:00:42. > :00:45.Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. And on today's
:00:45. > :00:49.lunchtime menu, economic bail-outs and political bust ups.
:00:49. > :00:52.Greece gets its bail-out after hours of midnight wrangling. They
:00:52. > :00:56.get 130 billion euros which will get them through the next couple of
:00:56. > :00:59.months. But is this just prolonging the agony?
:00:59. > :01:03.We'll look back at yesterday's bitter Commons row over the failure
:01:03. > :01:07.of the UK's Border Agency. Proper checks were not made on hundreds of
:01:07. > :01:10.thousands of people coming to these shores. Who is to blame?
:01:10. > :01:14.Last year British business lost more days to strike action than any
:01:14. > :01:17.time since the 1980s. So is it time to change the law and make it
:01:17. > :01:21.harder to down tools? And what should Andrew Lansley have
:01:21. > :01:29.done when confronted by an angry pensioner? We will ask some former
:01:29. > :01:32.spin doctors how to avoid the photo opportunity from hell.
:01:32. > :01:40.With us for the whole programme today are Graham Leach from the
:01:40. > :01:46.Institute of Directors and Frances O'Grady from the TUC. Welcome. If
:01:46. > :01:48.you have any thoughts or comments, you can tweeted them.
:01:48. > :01:53.Let's start with Nick Clegg's latest initiative to try to get
:01:53. > :01:56.young people back to work. The Deputy Prime Minister was in South
:01:56. > :01:59.London this morning to promote his new �126 million scheme that will
:01:59. > :02:02.enable businesses and charities to bid for contracts of up to �2,200
:02:03. > :02:09.for a teenager who can be kept in work, education or training for 12
:02:09. > :02:12.months. At the moment almost one in five people aged between 16 and 24
:02:12. > :02:17.are classified as so-called NEETs. Not in education, employment or
:02:17. > :02:21.training. Mr Clegg says the plan is about getting them out of the
:02:22. > :02:30.living room, away from the telly and into the world of work. Will it
:02:30. > :02:34.work? Clearly there is a political imperative to do something because
:02:34. > :02:40.we have 1 million young people unemployed. Spain has a 50% youth
:02:40. > :02:44.unemployment rate, so it is not that bad, and this will deal with
:02:45. > :02:50.50,000 out of 1 million, so it is fiddling, politically it has to be
:02:50. > :02:54.done, but it will not change things. Are you saying it is not worth it
:02:54. > :03:00.because businesses will not be attracted by the incentive of
:03:00. > :03:04.�2,200? It will help but there are probably more direct ways you could
:03:05. > :03:10.help in terms of boosting education and training elsewhere. What we
:03:10. > :03:15.need to do is boost the quality of the applicants. Trying to subsidise
:03:15. > :03:20.employment will not change things. Isn't the problem now that if we
:03:20. > :03:26.don't tackle the issue, a ticking timebomb Nick Clegg calls it, it
:03:26. > :03:30.will store up huge problems down the line. Absolutely. We are going
:03:30. > :03:37.to need more ambitious action and we are seeing at the moment. More
:03:37. > :03:41.money? We have a million people unemployed. We have no education
:03:41. > :03:46.maintenance allowance, tuition fees tripled, lots of young people
:03:46. > :03:53.finding themselves on unpaid internships and work-experience.
:03:53. > :03:58.This has to be welcomed but it is such a small step. �126 million
:03:58. > :04:03.does not sound like a huge amount of money for that many young people
:04:03. > :04:06.but they are targeting those at the very bottom. I would like to see
:04:06. > :04:10.the government to rethink the scrapping of the Future Jobs Fund
:04:10. > :04:15.that the previous government had in place, which was making a
:04:15. > :04:21.difference, quality work that paid at least minimum wage and that very
:04:21. > :04:28.often lead to a full-time job. payment by results work? In
:04:28. > :04:33.principle? Francis said you need to pay people a reasonable wage for
:04:33. > :04:38.them to leave and then get a proper permanent job, but for businesses
:04:38. > :04:43.does payment by results work? Business wants to see somebody
:04:43. > :04:48.well-trained, with the basic skills they need, and then the company can
:04:48. > :04:53.recruit them. What they are seeing at the moment his concern for the
:04:53. > :04:59.quality of recruits. The problem goes much further back. It goes
:04:59. > :05:03.back to the basics in school. you say they want people fully
:05:03. > :05:07.trained. Businesses cannot expect people with reasonable
:05:07. > :05:13.qualifications even to be fully trained. The idea is that they do
:05:13. > :05:22.it. I am talking about the basics, having job skills. Is there the
:05:22. > :05:28.suspicion that business just once cheap labour. -- wants. The Future
:05:29. > :05:32.of Business his people. Businesses do not want to squeeze the workers.
:05:33. > :05:36.They know their future is dependent on the people that work for them
:05:36. > :05:41.and they want to maintain and improve the skills base for their
:05:41. > :05:44.own company. The problem is the government promised it could cut
:05:44. > :05:49.nearly three-quarters of a million jobs in the public sector and that
:05:49. > :05:53.the private sector would step up to the mark. Instead we have five
:05:53. > :05:58.people chasing every job vacancy in Britain and more jobs being lost in
:05:58. > :06:08.the public sector, jobs that could give many of our young people a
:06:08. > :06:09.
:06:09. > :06:14.diesel and star out. Except that then -- young people a good start.
:06:14. > :06:19.Except that these jobs are not needed. They are needed. Health,
:06:19. > :06:24.education, the Border Agency. We meet real people do in real jobs.
:06:24. > :06:28.We could be doing a nationwide energy efficiency programme and
:06:28. > :06:33.getting him people into decent apprenticeship, making homes more
:06:33. > :06:39.energy efficient and cutting carbon emissions. Instead we have a
:06:40. > :06:44.piecemeal approach that will not tackle youth unemployment.
:06:44. > :06:51.private sector creates jobs, that is the lesson in history. Not at
:06:51. > :06:55.the pace we need. Because we have a weak economy. We surely learnt the
:06:55. > :07:03.mistake in the 1970s of the public sector creating jobs, and surely we
:07:03. > :07:08.have moved on from that. Not when you are in hard economic times.
:07:08. > :07:11.you think you are in hard economic times here, let's go to Greece.
