:00:42. > :00:46.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. We need more energy
:00:46. > :00:52.or the lights will go out. But how do ministers plan to generate it
:00:52. > :00:55.and how much more will it cost? Today they publish their plans.
:00:55. > :00:59.The police could be forced to investigate allegations of anti-
:00:59. > :01:02.social behaviour if more than five people complain. But what do the
:01:02. > :01:08.boys in blue make of the Home Secretary's scheme?
:01:08. > :01:11.Tony Blair said he had scars on his back trying to reform public
:01:11. > :01:18.services, is so wide to the Labour Party oppose reforms seeking to do
:01:18. > :01:21.that? -- why do the Labour Party? And a leading philosopher tells us
:01:21. > :01:29.why they should be some things that money cannot buy.
:01:29. > :01:32.The breaking news this lunchtime is that the International Monetary
:01:32. > :01:37.Fund's made an interesting assessment of the health of the UK
:01:37. > :01:41.economy. Lord Adonis, the New Labour Action Man, welcome to the
:01:41. > :01:45.programme. You have been asked to head up the industry strategy for
:01:45. > :01:54.the party. Let's start with a House of Lords, a subject close to your
:01:54. > :02:02.heart. Do you support the plans for an 80-20 elected-appointed to House
:02:02. > :02:07.of Lords? An opinion poll found that 0% of the House -- of the
:02:07. > :02:10.public felt that the House of Lords reform was important. So it may not
:02:10. > :02:13.be important right now. I have always thought that the House of
:02:13. > :02:16.Lords should be elected and Parliament should be elected.
:02:16. > :02:21.Either be perfectly happy and indeed enthusiastic about standing
:02:21. > :02:25.for election if the Lords were to be reformed. On the central
:02:25. > :02:28.principle of should it be elected or not, the answer is yes. But on
:02:28. > :02:32.the political thing, will you support the coalition's plans when
:02:32. > :02:37.it comes out? The key thing is that there should be a referendum and of
:02:37. > :02:43.course I support that. The same opinion poll showed that 0% thought
:02:43. > :02:47.that there should be reform also thought that there should be a
:02:48. > :02:57.referendum. People should have their say. What about the Labour
:02:57. > :03:01.peers that might vote against, with the rebel peers? We fought the last
:03:01. > :03:05.election on a commitment to have a democratically elected House of
:03:05. > :03:10.Lords. We also said there should be a referendum, so I think the right
:03:10. > :03:16.way forward, and I hope that party leaders can agree this, is to have
:03:16. > :03:20.a predominantly or wholly elected second chamber with the people.
:03:20. > :03:24.on the basis of what you have just said, it may not happen at all.
:03:24. > :03:27.That would defeat the purpose. think watch this space. It is quite
:03:27. > :03:31.possible that the coalition could decide that the way to bring
:03:31. > :03:38.everyone on board is a referendum. What about moving to Manchester?
:03:38. > :03:42.Why would that be a good idea? those people that come from North
:03:42. > :03:46.of Birmingham are very keen. they? I have got a very positive
:03:46. > :03:50.response. Even though people don't want reform of the House of Lords?
