watchdog.

The terms of the Royal Charter can not be changed unless agreed

by a two thirds majority in both houses of Parliament.

So far only one organisation, called Impress, has applied

It has the backing of privacy campaigner Max Mosley and the author

Most of the big newspapers are opposed to what they see

as state regulation of the press, and instead set up their own rival

regulator, called Ipso, which won't apply to be

the officially recognised press regulator.

If Impress is approved by the Press Recognition Panel

today, section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act could be triggered

which means any publishers which don't sign up to Impress

would be forced to pay the legal costs of libel actions brought

against them, even if they win the case.

Newspapers, including the Sun and the Daily Mail, say this

is an affront to democracy and will encourage spurious claims.

Campaigners say Section 40 will ensure newspapers

are properly regulated and respect people's privacy.

We've been joined by Max Mosley, the former head of Formula One

who has been campaigning for more stringent regulation

of the press since the News of the World published stories

He later won a privacy court case against the newspaper.

He's a former deputy editor of the News of the World.

First of all, we understand the government is not intending to

implement legislation that would make the press liable for libel

costs, but it will be kicked into the long grass. Are you disappointed

with that? If that happens, I will be disappointed. At the moment if

you are on the victim of a libel or breach of privacy or harassment,

although sort of thing is, if you want to sue the newspaper, you have

to be buried rich. Very few people can risk ?1 million. The rest of the

population, more than 99%, I left with no recourse. The point of all

this legislation is there would be a recognised regulator which would

have an arbitrary system which the papers could use and the individual

could use and it would give access to justice. It is all about access

to justice. Without that stick, or without the ability to call on

section 40 of the act, do you think the regulator will be finished

before it has even started? No, I do not think so. Even if the government

decide they do not want to implement section 40, they will have to come

up with something. You cannot leave 99% of the population with no

redress if they are produced by the press. In that case, what is wrong

with the idea of Impress? There is already the other regulator, so what

is wrong with Impress? There are two issues, the inadequacies of Impress,

it is an axe grinding farce. Why? I will come onto that. Secondly there

is the background to it. It is the wholly bought property of Macs. Max

is bankrolling... This is fantasy. I am bankrolling a charity which

exists to bankroll a Levenson compliant regulator. It could be if

so, it could be anybody. They decide which potential regulator they are

going to... It is not true to say he is bankrolling this group because he

could be funding any regulator that is chosen by this independent panel.

It is all software history. The truth of the matter is that he set

up something called the Independent Press Regulation Trust and that is

bankrolling a bunch of like-minded, hacked off, and press campaigners to

the tune of just under ?1 million for four years. He is one of the

very few, and certainly the major provider, of funds for Impress. If

it is set up... It is setup, it is whether it will be official

regulator. In the contract I have seen and has been published, you can

withdraw funding from it at ten days' notice. The vital essence of

the need for a press regulator is for that to be independent. Why is

it not independent if it has been chosen by an independent panel? He

is paying for it. Are you saying he is bribing the panel? That is a more

complex issue about funding. But the significance of this is when Lord

Levenson called for an independent regulator, he said a couple of

things that were absolutely essential. He said the new system of

regulation should not be considered sufficiently effective if it does

not cover all significant news publishers. Impress has

approximately... You answer the claim that you are

somehow behind all of this and then we will come onto the support. What

it's all about is access to justice, the only thing that matters to me is

that... This is... Access to justice, ipso, for a start, is

completely own, completely controlled and played for by the

major newspapers. -- paid for it really is controlled. In this case

we have a person giving to a charity which in turn gives to a charity.