:07:11. > :07:13.After 14 hours of negotiations, not to mention the months of to-ing and
:07:13. > :07:17.fro-ing, eurozone finance ministers finally agreed a second huge bail-
:07:17. > :07:20.out for Greece last night. Greece will have to accept years of
:07:20. > :07:25.austerity and will be closely monitored by EU officials to make
:07:25. > :07:28.sure they don't overspend. Greece will receive a bail-out of 130
:07:28. > :07:32.billion euros which will allow it to meet its immediate cash needs
:07:32. > :07:35.and avoid bankruptcy. Private holders of Greek bonds will also
:07:35. > :07:40.have to accept a write-down on their investments, which is
:07:40. > :07:46.expected to cut debt by 100 billion. The aim is that Greece will reduce
:07:46. > :07:52.its debt level from 160% of GDP now to about 120% by 2020. Still high
:07:52. > :07:54.by international standards but thought to be manageable. Some
:07:55. > :07:57.would question whether that is manageable. Some economists worry
:07:57. > :08:01.that hacking back spending will mean it is years before growth
:08:01. > :08:05.returns. But George Osborne says the deal is good for Europe and
:08:05. > :08:10.good for Britain. Last night's developments were very encouraging
:08:10. > :08:15.for the European economy. Greece took some very difficult decisions
:08:16. > :08:23.to face up to its own debts, as other countries like Britain are.
:08:23. > :08:27.We have the eurozone collectively standing behind their currency. Of
:08:27. > :08:31.course, resolving the Greece situation is only part of the
:08:31. > :08:35.eurozone crisis but I think we took a significant step towards that
:08:36. > :08:43.last night and that is good for Britain, because resolving the
:08:43. > :08:47.eurozone crisis could be the biggest boost that Britain can get.
:08:47. > :08:55.George Osborne thinks this is a good thing for Britain and Greece.
:08:55. > :09:01.Are they breathing a sigh of relief? Yes. But I think the
:09:01. > :09:05.biggest size of relief are coming from eurozone officials rather than
:09:05. > :09:09.Greece itself. This does take some of the pressure off from Europe and
:09:09. > :09:15.it means that a messy default in the short term will be avoided as
:09:15. > :09:19.far as the eurozone is concerned. It enables the eurozone to buy time
:09:19. > :09:23.in order to strengthen the defences around the banks in some of the
:09:23. > :09:27.weaker countries. But as regards Greece, they have got to implement
:09:27. > :09:34.some pretty tough measures and this is already an economy in free-for-
:09:34. > :09:38.all. It contracted by 7% in the last quarter of last year.
:09:38. > :09:43.Unemployment is 21%. This is a country that is having to take on
:09:43. > :09:47.further cuts. What does Greece have to look forward to? Where will
:09:47. > :09:54.growth come from? Or are they going to look forward to a decade of
:09:54. > :09:59.hardship? Thank you. With us to answer those questions is John
:10:00. > :10:06.Redwood and Rachel Reeves. George Osborne sounding relatively upbeat,
:10:06. > :10:11.saying this is good for Britain and will be good for Greece. George
:10:11. > :10:16.Osborne has to say that. He needs to be pro-European. Said he does
:10:16. > :10:20.not feel that. I can give a different views. My view is that
:10:20. > :10:23.this is not a success. This is a deal they will come to regret
:10:23. > :10:27.because I don't think it can work and I don't believe the numbers
:10:27. > :10:31.they have signed up to for the next eight years on meaningful. I don't
:10:31. > :10:39.think Greece will meet their deficit targets. Have they delayed
:10:39. > :10:43.the targets...? Isn't this about covering your own back? Cutting
:10:43. > :10:48.Greece adrift when the fire walls aren't that sure of the rest of
:10:49. > :10:54.Europe and contagion might be not contained, that could be worse?
:10:54. > :10:58.am in favour of an orderly exit of Greece from the euro. They have had
:10:58. > :11:05.a couple of these two planet and they have not taken an advantage of
:11:05. > :11:08.that -- couple of years to plan it. If they were sensible, they would
:11:08. > :11:18.have it plan be worked out in secret. 80s seven countries have
:11:18. > :11:19.
:11:19. > :11:25.left single currency schemes quite successfully since 1945 -- 87.
:11:25. > :11:28.Coming out of the report was not an easy thing to do in the communist
:11:28. > :11:37.era and when the former communist countries got out of the Russian
:11:37. > :11:39.rouble, they started to do well. The successful, the entrepreneurial
:11:39. > :11:48.path leading Greece in large numbers and I don't think this will
:11:48. > :11:53.stop the flood of money -- are leaving Greece. Should Greece come
:11:53. > :11:57.out of the eurozone? I agree that the plan that has been put in place
:11:58. > :12:03.overnight will not do what is needed... Because they need more
:12:03. > :12:08.money? They need different policies and a different approach. Greece
:12:08. > :12:13.has been in recession for four years. The economy shrunk by 7% at
:12:13. > :12:17.the end of last year going into the fifth year of recession. They meet
:12:17. > :12:22.to try something different. The policies of austerity are not
:12:22. > :12:26.working. More businesses are failing. They will not be able to
:12:26. > :12:36.get down the deficit and meet the targets that will be set. But not
:12:36. > :12:42.coming out of the euro. Not coming out? No. I think it will inevitably
:12:42. > :12:47.be disorderly and will result in contagion for Spain, Portugal, and
:12:47. > :12:52.that will have a huge impact on the UK economy. We need a different
:12:52. > :12:58.approach. Although you say it could be an orderly exit, the risk of
:12:58. > :13:02.contagion is still great. It is not a risk that Britain wants to take.
:13:02. > :13:10.What does that mean? It means people will lose money on the money
:13:11. > :13:15.they have led to Greece. They have lost it already. Absolutely. Some
:13:15. > :13:19.of those bonds are owned by pensioners and poor people, it is
:13:19. > :13:25.not all rich bankers that will suffer in this. Lots of other
:13:25. > :13:33.not paying their bills. But it is the exposure to countries like
:13:33. > :13:37.Italy and Spain and that will affect us. I don't agree that Spain
:13:38. > :13:41.and Italy will become the next victim. It is already happening.
:13:41. > :13:44.Those contagion effects will get worse in terms of the interest
:13:44. > :13:50.rates or Italian debt and the speculation that Spain and Portugal
:13:50. > :13:54.will be the next country to fall out and I think the impact that
:13:54. > :13:58.would have on the UK economy for people with pensions, for
:13:58. > :14:03.businesses here, would be immense. I think we should try to keep
:14:03. > :14:08.Greece in the euro but we need a different approach. Keep throwing
:14:09. > :14:15.good money after bad? That is effectively what is happening.
:14:15. > :14:18.silly's numbers are not nearly as bad as Portugal and Greece -- Italy.
:14:18. > :14:23.Greece should definitely leave, Portugal should probably leave.
:14:23. > :14:29.They should tidy it up, get rid of the worst cases and then defend the
:14:29. > :14:36.rest. Do you agree? I think it is absolutely certain that Greece will
:14:36. > :14:39.leave the euro eventually. I have written a report saying the ship is
:14:39. > :14:46.going down and I think it might be in time for some cheap summer
:14:46. > :14:50.holidays. Exploiting the misery of the Greeks! That is the key point.
:14:50. > :14:54.The markets know this is not politically sustainable. You cannot
:14:54. > :15:00.impose this level of austerity. Except the markets have rallied.