:03:50. > :03:56.The existing House of Lords moving there, they think that is a good
:03:56. > :03:59.idea. People from London, not so keen, very telling. People in the
:03:59. > :04:04.House of Lords are essentially Londoners, so we did not get an a
:04:04. > :04:09.disaster response from the South. I would not count your chickens on
:04:09. > :04:13.that one. -- we did not get an enthusiastic response from the
:04:13. > :04:17.South. Some good news for the economy. The
:04:17. > :04:20.consumer prices measure has fallen to 3%, the lowest level in three
:04:21. > :04:25.years. But if ministers felt good about that, it will not have lasted
:04:25. > :04:28.long. The head of the IMF was in town. Christine Lagarde said that
:04:28. > :04:30.she shivered to think of the state of the British economy had the
:04:31. > :04:36.Government not put a deficit reduction plan into place two years
:04:36. > :04:38.ago. So far so good for George Osborne. She went on to say that
:04:39. > :04:43.ministers have to prepare to change direction if growth failed to
:04:43. > :04:48.materialise. Unfortunately the economic recovery
:04:48. > :04:52.in the UK has not yet taken hold and uncertainty is abound. The
:04:52. > :04:56.stresses in the eurozone affect the UK through many channels. Growth is
:04:56. > :05:00.too slow and unemployment, including youth unemployment, is
:05:00. > :05:06.too high. Policies to bolster demand before low growth becomes
:05:06. > :05:10.entrenched are needed. Well, our political correspondent was
:05:10. > :05:15.listening to Christine Lagarde. What is she actually saying? That
:05:15. > :05:18.the Government should now look at a plan B? She was not saying that
:05:18. > :05:24.explicitly. I think on the whole the Treasury will be pleased with
:05:24. > :05:28.the IMF's assessment of how they have done so far. It is approval of
:05:28. > :05:31.their strategy. It was a fascinating moment in her press
:05:31. > :05:34.conference when she said that she shivered to think what would have
:05:34. > :05:44.happened if they had not been a deficit reduction plan in place in
:05:44. > :05:49.the UK. So good so far. But with that backdrop of stagnant growth
:05:49. > :05:53.and uncertainty across the global economy, she is saying that they
:05:53. > :05:58.should be a plan B in the Treasury's pocket in case recovery
:05:58. > :06:02.does not emerge. She says the Treasury should consider further
:06:02. > :06:06.fiscal easing measures, including temporary tax cuts. And in the
:06:06. > :06:12.press conference that followed her remarks, one of the IMF officials
:06:12. > :06:16.talked about the VAT cut playing right into a very charged and
:06:17. > :06:22.relevant political debate between Labour and the Government. And
:06:23. > :06:29.perhaps boosting demand may also be needed if growth does not appear
:06:29. > :06:32.soon. That will be something that Labour will jump on. They will.
:06:32. > :06:36.They are saying that the structure of the Government's plan is wrong
:06:36. > :06:40.and it is snuffing out growth by having a deficit reduction plan
:06:40. > :06:44.that is too severe. Labour of course argue that it should be
:06:44. > :06:48.slightly slower and the screw should be loosened. Christine
:06:48. > :06:52.Lagarde is not endorsing that. She is saying that there may need to be
:06:52. > :06:55.measures to stimulate the economy further down the line. That is
:06:55. > :06:59.something that Labour have been calling for and we have not had a
:06:59. > :07:03.response yet from Labour, not that I have seen. They will seize on her
:07:03. > :07:08.remarks, I am sure, arguing for fiscal easing measures to boost
:07:08. > :07:12.growth. She has stepped into a very controversial part of the political
:07:12. > :07:17.debate and there is something for both sides, to be honest. All right.
:07:17. > :07:20.Matthew Hancock, the Conservative MP, is with us now. He is a close
:07:21. > :07:24.associate of the Chancellor, George Osborne. Welcome back. Christine
:07:24. > :07:29.Lagarde did endorse the Government's plan of cutting the
:07:29. > :07:33.deficit from 2010. But she also said that we have to prepare for
:07:33. > :07:37.Plan B. Is the Treasury planning for that? Let's look at what she
:07:37. > :07:46.said. She said tersely that the fiscal consolidation dealing with
:07:46. > :07:52.our deficit is on track. -- firstly. People watching will be pleased to
:07:52. > :07:54.hear that a quarter of the progress has been made. She also said that
:07:54. > :07:58.growth is disappointing. We all know that. She explained the