Don't interrupt, you have had your say, let me have mine. This is done

by an independent body. Impress has got all independent people. I don't

even know two of the three trustees involved in the charity. Impress is

completely independent. I run a charity which funds it, but in the

case of Ipso it is all paid for by the major newspapers and they can

cut it off, they can fire people, whatever. It is true, it has been

set up by news proprietors, when you are criticising Max Mosley for his

role in terms of Impress it is also true to say that Ipso was set up by

newspaper proprietors to be a self regulator, so this is something you

could argue in terms of sophistry, it is being run and funded by

newspapers. It is being run by newspapers, it is not being run by

newspapers. Certainly the finances and the people who are investing in

it, as it were, include the Berry Times, the Campbell packet, the

Newcastle Chronicle... 90% of newspapers in this country are

members of ipso. -- Bury Times. That is the problem. Let me put it to

you. One of the biggest problems is about trust in the regulator. People

will question the trust they might have in Ipso because it is run and

set by newspapers themselves, but Impress does not have enough support

from major contributors or newspapers or publications, it is

very small, so how are you going to command the trust of people like

Neil Wallis? The complaint of the major newspapers is that if impress

is recognised, there will be under pressure to join it, because then

they get the benefit of the independent arbitration which works

on both sides, plus, they have all the benefits for the smaller press.

Who at the moment, aren't properly protected. Small

small newspapers will die if this goes ahead. Nonsense. Why? If you

work for a small local newspaper, the vast majority, hundreds upon

hundreds, it is already a dreadful thing if you are sued for libel,

whether you win or not, it is it is immensely expensive. The problem, if

you bring this in and bring in section 40, somebody can spuriously

bring a libel action... This is the whole point. You have got to... Try

honesty... Talk about honesty, you work for the News of the World, you

must be joking! The reason is, when the small newspapers, if one of the

small newspapers at the moment upset somebody rich in the neighbourhood,

they can be sued, and it would put them out of business. Under Impress

and under the regulator, when you have cheap arbitration, that same

local newspaper can defend itself against a rich individual, if, when

Wallaroos, he has got to pay all the costs. Neil Wallis, what are you

frightened of, you have been given a choice, this was agreed by MPs, this

was passed, in the Houses of Parliament. And there is now a

choice for newspapers to sign up to Impress, let's say that they become

the recognised regulator, and then you don't pay or get landed with

punitive costs if you win a case that is brought against you. Surely

that is a fair choice? No, well, no, if you win a libel action, under

this scheme, you pay both sides of the libel action. Not if you have

signed up to the official regulator. The point is, and... There is a

choice, you just don't want to do either. The press recognition panel

is appointed by the government, the government therefore... The state is

deciding... That is not true, we will overlook it, but it is not

true. The state is interfering with the free press, which has been there

for 320 years, the result of this is going to be... But we have had... We

have had Lord Levy sin's enquiry. The world has moved on. The last

government decided it was not going to enforce this. There is a problem

here, there is a dilemma, facing the government, if they recognised

Impress, the onus is going to be on the newspapers who set up their own

regulator, Ipso, to sign up, and if they don't, then they are going to

be liable for costs which they say are Draconian, even if they win a

case brought against them. There is a fundamental problem, passionately

displayed by this debate, because it is about trust and it is about

influence. I am all for the great British free press, it is a Bastian,

a beacon to the world in terms of... Will it no longer be free? Trust

issue has been shaken by what we have seen, Ledson has tried to look

at that. -- both sides have challenges, because of where the

funding comes from. The government needs to look at that. -- bastion.

-- Leveson. It might do that by not committing to section 40 of the

crime and court at all Impress. We need to leave it there, thank you

very much. We were talking about Zac Goldsmith, Tory MP, who said he

would resign and force a by-election, he says he intends to

honour that commitment, in Richmond Park and Kingston north in protest

of the decision of the government to back a third runway at Heathrow. His

local Conservative Association has confirmed that. There will be a

by-election there. It's been another embarrassing month

for private providers One major company left

staff at a school in Another had their contract

to allocate tax credits when the private sector was going

to make everything more efficient? In a moment I'll discuss that

with our guest of the day, Kulveer Ranger, and the Shadow Work

and PensionS Secretary The government contracting for

public services is big is knit and getting bigger, to show you how big,

we will outsource our graphics, two members of the public. We are trying

to outsource our graphics. I haven't got a clue...! Let's see... The

government now spends about 98 billion on outsourcing of privately

run public services. A year. A year. Can we ask you to help us with our

graphics. Around ?1 in every ?3 of taxpayer money spent on public

services goes to non-public sector providers. Is that a good headline?