:15:00. > :15:03.They do this but then they catch up later. There will not be some
:15:03. > :15:09.combined euro fiscal bail-out on the scale required to push this
:15:09. > :15:14.problem away. There will not be the Monetary bail-out, the Germans will
:15:14. > :15:18.not let the ECB to quantitative easing. All we have is backdoor
:15:18. > :15:23.quantitative easing. The ECB is desperately hoping these eurozone
:15:23. > :15:26.banks will then buy public debt but they are not going to do it. Their
:15:26. > :15:34.balance sheets are shot to pieces of this is bespoke in the
:15:34. > :15:38.inevitable. -- because this is postponing the inevitable. What we
:15:38. > :15:42.see on the streets of Greece is extreme hardship, people are
:15:42. > :15:52.starving apparently in parts of the country, they are homeless and have
:15:52. > :15:53.
:15:53. > :15:58.lost their business. That will not And this is what people forget. It
:15:59. > :16:02.seems to me the EU and the IMF are acting like the worst kind of
:16:02. > :16:10.doorstep loan shark, imposing conditions which Greece cannot
:16:10. > :16:16.possibly meet. We have had a cut in the minimum wage by a fifth, wage
:16:16. > :16:25.cuts, pension cuts, ordinary people being made homeless. Actually,
:16:25. > :16:30.would it be better for them to come out and reinstate the drachma?
:16:30. > :16:33.extreme austerity approach is simply not working. You need
:16:33. > :16:40.investment and jobs and industry to get the economy back on its feet.
:16:40. > :16:42.It is Greece today, who will it be tomorrow? If you reintroduce the
:16:42. > :16:52.drachma, the Governor of the bank of Greece can print money. At the
:16:52. > :16:53.
:16:53. > :17:03.moment, he cannot do that, and that is a big, big difference. At the
:17:03. > :17:04.
:17:04. > :17:11.weekend, Ed Balls, was setting out alternatives for the budget next
:17:11. > :17:16.month. Rachel Reeves has been explaining today that Labour would
:17:16. > :17:19.also be tough on public spending. In a speech this morning, she said
:17:19. > :17:29.that for Labour, deficit reduction that for Labour, deficit reduction
:17:29. > :17:35.
:17:35. > :17:40.Of course, you have only just given that speech - there is no
:17:40. > :17:42.difference between you and the Government, then, you are going to
:17:42. > :17:44.complete that job of deficit complete that job of deficit
:17:44. > :17:49.reduction, and you are just as committed to it. We are committed
:17:49. > :17:53.to deficit reduction, but we also believe that the Government's plans
:17:53. > :17:56.have failed, because, of course you need tax increases and spending
:17:56. > :18:00.cuts, but unless you have got people in work paying taxes, then
:18:01. > :18:05.you will not get the deficit down, because you end up paying more out
:18:05. > :18:10.in benefits and getting less in in tax revenue. So we want to get the
:18:10. > :18:16.economy moving again, to get more people into work, paying taxes. But
:18:16. > :18:22.also, we would have to make tough decisions, cutting down on waste,
:18:22. > :18:28.looking at every area of government. Everybody talks about waste, let's
:18:28. > :18:34.go back to the idea of cutting the deficit, because if you are as
:18:34. > :18:39.committed to this as you have said, and they are pretty strong quotes,
:18:39. > :18:43.why are you advocating more borrowing to fund tax cuts? This
:18:43. > :18:49.Government is borrowing more than �150 billion more than they had
:18:49. > :18:53.planned. But that's what you're saying, advocating more borrowing.
:18:53. > :18:56.What we're saying is that the Government are borrowing this extra
:18:56. > :19:00.�150 billion because their plan has failed, because there are more
:19:00. > :19:06.people out of work, and more businesses failing. We are saying,
:19:06. > :19:09.let's have a targeted, temporary stimulus, a tax on bank bonuses, to
:19:09. > :19:14.find jobs for young people, and as a result, we will have the economy
:19:14. > :19:18.growing, more people paying taxes, and paying less out in benefits.
:19:18. > :19:21.But you would then break your own statement, which is that you would
:19:21. > :19:25.be putting up the deficit and the level of borrowing. The Government
:19:25. > :19:30.has failed its own test of balancing the books, that is now
:19:30. > :19:37.accepted by them, as well as everybody else. They have had to
:19:37. > :19:40.report that they have not met their original target, because the Office
:19:40. > :19:44.for Budget Responsibility's forecasts were wrong. I am
:19:44. > :19:49.delighted that Labour are now in agreement that we need to take this
:19:49. > :19:53.seriously. But as Conservatives, we did not come into politics to cut
:19:53. > :19:57.the deficit, we came into politics because we want people to be
:19:57. > :20:01.prosperous, and we happen to believe, and I think we now agree,
:20:01. > :20:08.that if you get the deficit get out of control, it gets in the way of
:20:08. > :20:12.those very important aims. adding �150 billion to that deficit
:20:12. > :20:15.will stop your aims. Yes, I have made it very clear that I would
:20:15. > :20:19.have liked them to have frozen public spending in the first year,
:20:20. > :20:24.rather than increasing it by 5% in cash terms in the first year.
:20:24. > :20:27.Because they did that, and then the growth did not come through, we
:20:27. > :20:32.have got slippage in the numbers. And they have now got to address
:20:32. > :20:37.that. I think the Chancellor will tackle the problem raised by Rachel,
:20:37. > :20:42.that we want more jobs and more growth. That's common ground. Of
:20:42. > :20:45.course we want growth and jobs, it is obvious. Do you agree that we
:20:45. > :20:51.would have had growth, and things would have been better, if,
:20:51. > :20:54.actually, there had been more fiscal discipline, in terms of
:20:54. > :20:58.freezing pay, for example? Everybody agrees that we want to
:20:58. > :21:02.reduce the deficit, the big question is how? Is it going to
:21:02. > :21:06.come out of ordinary people's pay and pensions and public services,
:21:06. > :21:10.or are we going to do something about the frankly obscene levels of
:21:10. > :21:17.tax avoidance and evasion at the top. All parties are committed to
:21:18. > :21:21.that, aren't they? Or certainly, that's what they say. Frankly, this
:21:21. > :21:27.is a big problem, and it can be tackled. We could see more support,
:21:27. > :21:36.I would like to see support for the Robin Hood tax, which would raise
:21:36. > :21:39.�20 billion, by cracking down on financial transactions. But Labour
:21:39. > :21:44.would have done pretty well the same, when it came to cutting
:21:44. > :21:48.public sector jobs, to shrink the public sector, because it was too
:21:48. > :21:53.bloated? When you look at the NHS, for example, the Government are
:21:53. > :21:59.going ahead with a we organisation which is costing �1.8 billion. Half
:21:59. > :22:04.of that money could be used to protect 6,000 nurses over the next
:22:04. > :22:11.six months. -- a re-organisation. That's not going to promote growth,
:22:11. > :22:16.is it? Different choices are being made. Coming back to the issue of
:22:16. > :22:21.growth, that will not actually create growth, the private sector
:22:21. > :22:28.coming through with more jobs would do that. But Ed Balls has said that
:22:28. > :22:35.he wants a cut of 3p in income tax - would that be for higher earners,
:22:35. > :22:40.too? What he has said is that the most targeted way to do this would
:22:40. > :22:43.be to cut VAT back to 17.5%. If the Chancellor does not want to do that,
:22:44. > :22:48.he could cut income tax, he could raise the personal allowance, all
:22:48. > :22:51.of those things would get money into the economy. In terms of
:22:51. > :22:56.businesses, a national insurance holiday for small businesses would
:22:56. > :23:02.help them, at a time when they are struggling to get bank lending.