:07:58. > :08:02.reasons. She said there was no growth and high unemployment in
:08:02. > :08:07.Britain, which was a worry, and that is why they are calling for
:08:07. > :08:12.austerity to be relaxed. That is not what she said. Hold on. Let's
:08:12. > :08:18.explain what she actually said. She said tersely that there should not
:08:18. > :08:22.be a fiscal relaxing now. -- firstly. And if growth continues to
:08:22. > :08:28.disappoint, then the first recourse should be looser monetary policy,
:08:28. > :08:34.lower interest rates, more clubs to be easing. And it is for the Bank
:08:35. > :08:39.of England to make that decision. - - more quantitative easing. I would
:08:39. > :08:42.support that decision if they decided to make it. They also want
:08:42. > :08:47.measures for small businesses, which the Government announced in
:08:47. > :08:55.November and brought in the Budget. And thirdly, changing the mixture
:08:55. > :08:59.of spending, away from spending on things like benefits and salaries
:08:59. > :09:03.and more towards infrastructure spending. Only if Gross still
:09:03. > :09:09.disappoints, and there has been substantial amounts of that, then
:09:09. > :09:13.we should consider other options. - - if growth disappoints. The idea
:09:13. > :09:15.that Ed Balls should listen to that programme, the proposals put
:09:15. > :09:20.forward, and listen to the confirmation of the Government's
:09:20. > :09:23.strategy, which has been fiscal responsibility and monetary
:09:24. > :09:29.activism, and that as a proposition for what should happen, actually
:09:29. > :09:33.this is very good news for the Government. All right. At what
:09:33. > :09:37.point is she saying that these things need to be changed and there
:09:37. > :09:41.may need to be a look at the policy mixture? When does that happen,
:09:41. > :09:46.bearing in mind that we have had flat growth for two years? When do
:09:46. > :09:50.we get to that point? How much longer is this Government going to
:09:50. > :09:53.tolerate no growth? The Government is not tolerating no growth. That
:09:53. > :09:57.is why it is already acting on credit easing and getting people
:09:57. > :10:02.into work through the biggest work programme that this country has
:10:02. > :10:05.ever seen. Over half a million people in six months have been
:10:05. > :10:11.engaged in that scheme. The answer directly to your question of when,
:10:11. > :10:16.she says it herself. The IMF say it themselves. Only after substantial
:10:16. > :10:20.further action has been taken on monetary policy, on credit easing,
:10:20. > :10:28.and from switching from current and into capital expenditure. But she
:10:28. > :10:31.said that if the recovery fails to take off, then the Government
:10:31. > :10:37.should focus on quantitative easing and one of the measures we should
:10:37. > :10:44.look at would be a temporary VAT cut. Are they right? They are not.
:10:44. > :10:48.Labour was calling for the VAT cut. You are totally misrepresenting the
:10:48. > :10:53.IMF. That is the quote. In answer to the question whether this should
:10:53. > :10:57.be done now, they say no. They say the current plan is the correct
:10:57. > :11:02.plan and it is on track. Separately we have borrowing figures showing
:11:02. > :11:07.deficits down by a quarter. The fiscal plan is on track, it is
:11:07. > :11:10.appropriate, it is essential. They said that in the future if things
:11:10. > :11:16.change, after several different other measures have been tried, we
:11:16. > :11:18.should look at other things. Let's get the deficit down and get growth
:11:18. > :11:22.growing through the infrastructure investment that we are doing,
:11:22. > :11:26.getting people out of unemployment. Is that how you read Christine
:11:26. > :11:29.Lagarde, that she was not criticising the Government so far
:11:29. > :11:33.and they are on track? I heard to say that growth is too low and
:11:33. > :11:37.there is not any at the moment and unemployment is too high. In that
:11:37. > :11:40.clip, she said there was a danger of youth unemployment, which is 20%
:11:40. > :11:44.higher than it has been since we started collecting records. There
:11:45. > :11:49.was a real danger of that becoming entrenched. What I have heard from
:11:49. > :11:53.Matthew is complacency, no change. They are going to carry on with the
:11:53. > :11:59.policies that have slowed growth, lead to unemployment rising, no
:11:59. > :12:03.change. What we have heard from the IMF... What we have heard...