For me to put on that paper, that would be rubbish! It might not make

a good headline, but it is a lot of money, what is it spent on? Mainly

it is spent on health, defence, justice, transport, and welfare. You

are a natural! LAUGHTER Thank you! Actually, I am quite shy!

Governments have for years contacted at a range of straightforward and

sensitive public services for a number of reasons. The good reasons

are, there is people out there who can provide a service better than

government can provide it itself, more efficient and effective and at

a better price, that might be a good reason to outsource something.

Sometimes it is done for bad reasons, people in central

government think, we just need to get the costs down. If that is the

main driver, the first driver, it is not that likely to work. Terribly

well. Lord Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office in the last

coalition government, oversaw a mini transformation of public service

providers turning private, to boost the productivity of the state sector

work. I used to visit these, and ask people, would you go back and work

for the government, the NHS, Council, whatever. Never had anyone

say anything other than, no. Why not, because they can do things,

free from bureaucracy. We saw productivity go up in leaps and

bounds, almost literally overnight. Despite the so-called mutuals, world

of outsource public contracts is still dominated by a few large

private companies, which have mastered the art of bidding for

them. And projects regularly suffer from week contract management. The

policy of people, permanent secretaries, by and large, not as

close of, and the people who run big operations in government are the

blue-collar people, they always have to remain a bit below the sword, and

that is wrong. Spectacular failures have made alarming headlines.

Tonight at ten, the security companies accused of massively

overcharging the taxpayer for tagging criminals. Also tonight...

The focus of protests, now at us, the company running the fitness to

work tests, asked to end their contract early. -- Atos. VOICEOVER:

It is supposed to be the nation's great global games, that it is

protected by eight web security firm accused of letting down the country.

The computer was meant to integrate medical records across is the

juicing. It was a real train crash, I watched it burn taxpayer cash and

it still is not finished, even though the government announced in

2011 they were dispensing with it, it is still going on. This goes back

to how you write contracts in the first buys, billions has been spent

to no avail. MPs complained, contractors often overpromise and

under deliver, proper scrutiny from government still lacking.

We've been joined by Labour's Shadow Work

and Pensions Secretary, Debbie Abrahams.

And of course Kulveer Ranger is still with us.

He's head of public affairs for ATOS, which has over half

a billion pounds' worth of contracts with the government.

Atos has come in for criticism for failing to deliver, it has not been

a great advert for government outsourcing. In the context of

government outsourcing and where that has evolved, we believe that we

deliver value for money, the Cabinet Office review said that this summer,

it went so far as to say that we go beyond some of the requirements.

Over the last 20 years I have been involved in public and private

sector partnerships, delivering major infrastructure services. I was

very fortunate to be involved in delivering the Oyster card, PFI,

that came to deliver some technology. The vast majority of

work that the private sector does does not get the positive

recognition. That may be the majority, but these are not

insignificant failures of Atos, at the time it was handling the work

capability assessment, tens of thousands of sick and disabled

people were wrongly assessed as being fit for work. You can imagine

the suffering that causes those people while you are looking at it

from a bureaucratic, technocratic view, these are real people. Your

assessment were described as farcical after you decided that

people with lifelong diseases like Parkinson's would be better and

available to work, how did you get it wrong? Everyone has learned from

those mistakes, the challenge for people in public and private, have

you learn from those mistakes, when dealing with services and making

sure the right result is delivered, you handle those properly. If you

are delivering services such as delivering the integration IT for

the Olympic Games, running the BBC, services for departments across

government, in the private sector as well, we make sure services get

delivered in the way that they best benefit people. The idea here is to

learn. The generation of partnership between government and private

sector. Do companies like Atos, have they learned? I'm not so sure but we

must bring in the government as well, they have culpability in terms

of the contract they have awarded, since 2010, they have doubled to ?88

billion. We need to be able to demonstrate that there is value for

money for the taxpayer. As you rightly pointed out, in terms of

things like the work capability assessment, such is the personal

independent payment process, Atos is still involved in that, there are

huge issues with these processes. What issues are there, we can put

them... The point you raised before, in terms of the accuracy.