:23:02. > :23:06.Would any of those things be the magic pill, if you like, in terms
:23:06. > :23:11.of stimulating growth, from a business point of view? Let's just
:23:11. > :23:15.take VAT. I would not think it would be that easy. We do not
:23:15. > :23:19.believe this is going to be a game- changer. Even if it is not a game-
:23:19. > :23:24.changer, do you think it should be done, would it help? I don't think
:23:24. > :23:31.it should. I think at the present time, you need to be convincing the
:23:31. > :23:34.financial markets, were struggling with the fiscal squeeze. I'm saying
:23:34. > :23:38.that if the Government made a different choice, if it was not
:23:38. > :23:47.cutting so far and so fast, we would not have choked off the
:23:47. > :23:50.economic recovery. I think there is a fundamental problem here, this
:23:50. > :23:54.analysis is basically saying, interest rates have got 20, we have
:23:54. > :24:02.got no more options to stimulate the economy, therefore we should
:24:02. > :24:11.use fiscal policy. I think the lesson of the last 30 years is that
:24:11. > :24:17.you do not use fiscal policy to try to fine-tune the economy. The
:24:17. > :24:24.fiscal stimulus you're arguing about is merely a potato gun,
:24:24. > :24:29.whereas the Bank of England has got a bazooka. We are saying, targeted,
:24:29. > :24:33.temporary action, a temporary cut in VAT, a national insurance
:24:33. > :24:42.holiday for small businesses. had had quantitative easing the
:24:42. > :24:51.first time around, -- if we had not had it, the level of GDP would have
:24:51. > :24:55.been 2% the war. You're a tax cutter, so do you have some
:24:55. > :25:00.sympathy with Ed Balls' policy of trying to do exactly that in the
:25:00. > :25:04.budget? No, I am not in favour of borrowing yet more to make a really
:25:04. > :25:08.big tax cut. I would cut the tax rates which I think are now
:25:08. > :25:11.collecting us less revenue, it would seem to be foolish to have
:25:12. > :25:15.moral outrage against people, so much so that you actually collect
:25:15. > :25:20.less money from them, and you drive them away, that would be rather
:25:20. > :25:25.silly. But I think this is a budget for reviewing all public spending
:25:25. > :25:29.once again, and didn't glad that we agree that there are things that
:25:29. > :25:33.can be done to get better value in public spending, but what I think
:25:33. > :25:38.they need to do is to fix the banks. The number one priority I have got
:25:38. > :25:42.is to go in and sort out RBS. We cannot carry on with this
:25:42. > :25:50.Meadowbank pretending it is going to come right. It keeps on losing
:25:50. > :25:58.us money, and it offends people in the process, it seems, as well. --
:25:58. > :26:03.mega-bank. I think we should get three decent working banks, out in
:26:04. > :26:07.the private sector, lending people money. We have effectively got an
:26:07. > :26:13.investment strike going on, big businesses are sitting on huge cash
:26:13. > :26:17.reserves, equivalent to six% of GDP. They are not investing because they
:26:17. > :26:20.are worried about the bigger economic output. We have got small
:26:20. > :26:25.businesses who are still starved of credit, even from the banks that
:26:25. > :26:29.the taxpayer owns, and we need to get in there. I would keep them as
:26:29. > :26:33.nationalised banks, and actually use them to invest in new jobs and
:26:33. > :26:38.industry. It is an interesting discussion, but not the one we
:26:38. > :26:42.started out on. Now, the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, came under
:26:43. > :26:52.fire in the House of Commons yesterday over his decision to give
:26:52. > :26:56.the job of university access tsar to Professor Les Ebdon. Some MPs
:26:56. > :26:59.are concerned that Professor Ebdon want to see universities admitting
:26:59. > :27:02.more students on the basis of what they might achieve in the future,
:27:02. > :27:06.rather than what they have actually achieved at the time of their
:27:06. > :27:11.application. Does the Secretary of State accept the overwhelming
:27:11. > :27:15.evidence set out in the report today, that shows skewed access to
:27:15. > :27:20.our top universities is not a failure of admissions policy, but a
:27:20. > :27:26.lack of adequate preparation in our secondary schools? To get down to
:27:26. > :27:31.some facts, more than 20 Oxford colleges made no offers to black
:27:31. > :27:34.students for undergraduate courses in 2009, we in one particular
:27:34. > :27:40.college not having admitted a single black student for five years.
:27:40. > :27:45.Meanwhile, four independent schools have sent more pupils to Oxbridge
:27:45. > :27:48.than 2000 state schools. How can the Secretary of State say that he
:27:48. > :27:54.believes in the principles of university autonomy and admissions
:27:54. > :27:58.on merit, when his appointee says he is prepared to threaten
:27:58. > :28:03.universities with what he chose to describe as the nuclear option of
:28:03. > :28:07.fines and reduced funding if they do not meet agreed targets? I know
:28:07. > :28:11.that the Honourable Gentleman has been very eloquent on this subject,
:28:11. > :28:15.and is anxious that we do not introduce prescriptive quotas for
:28:16. > :28:19.admissions to universities, that is his primary concern. And let me be
:28:19. > :28:24.very clear that that is not government policy, it is not the
:28:24. > :28:32.policy on offer. It is the independence of universities in
:28:32. > :28:35.respect of admissions, and that is enshrined in law. And Professor
:28:35. > :28:40.Ebdon has gone firmly on the record in saying that he will respect the
:28:40. > :28:44.diversity of the sector, and institutional autonomy. We can get
:28:44. > :28:50.more on this from our correspondent, in the central lobby. Yes, you get
:28:50. > :28:53.a real sense from that montage of the debate which has surrounded the
:28:53. > :29:03.appointment of Professor Ebdon, not just the pros and cons of the man
:29:03. > :29:09.himself, but the underlying issues. With me here, a Conservative MP and
:29:09. > :29:12.a Labour MP. You're the chair of the Education Select Committee -
:29:12. > :29:19.give me some sense of what you make of the appointment of Professor
:29:19. > :29:22.Ebdon, Graham Stuart? Well, I was disappointed, because I think the
:29:22. > :29:26.Secretary of State overruled Parliament on his appointment. And
:29:26. > :29:30.that was unwelcome. But going forward, we have got to make sure
:29:30. > :29:33.we focus on the issues which do block access certainly to our top
:29:33. > :29:37.universities for children from the poorest homes, and that is not
:29:37. > :29:40.going to be about some social engineering exercise at the
:29:40. > :29:44.University gate, it is going to be about raising standards, making
:29:44. > :29:52.sure you have the right subject choices and the right support, so
:29:52. > :29:56.that every child with the attitude can get on in life. Katy Clark, you
:29:56. > :30:00.sat on the committee which was scrutinising the appointment of
:30:00. > :30:04.Professor Ebdon, what did you make of it? I supported his appointment.