:12:03. > :12:07.did not hear no change. She said that significant further steps are
:12:07. > :12:12.required to boost growth. That is the message. Military steps, which
:12:12. > :12:16.is what Matthew Hancock is saying. You do not have a one gear policy,
:12:16. > :12:20.you have policies across it. But a key thing must be support for new
:12:20. > :12:23.jobs, that is crucial. Labour is saying there should be a tax on
:12:23. > :12:29.bank are bonuses to create thousands more jobs for young
:12:29. > :12:31.people to counter the record levels of unemployment. And we should be
:12:31. > :12:35.accelerating infrastructure spending. That is what Labour is
:12:35. > :12:39.saying. She said no big fiscal stimulus, which is what Labour have
:12:39. > :12:43.been calling for, in effect. She said policies should be fiscally
:12:43. > :12:47.neutral, which is what the Government is trying to do, it says.
:12:47. > :12:53.The air will need to be more money going into the economy to create
:12:53. > :12:57.and sustain new jobs. -- there will need to be. That is crucial. If
:12:57. > :13:02.there is a vat cut, there needs a further injection. We need a plan B.
:13:02. > :13:06.What she was calling for, in diplomatic, coded language, is
:13:06. > :13:09.precisely what Ed Miliband has been calling for. She says she does not
:13:09. > :13:13.want to trample on political sensitivities here. But reading
:13:13. > :13:16.between the lines, she says the policies have worked so far and
:13:16. > :13:21.have made the Government credible in terms of dealing with the market
:13:21. > :13:27.and the price it is paying for its debt, but in terms of going on from
:13:27. > :13:32.here, it is not creating growth and jobs. She says that because of the
:13:32. > :13:37.difficult issues of higher commodity prices and the eurozone,
:13:37. > :13:46.we need to look at more monetary activism, and when asked do we need
:13:46. > :13:49.to borrow more now to get things down, she says no. Andrew, I think
:13:49. > :13:54.you are one of those great Labour politicians who normally tell it
:13:55. > :14:00.straight. It is slightly beneath you to mangle the words. Yes, she
:14:00. > :14:04.says let's do everything we can to get growth going. And yes...
:14:04. > :14:09.you doing everything you can to get growth going? Should we do more to
:14:09. > :14:14.deal with youth unemployment? Absolutely. Hold on. That is why
:14:14. > :14:20.the work programme... Why do they not have taxes on the bankers'
:14:20. > :14:25.bonuses? Oh, come on. Your friend Alistair Darling said it would not
:14:25. > :14:28.work. We did attacks and it did work and we could be doing it now.
:14:28. > :14:33.Alistair Darling has said it will not work again. Alistair Darling
:14:33. > :14:37.has said that the bankers' bonus tax would not work again. Ed
:14:37. > :14:40.Miliband and Ed Balls have promised to spend it 10 times. The big
:14:40. > :14:46.picture question is do we give up on the benefits that the Government
:14:46. > :14:50.has got, that Christine Lagarde spelled out? Hold on. She is not
:14:50. > :14:55.asking for us to give up on the fiscal consolidation. That is
:14:55. > :14:59.precisely... Matthew is on Treasury autopilot. He has been sent here to
:14:59. > :15:03.defend us. Any member of the public understands that plan A is not
:15:03. > :15:06.working and unemployment has gone up since the election. There is no
:15:06. > :15:09.growth and there was substantial growth at the time of the last
:15:09. > :15:12.election. The head of the IMF is now saying there is a real danger
:15:12. > :15:18.of youth unemployment been entrenched, and this is the most
:15:18. > :15:23.alarming thing. Let the real about what this means for the country. --
:15:23. > :15:26.let's be real. There could be a whole generation of people not
:15:26. > :15:32.knowing what working is and that could be so damaging for the
:15:32. > :15:36.country. A banker's bonus tax would be so imperative. If you are saying
:15:36. > :15:39.that more has to be done in a monetary form, it sounds as if the
:15:39. > :15:42.Government is saying that we cannot do anything and it is up to the
:15:42. > :15:51.Bank of England to do things like cutting interest rates, and
:15:51. > :15:56.quantitative easing and there is No after youth unemployment rose
:15:56. > :16:00.during the boom times, the work programme and the work experience
:16:00. > :16:06.programme which we have brought in are the biggest programme to get
:16:06. > :16:11.people into work. I was in sufficient folk on Thursday with
:16:11. > :16:15.Chris greyling, meeting people who have been given work experience
:16:16. > :16:20.placements and by the end of the time they're taken on. So that is
:16:20. > :16:26.the action the government should be taken. As Christine Lagarde said,
:16:26. > :16:32.is now the right time to try borrow your way out of debt? No, it is not.