Unfortunately, when the contract are set up, performance management of

them, it is about getting claimants off flow. That is what is driving

them. Atos has responsibility but it is not just that. Let's pick up your

point about the principle behind this, is Labour actually against the

idea of outsourcing government contract? We should not be saying

private, bad, public, good, or vice versa. Are you saying private bad?

No, I have never said that. I have said there is particular issues. You

said they have doubled, you have said... My point... My point was

that... My point was that the government decides these contracts,

awards these contracts, it is an ideological approach that the

government has taken, not just with employment support, and work

capability assessments, fit for work, but also with health care,

looking at the 2012 health and social care, all of that,

privatisation act and it was given in that direction. Ideological with

the last Labour government who first gave the contracts?

What about the last Labour government? They gave contract out.

We did not get it right. They now believe it is not fit for purpose.

Under Jeremy Corbyn Labour will not pursue these sorts of contracts in

the way they did before 2010. We want to replace it with a holistic,

Person centred approach, looking at their needs, whether they are skills

related, health and care or housing and transport. Can you deliver a

holistic approach to this? The key to this is to work with government

and understand their requirements and to help deliver the best outputs

for the people. We are in the Europe, this is the key proper

technology perspective, is we see new services that can be designed

and new ways for governments to deliver better outcomes for people

and we need a new industrial strategy that this government wants

to set up. It will help care, the services and the front line. But the

track record is not good. It may be improving, but it has not been good.

Debbie Abrahams raises an important point, in the end if you are dealing

with these sorts of issues in terms of payments to disabled people or

tax credit claims, if there is a profit motive at the heart of the

operation, that surely does encourage by its very nature

cost-cutting at the expense of a holistic, fair assessment of the

person. What you and Debbie I demonstrating very well is now the

private sector is equally responsible for the government to

implement government policy and we take that very seriously to say we

care about the services we are delivering because we are the ones

associated with it. But profit is still the most important? You have

to deliver a value to the government, to the taxpayer and the

shareholders. But you do not see any major organisations who do outsource

various parts of their organisations, whether it be private

sector companies or the IOC, saying we can do it ourselves, they are

looking for good and trusted partners to help deliver the

services. You cannot do without the private sector, whether you are

delivering tax credits or independence payments to people on

benefits. Surely the private sector has to be involved? We have not said

anything about the third sector and during the summer I visited a whole

niche of charities such as those delivering support to homeless

people, those enabling work and giving support to disabled people,

making a huge difference, and we need more of that type of approach

as well. In terms of the government outsourcing to the private sector,

it has doubled to ?88 million during the coalition years according to the

Financial Times. Has that gone too far? The whole thing is about value.

We still have a government structure from Victorian times with massive

departments with thousands of people working in their not sharing

information. We are entering into a technology world where people

experience the way they deal with banks, businesses, food being

delivered to their door, and the relationship between the state and

the citizen will be changed through the prism of technology. We will see

a real change and there will be more private sector involvement, but

fundamentally focus on value for money and the citizen. We have to

So, just before we came on air transport secretary Chris Grayling

confirmed that the government would support a third

But not all his colleagues on the Conservative benches

Zac Goldsmith has told his constituency that he intends to

honour his pledge to resign and for a by-election.

Dr Tania Mathias, explaining her opposition to Heathrow expansion.