:30:04. > :30:07.There were four Conservative members who voted in favour of
:30:07. > :30:12.opposing this particular appointment, but the Labour members
:30:12. > :30:15.were supportive. I think he is a strong candidate. I think some of
:30:15. > :30:20.the issues that he has been taking forward are what are required. For
:30:20. > :30:24.example, if you look at what he is doing at his own institution, he is
:30:24. > :30:27.prioritising things like generous bursaries, the kind of action we
:30:27. > :30:36.need to encourage people from disadvantaged backgrounds to get to
:30:36. > :30:42.university. You're a member of this new Conservative group on fair
:30:42. > :30:45.access - tell us in short what you hope that group can achieve. What I
:30:45. > :30:53.think everybody across Parliament agrees is that we want to do more
:30:53. > :30:57.to support bright kids, from poor backgrounds, to get into university.
:30:57. > :31:01.What we see the last government having done, and this government
:31:01. > :31:05.having done, is to focus on universities as if they are the
:31:05. > :31:10.problem, as if there is some kind of snobbish selection process going
:31:10. > :31:13.on at the University gate - we do not believe that is the problem.
:31:13. > :31:18.The universities have no incentive other than to attract the brightest
:31:18. > :31:22.and best, from wherever they come. But we need to address the lack of
:31:22. > :31:25.social mobility on the real issues, which is about looking at issues
:31:25. > :31:29.like subject choices, like the support which is available, and
:31:29. > :31:35.making sure we have the right financial support. We must focus on
:31:35. > :31:45.the real barriers, not artificial, politically created ones. Are the
:31:45. > :31:46.
:31:46. > :31:52.Some of the policies that this government is coming up with,
:31:52. > :31:58.getting rid of the educational maintenance allowance and troubling
:31:58. > :32:04.tuition fees, on not the solutions. We need to get support so we can
:32:04. > :32:11.get disadvantaged students into a more prestigious universities.
:32:11. > :32:14.seems you on the same page but from different perspectives? The results
:32:14. > :32:19.of A-level from people in comprehensive schools have been
:32:19. > :32:23.improving but not as quickly as those from selective state and
:32:23. > :32:28.independent schools. Our schools are not delivering in the way we
:32:28. > :32:33.would like them too. Pupils with worse grades from state schools do
:32:33. > :32:37.just as well at university as those from private school who have
:32:37. > :32:45.managed to get higher grades because of their paid education.
:32:45. > :32:47.Not at Cambridge... Thank you. Plenty more on this debate from the
:32:47. > :32:50.Select Committee in the coming months.
:32:50. > :32:58.Thank you. Last year saw mass protests by public sector workers
:32:58. > :33:03.over their pensions. We lost more days to strike action as a result
:33:03. > :33:06.of the demos in November than at any time since the early '80s. Some
:33:06. > :33:10.people think that heralds a new age of industrial unrest, with even
:33:10. > :33:12.more stoppages on the way. And yet union membership is declining. So
:33:12. > :33:16.just what is the state of industrial relations in this
:33:16. > :33:20.country? Do we need tougher anti- strike laws? Or do the unions need
:33:20. > :33:26.to reform in order to stay relevant in the 21st Century?
:33:26. > :33:36.Old core union power, when the weather always seemed that and the
:33:36. > :33:37.
:33:37. > :33:42.situations were fuzzy. These days, the struggle goes on. We should now
:33:42. > :33:47.rapidly moved to a position for a strike ballot if there is not for
:33:47. > :33:51.the movement. This is a meeting of senior officials from the Fire
:33:51. > :33:56.Brigades Union. They are deciding whether to ballot members for
:33:56. > :34:01.strike action over changes to pensions. That issue has already
:34:01. > :34:05.caused industrial unrest so is this the dawning of a new era of union
:34:05. > :34:10.militancy? A quarter of the working population are members of the Union
:34:10. > :34:19.and in the public sector it is more than 50%, but numbers are falling.
:34:19. > :34:23.In the 80s, there were more than 30 million members. It is half that.
:34:23. > :34:28.But 2011 saw the highest number of days lost to strikes since the poll
:34:28. > :34:33.tax. We are seeing an unprecedented wave of industrial action and I
:34:33. > :34:37.think it is time we looked at serious reform to separate the
:34:37. > :34:43.moderate union leaders who tried to represent their members responsibly
:34:43. > :34:46.and the hardline militants, for whom there is no compromises.
:34:46. > :34:50.official government position is that while strike law is under
:34:50. > :34:55.review, it is not on the cards at the moment. If you take public
:34:55. > :35:04.sector pensions out of the equation, it is debatable how militant we
:35:04. > :35:09.have become. In 2009, France lost 100 days to strikes. We lost 19th.
:35:09. > :35:14.The we are not seeing a huge rise of militancy. That is not to say
:35:14. > :35:19.there are no concerns but it shows how responsible trade unions are in
:35:19. > :35:22.this country. If you believe in free trade unionism, you except
:35:22. > :35:26.there will occasionally be industrial disputes and trying to
:35:26. > :35:33.make it more difficult for a union to ballot their members is asking
:35:33. > :35:36.for more strikes without ballots and that is no good for anyone.
:35:36. > :35:40.despite real conflict with the government over public sector
:35:40. > :35:45.pensions, union membership continues to fall from its
:35:45. > :35:51.historical highs in the 1980s. In the private sector, just 14% of
:35:51. > :35:55.workers are in a union. So how does the movement make itself relevant?
:35:55. > :35:59.We haven't yet found a way to give workers a true voice in the
:35:59. > :36:04.workplace. I think that is an important thing. People feel
:36:04. > :36:10.frustrated that their voice is not heard. The unions are not doing
:36:10. > :36:15.enough there. Four unions, times may have changed but values haven't
:36:16. > :36:22.-- for the unions. Defending those beliefs however? That may need a
:36:22. > :36:28.whole new set of tools. Graham Leach, let's pick up on what
:36:28. > :36:33.Alan Johnson said. Not a huge rise in militancy. He is right in the
:36:33. > :36:40.sense that this is a public sector issue, not a private sector issued,
:36:40. > :36:44.and companies do not have a big issue. The problems we saw with
:36:44. > :36:48.unions hit in the private sector in the 70s and 80s has basically
:36:48. > :36:52.disappeared so there is a huge change there. What I think as well
:36:52. > :36:57.with change in the future is the volumes in the public sector
:36:57. > :37:00.because we have already seen the Chancellor has embarked on an
:37:00. > :37:05.investigation for the potential of decentralising public sector pay.