I am appalled by the decision, but for myself and my constituents I

still believe Heathrow expansion will not happen, I believe it is not

deliverable. I expect there will be consultation and scrutiny and the

facts will bear out and we will find out Heathrow cannot expand. It is

too costly, it cannot be done in the time period, there will be legal

challenges and the pollution aspect are becoming clearer and clearer,

month by month, so it just will not happen.

We've been joined by the co-leader of the Green Party,

Jonathan Bartley, and by the Labour MP Gavin Shuker.

Gavin, I understand you have been trying to coordinate the response of

Labour MPs. Well most of them backed the decision? I think they will, I

think the majority of Labour MPs wanted a decision and now we have

got it and the majority favoured Heathrow. It will be better for us

as a party to be clear about it. Do you think there will be a free vote?

We know John McDonnell, he is a long-standing opponent of expansion

at Heathrow, and the leader Jeremy Corbyn do not want this, so what

will the line be? We are waiting to find out. Our Shadow Transport

Secretary was very clear that he was edging towards a decision on

Heathrow. But the party having a decision on Heathrow does not

preclude individual constituency MPs from representing their constituents

on the issues that they feel strongly about. But it is important

for the British public to know where the Labour Party stands. But you

cannot seem to get the complete consensus on both sides. Were you

supporting one of the other three options being put forward or are you

just against all airport expansion? It is disappointing to see Labour

lining up with the government on this. We cannot expand aviation if

we are to meet our climate change targets. You think it is impossible

to meet those targets? This drives a wrecking ball through those targets.

We have to look at the demand for aviation and we have to bring it

down. It is not about people taking a family holiday, it is 70% of

flights taken by 15% of the population, frequent flights, and we

need a levy to bring it down. You believe we can meet those targets,

how can you both be right? We cannot be and I am, actually. That is OK

then. They do not take my word for it. Take the airports commission,

take the bodies that we charged with meeting our budgets. There is an

economic case. If we do that, we cannot meet our carbon climate

change budgets and targets. What makes you convinced we cannot? It is

based on such flimsy evidence. They did not even agree with the

transport Department over carbon emissions. This has been the result

of huge lobbying by airports who want to make a lot of money. It is

not about economic growth, that will be minimal. It does not tackle the

underlying issues, that we have to tackle our climate change targets.

There is look at deliverability. Will it happen? Yes, it will, but it

requires clear targets from government and it is up to both

parties to make sure it does. You think the Labour Party will fall in

line. Will it happen or will it be held up by those who are preparing

legal arguments against it? Would it be there? We will have to go through

a number of different stages and the government has laid out how they

believe it should go about this, but if you are asking me if I think by

2030, the government's deadline, that a third runway will be in place

for that? I think it will be, but we have to make tough decisions to

deliver it. I'm saying is that it's an argument. In terms of people

living near the airport, and the stop when you look at the figures in

the Airport Commission report it said about ?11 billion benefit over

a third of a cup of copy of everyone who comes through Heathrow. For all

those people who will have their quality of life destroyed, new roads

are put through their area, maybe using new homes, that is something

they are not calling for. Are we going to see months and months of

wrangling before Heathrow can even start to be built? A 12 month period

has been set out by government, said that is a clear period of time of

discussion. What we have on the delivery, if this Prime Minister and

government stake in place for a significant period of time, this

airport will have to happen. The case has been made and even the

previous Labour government got the point where they said it has to

Heathrow. But it did not happen. They made the case right at the end

of their time in office and that is not the best point, especially when

you lose an election. But how do we get the rest of the country to see

the value of Heathrow? The conversation that has held up

Heathrow has been focused on the impact. The pollution conversation,

when we look at the impact of pollution right now from the planes

having to circle London because they cannot get their slots, that needs

work. You are saying how do you convince the country and the people

around? This is a protest outside the houses of parliament today. Are

we just going to see months and months of this going on while the

political arguments are being made? I am sure we will see a huge range

of protests around Heathrow and by those activists there. All those

people represented by Unite and GMB want this and he argued there will

be protests is an insufficient one to prevent the government from

making a decision. It is not just protest, it is about legal

challenges and the government tearing up the climate change act.

There will be legal challenges on that. They have had plenty of time

to think about it this year and it is part of the process. One of the

problems for Labour is that the Mayor of London said a government

decision taken to day on Heathrow was wrong with a capital and he will

continue to talk about his opposition for the project. How

difficult is it for Labour? It is as difficult for us as it is for Boris

Johnson and Justine Greening being against it in the Cabinet. But we

need to get on with it. We'll Boris Johnson lie in front of those

bulldozers? I was watching the video to see if he was lying there. He has

made his position clear. Sadiq Khan, the Mayor, needs to see what is best

for London. He is building Crossrail and it has a direct link to

Heathrow. It was put in to ensure capacity for Heathrow. He needs to

have a conversation about collectivity and what is best for

Heathrow and for this country in an economic sense. I am going to say

thank you to all of you. I am going to say thank

you to all of you. With financial pressures bearing

down on the NHS in England, the government has been looking

at how to bring down Yesterday, the Health Secretary

Jeremy Hunt told the House of Commons that a new approach

to working with big pharmaceutical companies could deliver huge savings

and get cutting-edge drugs This government is committed

to ensuring that patients get access to innovative and cost effective

medicines as quickly as possible. I want to pay tribute to the work

carried out by my honourable friend the member for Mid Norfolk

who worked tirelessly in government to promote

the life sciences industry, and who established the accelerated

access review to provide clear recommendations on how

the government, the NHS and industry can work together to ensure patients

benefit from transformative That review is published today

and is an excellent document which challenges everyone in the

medicine system to up their game. Jeremy Hunt speaking

during the second reading of the Health Service Medical

Supplies Bill yesterday. We've been joined by

the former Life Sciences This is about streamlining NHS

processes and according to figures, the NHS drugs bill has gone up by 8%

in England to ?15.5 billion, despite a cap at 12 billion pounds, so it

has exceeded it. Is the NHS drugs bill too high or too low? In my view

the NHS is under extraordinary pressure from the pace of

developments in the life sciences industry, people living longer,

incredible life expectancy gains, breast cancer is curable and now

with you immune therapy is their IQ is for cancer. The issue is we are

facing extraordinary rises in the cost. Individual drugs cost 250,000

a year. It is not about blame, it is about a

new model. The NHS is the world's only universal health system, with

the research infrastructure to be a partner in developing these drugs,

these new drugs, and the idea is, by using genetics and data and research

excellence, we will be the first place in the world where these new

drugs are targeted, and we get a discount or even a royalty. Is it

affordable? If you say... It saves money. Does it, in the long term...