:37:05. > :37:09.What has happened in the private sector in terms of union activity
:37:09. > :37:17.will ultimately have been in the public sector. Are you saying we
:37:17. > :37:21.don't need tougher and destroyed laws? -- and he strike. I think
:37:21. > :37:29.this is fundamentally a public sector problem, not a private
:37:29. > :37:33.sector problem. The government has talked about the idea of tougher
:37:33. > :37:42.strike laws for the reason that the ball is still pretty low, they feel,
:37:42. > :37:48.in order to get a ballot to go on strike. I disagree. Funnily enough!
:37:48. > :37:55.In fact the public as you well know, even the lowest opinion polls after
:37:55. > :38:01.the November public service strikes, showed that 60% or more of the
:38:01. > :38:05.public supported the strike against having to pay more, work longer and
:38:05. > :38:10.get less pensions. I don't think that the government can drive a
:38:10. > :38:15.wedge between the unions and the public on this one. When it comes
:38:15. > :38:20.to strike ballots, let's remember, this is a human right, to withdraw
:38:20. > :38:24.your labour. It is recognised in international law. People never
:38:24. > :38:29.take strike action likely. Why should this ballot have a threshold
:38:29. > :38:34.that politicians do not apply to themselves? Let's remember because
:38:34. > :38:38.-- Conservatives won 23% of all of those entitled to vote at the last
:38:38. > :38:43.election. I don't think anybody would suggest they should not be in
:38:43. > :38:47.the coalition government today. would unions react if the
:38:47. > :38:51.government made it harder? I think we would be looking for public
:38:51. > :38:55.support to fight a very big campaign on this because it would
:38:55. > :38:58.be profoundly anti-democratic and actually it would be bad for
:38:58. > :39:04.business and bad for the economy in the long run. Remember all the good
:39:04. > :39:08.work that unions do. We create healthier and safer workplaces, we
:39:08. > :39:12.help workers get learning and skills, we resolve issues, we
:39:12. > :39:17.resolve grievances in the workplace and keep employees out of
:39:17. > :39:22.employment tribunals and that has to be good. There is a risk of
:39:22. > :39:26.further intensification of union activity in the public sector in
:39:26. > :39:29.the face of the pensions argument and that leads to a backlash from
:39:29. > :39:33.the electorate and ultimately it could be self-defeating from the
:39:34. > :39:38.unions because if they decentralise public sector pay, it fundamentally
:39:38. > :39:42.transforms the role of unions in the public sector. I think you are
:39:42. > :39:47.misreading public opinion. People believe that the balance of power
:39:47. > :39:52.has swung far too far in favour of the banks and big business and
:39:52. > :39:59.ordinary people need to be protected. Membership is on the
:39:59. > :40:02.slide. But it has been rising since the strike. But generally it has
:40:02. > :40:10.been coming down. We have a membership application forms coming
:40:10. > :40:14.in! I will take your word for it. Theresa May has announced that the
:40:14. > :40:18.UK Border Agency will be breaking up. The move comes over Brodie
:40:18. > :40:24.Clark -- after Brodie Clark resigned last year over claims he
:40:24. > :40:34.had relaxed checks. The Home Secretary set up the findings of an
:40:34. > :40:36.
:40:36. > :40:40.investigation into border security The report reveals that security
:40:40. > :40:47.checks carried out at the border have been suspended regularly and
:40:47. > :40:51.applied inconsistently since at least 2007. In June of that year,
:40:51. > :40:55.ministers accepted a policy that allowed the suspension of all index
:40:56. > :41:00.checks on certain health and safety grounds but the report found that
:41:00. > :41:04.those cheques were suspended on many occasions for other reasons.
:41:04. > :41:08.It is time for her to stop hiding, to take responsibility for things
:41:08. > :41:12.that have happened on her watch, for the unclear instructions from
:41:12. > :41:16.her office, for the policy decisions to downgrade border
:41:16. > :41:21.controls, to the failure to monitor what was going on and for her
:41:21. > :41:26.failure to take responsibility now. This mess got worse on her watch
:41:26. > :41:30.every month that went by. Isn't what the country wants is not a lot
:41:30. > :41:34.of huff and puff from the opposition and the front bench and
:41:34. > :41:39.point-scoring, what they want to know is that ministers are now
:41:39. > :41:44.taking action to make the Borders more secure. That is the important
:41:44. > :41:49.point. The Home Secretary have set out what regular performers
:41:49. > :41:53.assessment there will be to ensure they do not fall back into an at
:41:53. > :41:57.hoc events driven approach to board as security that was so prevalent
:41:57. > :42:01.under the previous government. occasions where backbench members
:42:01. > :42:05.on the opposition benches have not seen a report that is subject to
:42:05. > :42:09.the statement, we depend on a comprehensive and non-partisan
:42:09. > :42:12.presentation of the report by the minister responsible. The Home
:42:12. > :42:16.Secretary has given us the impression that the report is in no
:42:16. > :42:22.way critical of ministers, yet we have heard suggestions that the
:42:22. > :42:24.report does contain criticism of a lack of clarity in the language
:42:24. > :42:30.used by ministers in their instructions to the Border Agency.
:42:30. > :42:35.Will she tell the House, is there criticism and if so, what she
:42:35. > :42:40.apologise for the Department's failings? In a number of aspects,
:42:40. > :42:44.the report does indeed refer to the issue of the necessity of greater
:42:44. > :42:50.clarity of communications of all sorts that were taking place in
:42:50. > :42:56.relation to what was happening at the border.
:42:56. > :43:02.John Vine wrote the report. He joins us now. Welcome to the
:43:02. > :43:06.programme. Was this a ministerial or managerial cock-up? It was a
:43:06. > :43:12.combination of both. What I have found is that the decision making
:43:12. > :43:18.by ministers in relation to the suspension of the Czechs going back
:43:18. > :43:23.to 2007 was variable -- checks. Sometimes people were notified
:43:23. > :43:28.about what was happening. Sometimes suspensions took place without
:43:28. > :43:31.notification from ministers. There was a lack of clarity in
:43:31. > :43:36.submissions to ministers and a lack of clarity in language coming from
:43:36. > :43:40.the ministers, and there was also a lack of clarity in the way that was
:43:40. > :43:46.communicated down to the work force so that there was an inconsistency
:43:46. > :43:50.of application cheques that most -- at most of the courts I visited.
:43:51. > :43:57.was more than inconsistency. I read some of your reports and it sounds
:43:57. > :44:00.chaotic in parts over that period. Basically the lack of communication
:44:00. > :44:07.and clarity, people carrying out orders they had not been asked to
:44:07. > :44:11.do, it sounds chaotic. Yes. There were a number of important checks.
:44:12. > :44:18.The warnings index check is the most important and identify whether
:44:19. > :44:23.somebody is wanted by the police. That was suspended on over 350
:44:23. > :44:29.occasions. Far more occasions than ministers and senior agencies
:44:29. > :44:32.realised. That was mainly through health and safety grounds. What I
:44:32. > :44:37.identified in the report is that health and safety itself was not
:44:37. > :44:41.properly defined. For example, coaches backing onto a French
:44:41. > :44:46.motorway to try to get through the juxtaposed controls were often
:44:46. > :44:52.designated by immigration officers as the health and safety risks.
:44:52. > :44:57.There were other examples where the criteria for suspension of CQ at
:44:57. > :45:03.identification checks was not properly defined and there was not
:45:03. > :45:09.operating policy for that -- suspension of clear identification
:45:09. > :45:13.checks. So we will never know what risks posed? No. The risk must be
:45:13. > :45:18.in perspective. When the identification checks were
:45:18. > :45:21.suspended, warnings index checks were generally carried out, so the
:45:21. > :45:25.risk for the border must be put into perspective, but a very
:45:25. > :45:31.important check that was considered by ministers and officials to be
:45:32. > :45:38.mandatory, there was no operating policy. The record-keeping of
:45:38. > :45:44.border officials' reports was very poor indeed. This came from 2007,
:45:44. > :45:48.so the previous government as well as. The minister's' decision-making
:45:48. > :45:51.giving back to that period, yes. I mention both the previous
:45:51. > :45:54.government and the current government and I outlined where
:45:54. > :46:00.ministers were involved and where they were not involved but there
:46:00. > :46:03.seems to be a lack of clarity about the operational autonomy of the
:46:03. > :46:07.agency with regard to ministers and I have recommended that ministers
:46:07. > :46:11.decide the level of authority required for a suspension of any
:46:11. > :46:16.cheque. How much pressure did you find from ministers for the queues
:46:16. > :46:20.to be reduced? Managing the queues is very important and what
:46:20. > :46:30.immigration officers are trying to do is manage that as well as
:46:30. > :46:34.
:46:34. > :46:39.perform their function in checking The government decided for 100 %
:46:39. > :46:41.checking in 2007. Since that time, there were other requests for
:46:41. > :46:45.suspension of cheques, in particular circumstances. Over a
:46:46. > :46:50.period of time, what has happened is that the authority levels for
:46:50. > :46:55.those suspensions had become muddled and unclear. There needs to
:46:55. > :46:58.be a new minimum standard for border checks, a new framework, and
:46:58. > :47:01.if the 12 recommendations I have made in the report are carried out,
:47:01. > :47:06.then didn't confident it will improve the level of border
:47:06. > :47:10.security. And the former Home Secretary David? Is with me now. I
:47:10. > :47:14.should point out, you were not Home Secretary in the period that was
:47:14. > :47:18.being talk about, but that does not let you off completely. The Home
:47:18. > :47:25.Office is a poisoned chalice, isn't it? These things can always
:47:25. > :47:35.happen... Yes, I have a great deal of sympathy with Damian Green and
:47:35. > :47:35.
:47:35. > :47:39.Theresa May, or I would have, if the Conservative government had not
:47:39. > :47:45.been so venomous against ministers in the last government, because
:47:45. > :47:50.these are difficult issues. Politicians need to be clear that
:47:50. > :47:55.they are in charge of the policies, but there was a bigger issue here,
:47:55. > :47:58.which is even more important in the long term, and that is getting a
:47:58. > :48:06.clarification as to how responsible ministers are for management.
:48:06. > :48:09.Because in government, I fear to say that very often, they're told
:48:09. > :48:14.not to be, and then they blame officials, then officials say,
:48:14. > :48:20.you're blaming us, and we go round in circles. The public want to know,
:48:20. > :48:24.who's responsible, who's accountable? But the row between
:48:24. > :48:28.Brodie Clark and Theresa May came to the fore, but that has been
:48:28. > :48:34.played out from time immemorial in the Home Office, hasn't it? Is it
:48:34. > :48:40.not the case that the UK Border Agency was unfit for purpose, and
:48:40. > :48:46.it was set up in Labour's time? was set up in 2007, suspensions did
:48:46. > :48:52.not take place until 2009. But the number has risen every year since
:48:52. > :48:56.then. We ended up with a staggering 350, most of them unauthorised. In
:48:56. > :49:01.January last year, the Immigration Minister, Damian Green, actually
:49:01. > :49:05.did authorise changes. But they were misunderstood. I think that's
:49:05. > :49:09.correct. I think they were not clear enough, the policy directives
:49:09. > :49:13.were not care enough, and the information was not clear enough,
:49:13. > :49:17.but when I ask Theresa May last November in the House of Commons
:49:17. > :49:22.about other ministers having authorised these suspensions, she
:49:22. > :49:28.did not answer my question. Well, Jon Leyne has now answered the
:49:28. > :49:33.question, and the answer was, yes, ministers did. Do you think it is a
:49:33. > :49:39.good idea to do this just before the Olympics? No, I do not think
:49:39. > :49:46.any structural change is a good idea just before the Olympics. It
:49:46. > :49:51.interrupt what is already in place. I think things have already started
:49:51. > :49:54.to be put right, and they need to get on with that. I have no
:49:54. > :49:58.objection in the long term to them splitting it, the real issue is
:49:58. > :50:02.what we do between now and August. I think the public would understand
:50:02. > :50:12.that in July and early August, we are going to have the most enormous
:50:12. > :50:13.
:50:13. > :50:19.flows through our airports. And we are not good at change. In terms of
:50:19. > :50:22.the risk posed, when the public hears that possibly hundreds of
:50:22. > :50:27.thousands of people coming through the borders, whether they be
:50:27. > :50:31.students who had not had proper clearance, or people in the wider
:50:31. > :50:36.European economic Area, coming in without any checks, is that a wise
:50:36. > :50:40.thing for ministers ever to have advocated, even in a pilot form?
:50:40. > :50:43.No,, but if you're going to cut by more than 5,000 the number of
:50:43. > :50:49.people working in the agency, you're going to end up with these
:50:49. > :50:52.crises. I would appeal to the Government, think again, our
:50:52. > :50:56.borders are so important, the immigration policy is so critical
:50:56. > :51:00.to the public, that continuing with these massive reductions is
:51:00. > :51:04.inevitably going to end up with managers having to manage, and if
:51:04. > :51:12.they have to do that by suspending what were critical checks, then we
:51:12. > :51:18.are all at risk. Except that there were similar pilots put into place
:51:18. > :51:21.by Labour. Yes, there were six in 2009. I would like to believe that
:51:21. > :51:25.ministers now know what's going on, I'm not holding my breath.
:51:25. > :51:30.Certainly, in the case of Theresa May, she seems to have got away
:51:30. > :51:34.without being mortally wounded, although Scott on this occasion. It
:51:34. > :51:38.is something I am familiar with, because every single Home Secretary
:51:38. > :51:45.in recent history has hit the buffers at one point or another.