If it keeps climbing, in what way is it affordable? Nobody expects the

cost of medicine in an ageing society to go down, but what we are

doing is making sure the NHS get more value back from research

structure, so the rate of the increased flat and is up. So we can

get new drugs quickly to patients and we can get a discounted price

and or even royalties. The pharmaceutical Journal, has risen by

59.8% over the past four years, even taking into account your tailoring

off in however many years' time, how is the government going to square

the still rising cost of medicine while asking the NHS to make savings

to the tune of ?22 billion? The BMA says it is mad. There is measures in

place, in terms of drugs, the pharmacy reforms, reducing the cost

of dispensing drugs and processing drugs, but this reform, accelerated

access, goes right to the heart of it, allowing us to fundamentally

reduce the cost and time cost of developing medicines. Imagine the

NHS today, nice is recommending some drugs, the NHS is very slowly

fermenting recommendations, this transforms it, allowing us to pull

them in quickly, that is the most valuable thing that we can give

industry, early access. -- implementing recommendations. And

then over time we will be paid a royalty. You keep mentioning that,

you are very pleased about it. You should be as well, we will get drugs

farm or cheaply. Should you be worried about the relationship with

pharmaceutical companies, are you bound to pressure? Not at all, it is

going through a transformation, the way the drugs are developed is

changing, a lot of those changes are led in this country and we are

having to redesign the way the industry works with the NHS, we

would not have any of these drugs without the life science industry,

great industry, but we cannot expect to produce ever more expensive

medicines or us in a universal tax payer system to buy them at retail

prices. This is a unique way of saying we have a unique asset in the

NHS, and we will give businesses reason to come to the NHS, to the

UK, and give cheaper drug. When it comes to medical advances the NHS

has a reputation for lagging behind, have patients been missing out up

until now for the best and most innovative treatments for things

like cancer. We have slowly come in the last couple of decades, the UK

has moved from being right at the vanguard, we have slipped down the

league tables, this reform is about, particularly in cancer, that is

partly because type of drugs coming through our very different. This is

an admission that the UK has lagged behind, why hasn't the government

done anything about it. This has been going on for some time. We have

been lagging behind, we have set up research fund into drugs that nice

were saying no to, but we are leading the world as a research

engine, and the NHS helping to get quick access to patients to new

medicines, and a deal that we can afford. That is the big reform. Is

that a good idea, actually cutting the waiting time for new drugs, in

your mind is that going to be safe for patients? Sounds to me like we

have fallen down in the pecking order in how well the health service

has been performing in terms of other parts of the world but we are

trying to address is to teach each challenge within the supply chain of

the NHS with this idea. I think that we should cautiously welcome it, if

it does do what it is trying to do, which is deliver better value, early

engagement with those people that are developing the drugs we need, we

still have the increasing burden of an ageing population more demands on

the NHS. There is a difficult opposition, supply chain management

issue, which if it can deliver both value for money and the quality of

the product which enhances lives of people in terms of better results

then I think we have got to see how it works out. The new hepatitis C

drugs that are coming, the NHS is buying them, they cost a fortune,

the Italians bought them first and discovered that a large number of

patients don't need a full 12 week course, it is a genetic

predisposition. I would like us to discover that and get the benefit of

the saving. Stay with us. More from you.

The city of Nottingham has been making its voice heard here in

Westminster today - because the 25th of October is... Nottingham in

Parliament Day. Sounds exciting doesn't it? One of the many events

was a real life science experiment, conducted by Nottingham University's

chemistry supremo Professor Martyn Poliakoff - we'll talk to him in a

moment - and the Science Minister, Joe Johnson. But can you mix

politics and science? We sent Ellie to find out.

So, we talk a lot about how politics is an art, but how

Happily, I found a politician and a scientist.

Well, I'm here with Professor Martin Poliakoff from the University

of Nottingham who is going to demonstrate the effect

of increasing carbon dioxide and the acidification effect

In front of us? Right now in front of us.

What exactly is going to happen then?

What we have here is some water which has an indicator in it

which changes colour when acid is put in and we are putting

in carbon dioxide which we are putting in as a solid.

As it dissolves, the colour changes and you can see it goes

quite yellow, which is indicating that it is acid.

And the... It won't explode.

I'm fairly confident it won't explode.

And the minister is now going to add some coral.

This delicious Fanta concoction we have just made.

This will show that if you have got a calcium shell,

like a bit of coral, you are gradually, very

slowly, going to dissolve in this acidified...

Your role in this? Look, there it is, bubbling around.

It all looks rather impressive, but obviously there is a bit

This shows why it is so important to control the amount of carbon

dioxide in the atmosphere which is getting caught

in our oceans and making the oceans increasingly acidified.

Even a small increase in acidity over time will effect

the organisms because the change is happening much faster

Because it is based on physical chemistry,

the rate at which things dissolve, then it is not clear

that the animals could ever evolve to cope with this larger

It certainly gives you something to think about as a politician.

It certainly does. I am liking the white jacket.

Yes, thank you very much, courtesy of Nottingham

which I visited yesterday to see the extraordinary university there.