:51:45. > :51:48.have to leave it there, thank you very much. The short walk from
:51:48. > :51:53.Andrew Lansley's office to Downing Street yesterday turned into
:51:53. > :51:56.something of an ordeal. It is every spin doctor's worst nightmare, what
:51:56. > :51:59.to do when you're minister gets confronted by a member of the
:52:00. > :52:03.public. It can be even worse when they are in a scrum of angry
:52:03. > :52:07.protesters. Andrew Lansley tried politeness, but that did not seem
:52:08. > :52:10.to work. He is not the First Minister to have this problem.
:52:10. > :52:18.Here's a reminder of some other politicians getting into trouble
:52:18. > :52:23.with members of the public. Would you like to tell me what you're
:52:23. > :52:27.going to do to provide those people with better facilities? That's
:52:27. > :52:33.exactly what we're going to do. is appalling, if you would just
:52:33. > :52:37.like to go and have a look at it. am very sorry about it. No, you're
:52:38. > :52:41.not very sorry, if you work, you would do something about it. You're
:52:41. > :52:46.saying that, but all these eastern Europeans which are coming in,
:52:47. > :52:50.where are they coming from? What your manifesto says is that you
:52:50. > :52:54.want to reverse the bias towards the inclusion of children in
:52:54. > :52:59.mainstream schools, that's what your manifesto says. I could not
:52:59. > :53:02.feel more passionate about the subject. I understand that. But I'm
:53:02. > :53:12.telling you, it is the wrong way to go about it, you're not
:53:12. > :53:13.
:53:13. > :53:23.representing the needs of children in mainstream education. You're a
:53:23. > :53:28.
:53:28. > :53:34.Well, we have three guests to discuss what should have been done,
:53:34. > :53:38.Penny Mordaunt, Mark Littlewood and Paul Richards. What was Andrew
:53:38. > :53:42.Lansley trying to achieve by walking into that scrum? In those
:53:42. > :53:46.kind of situations, there is a very limited amount you can do. You can
:53:46. > :53:50.go in through the back door. But that is not what you want to do.
:53:50. > :53:53.you were a spin doctor, let's visualise, Number Ten Downing
:53:53. > :53:58.Street is here, OFFA House is pretty well opposite, you can see
:53:58. > :54:03.what's going on, would you not decide, you know what, Andrew
:54:03. > :54:10.Lansley, let's go in the quiet way? I would not, actually, because that
:54:10. > :54:16.becomes a story in itself. I think you can spend a lot of time
:54:16. > :54:19.worrying about these sorts of things. I think it is very complex,
:54:19. > :54:23.the types of situation you might find yourself in. Somebody who has
:54:23. > :54:29.got a story to tell, who's genuinely upset, and you can engage
:54:29. > :54:34.with them, or it might be somebody who's just there to make trouble.
:54:34. > :54:37.It was a public relations disaster, wasn't it? Yes, pretty much, I
:54:37. > :54:41.think he handled it pretty well in the end, but she he should not have
:54:41. > :54:45.been in that situation. You would not have let him be in that
:54:45. > :54:49.situation? Correct, I would have said, this would be about the worst
:54:49. > :54:54.sort of coverage he could get for his reforms. What is interesting is
:54:54. > :54:58.that he has been off the air waves. You have to make sure that you are
:54:58. > :55:03.the spokesman going to all of the Sunday programmes, but in fact, he
:55:03. > :55:07.ran for cover. He could get his ideas across much better by doing
:55:08. > :55:12.that, by taking to the airwaves, but not being hijacked by
:55:12. > :55:17.protesters. What would you have done? I would not have allowed it
:55:17. > :55:20.to happen, I have stood in that window, in OFFA House, advising the
:55:20. > :55:24.Secretary of State not to go anywhere near the protesters, there
:55:24. > :55:32.is a perfectly good back door. You do not go and get hijacked like
:55:32. > :55:40.this. It looks terrible. Let's have a little look at those pictures
:55:40. > :55:49.again, and talk about what he should have done. What was he able
:55:49. > :55:55.to do once he was in that situation. A lot -- I am not letting you go,
:55:55. > :56:03.no. She is having a real go at him. You said he handled it rather well,
:56:03. > :56:07.once he was there? Yes, otherwise he would be there for an hour or so.
:56:07. > :56:12.I think you can say, I'm terribly sorry, I have got to go to a
:56:12. > :56:21.meeting, I will meet you afterwards. But she said, I am not letting you
:56:21. > :56:25.go. She is a good Unison union member, she knows what she's doing.
:56:25. > :56:29.But it just looks awful that the public are now haranguing Cabinet
:56:29. > :56:35.ministers over this health issue. But it can happen. We saw the
:56:35. > :56:39.pictures of Tony Blair. Tony was desperate to get off camera, he was
:56:39. > :56:43.saying to her time and again, step inside. But she did not, she said,
:56:43. > :56:53.I want to discuss it right here, knowing full well that it was on-
:56:53. > :56:54.
:56:54. > :56:57.camera. Coming back to your point, is there a case that actually they
:56:57. > :57:02.should never come into contact with the public and those who oppose
:57:02. > :57:05.what they're doing, is it a risk worth taking? I think it is, I
:57:05. > :57:09.think people feel less of politicians who are not prepared to
:57:09. > :57:14.go and meet them where the rubber hits the road. Shooting in the back
:57:14. > :57:17.door is not the way to go. I think Andrew handled it well, he tried to
:57:17. > :57:23.engage with the person. Clearly she was not up for having a
:57:23. > :57:26.conversation. Do you rehearse it with ministers? If they are going
:57:26. > :57:33.into these sorts of situations, do you do little role plays and
:57:33. > :57:39.things? I think as a politician, you have either got it or you
:57:39. > :57:46.haven't, no amount of preparation... Who has got it? Cameron is very
:57:46. > :57:49.good at defusing the situation. The problem is that the television
:57:49. > :57:55.pictures make it look like these are ordinary members of the public,
:57:55. > :57:58.they are not, these are almost professional protesters. Not always,
:57:58. > :58:02.but... If Andrew Lansley want to walk around the high street in his
:58:02. > :58:06.town, meeting people, that's one thing, but you have no -- but you
:58:06. > :58:13.know you have got organised opponents in this case. Which shows
:58:13. > :58:18.a bit of naivety. She was not haranguing him, she was putting
:58:18. > :58:24.forward some sensible views. One strategy is the masochism strategy
:58:24. > :58:28.which Blair used to adopt, you confront your worst opponents,
:58:28. > :58:32.someone whose daughter has been killed in the war, and you so cut
:58:32. > :58:36.the anger, engage with them at that level. But that is very different
:58:36. > :58:40.from what has been happening with the scrum of reporters, the front
:58:40. > :58:47.page of the Daily Mirror showing an old lady haranguing a Minister, who
:58:47. > :58:52.looks out of touch, it is a disaster. Do you think it will be