It is at the cutting edge of so much that is at the heart

of our education system and I am delighted that Nottingham

in Parliament today is demonstrating that to a wider audience.

Excellent, and bringing interesting science to Westminster.

It is fantastically important to communicate that science

is helping us to address these global issues in this way.

Excellent, chaps, thank you very much.

All that is left for me to tell you is the most interesting thing

about chemistry that I remember is the atomic number of zinc is 30.

I'm very impressed that you remember that, very exciting me, I have got a

bubbling potion in front of me... I don't want any jokes about witches!

I thought it might be my cocktail hour! I'm not going to try that.

Professor Martyn Poliakoff has joined us in the studio.

Tell us again what this demonstrates. This tube contains

water with an indicator that changes colour from alkaline to acid. We

have dropped in solid carbon dioxide which has made the solution acid. It

is orange. I demonstrated to the Minister with some vinegar, to

convince him that the indicator works with acid. The idea is to show

that when CO2 dissolves in water, it increases the acidity, and

therefore, if you have organisms like shells and coral, then you can

see we have a bit of coral here. Scottish coral. What was the point

of view doing this with the minister outside Parliament? What point are

you trying to make? We are trying to demonstrate that with increasing CO2

levels in the atmosphere, it is making the Seymour acid. Not a huge

increase in acidity but enough to start affecting the organisms. And,

if you increase the solubility of the calcium carbonate, that makes

the shelves, then it is difficult for the organisms to start forming

their shells. How worried should we be? They are enough to be

concerning, it is not a huge rise in acidity but it is enough to have

three times as many hydrogen irons, three times the strength, as it

would have been without the extra CO2. -- ions. The problem is that it

is happening rapidly, the organisms do not have time to evolve and

change behaviour and chemistry. Are you convinced something needs to be

done about the effect of climate change, that it is having on the

oceans? Yes, and one of the things we are doing in this country, we are

a science superpower, not military, but in science, in medicine, in

food, we are a superpower, we can help the world develop sustainably.

We are helping Martin, we are helping lean tech and biotech and

chemical sciences. And through the industrial strategy, which we will

be unveiling shortly, you will see a robust approach to taking signs and

making a global impact. Are these kind of days, Nottingham in

Parliament date, are they important to representing and it's pressing

the things about which you are passionate? It is very important, it

is important to talk with policymakers. -- impressing the

things. It is important, science and the economy, to the region,

Nottingham, but also to show that science is fun and enjoyable. And it

is great fun, having this in here, I presume it won't explode, is the

government is doing enough? The government, in principle, is

supportive, we have the Autumn Statement, coming up shortly. We

hope to demonstrate whether or not you are actually supportive. What we

really need is an increased investment in science, why was

saying to the Minister, Joe Johnson, that we need to put more money into

the training of technicians. Technicians are the real support for

researchers at universities, and the problem is, they are getting older,

and we are not feeding in a new generation fast enough to replace

people. Really well-made point, as well as the scientists, the eminent

scientists behind all this, there is a whole supply chain of technicians,

mechanical engineers, people who take science into the workplace.

Through our industrial strategy, we want to make sure we are investing

in the skill base so that everyone can take part in this incredibly

exciting economy. Thank you for coming in and demonstrating the

experiment, we were going to try to do another one, we do not have the

time, because we need to find out the answer to the quiz. That is

where you come in. has landed a cameo role

in which TV programme? Is it a) Doctor Who

b) Citizen Khan c) Luther

or d) Fleabag? So Kulveer,

what's the correct answer? I have no idea, so I am going to go

with Fleabag. But it is based in Birmingham! Why

cant... He's the Mayor of London, why is he in a show that is based

Birmingham? LAUGHTER The London Mayor plays a cricket

match spectator who gets mistaken for someone else and gets

nicked by the police. They have something on me

that I can actually remember. The final chapter between

Gibson and Spector.