:16:32. > :16:38.Thank you. Now can't we all just get a I long that? That may seem a
:16:38. > :16:45.stretch, but some policies being pursued by the Government were
:16:45. > :16:50.dreamed up by New Labour. Adam has been investigating. Politics is a
:16:50. > :16:57.bit of a pick and mix business and you sometimes get a new government
:16:57. > :17:01.that seems strangely familiar. big divide in politics has been
:17:01. > :17:06.about the economy and the pace of deficit reductions, but there is
:17:06. > :17:11.continue is the on education, welfare reform, overseas aid, where
:17:11. > :17:15.the Government has kept track with what Labour have done. But Labour
:17:15. > :17:21.haven't been keen on the reforms in opposition. Take benefits, they
:17:21. > :17:26.pioneer rad tougher approach, but have opposed much of the
:17:26. > :17:33.coalition's crackdown. And there are accused Mees, Labour invented
:17:33. > :17:38.the idea, copy right Lord Adonis and the coalition increased them
:17:38. > :17:40.nine fold. But Labour were not happy. Why the change of heart?
:17:40. > :17:44.There was a sense of trepidation in the Labour Party that this was
:17:44. > :17:48.selling out the public sector. I don't think that was true, but
:17:48. > :17:52.there was a certain errors in describing the policies which
:17:52. > :17:57.allowed people to think that. The Labour Party was never comfort
:17:57. > :18:00.kpwrabl with a lot of its -- comfortable with a lot of its
:18:00. > :18:06.reforms. John Hutton has been in the position of being a Labour peer
:18:06. > :18:14.who has worked for enemy, reviewing public sector pensions and earning
:18:14. > :18:18.the label of collaborator from some. It is important to be, when your in
:18:18. > :18:23.government and you go into opposition to have continuity. We
:18:23. > :18:29.started this process and I don't think it serves our cause well if
:18:29. > :18:34.we then say, well we didn't really do that, but actually we did.
:18:34. > :18:38.this is going to be a feature as long as politics exists. When there
:18:38. > :18:46.is a new face as Prime Minister, they get some things they like the
:18:46. > :18:50.look of and opposition leaders are supposed to oppose. Well Lord
:18:50. > :18:55.Adonis is still with me. Do you think Labour is opposing just for
:18:55. > :19:00.the sake of opposing on key areas like welfare, health and education?
:19:00. > :19:04.I think Labour's doing the right thing, that is judging policies on
:19:04. > :19:09.their merits. You sympathise with Ed Miliband saying free schools are
:19:09. > :19:16.a bad thing. What we have said is we will look at free schools case
:19:16. > :19:20.by case. I invented aed -- academies. They were new schools in
:19:20. > :19:26.areas where there were not schools. Are you frustrated by Ed Miliband
:19:26. > :19:30.not embracing that? The policy was to bring good schools in areas
:19:30. > :19:34.where standards were low. Where new schools are being set up with that
:19:34. > :19:40.as the mission, I support them. Of course, the numbers given about the
:19:40. > :19:46.expansion of academies, it is not replacement schools for
:19:46. > :19:50.underperforming corps hen sifrs, most are existing schools. --
:19:50. > :19:54.comprehensives. And they are changing the label. No change in
:19:54. > :20:00.their governance, simply to pocket �25,000 that the Government gives
:20:00. > :20:04.for changes -- changing. You said in an article the Labour Party will
:20:04. > :20:07.get back into government by having a better plan for the future, not
:20:07. > :20:11.by opposing changes that are working well. We don't changes that
:20:11. > :20:17.are work. Why did you say that then? We don't oppose changes that
:20:17. > :20:20.are working well, we support them where change has been made for
:20:20. > :20:26.change's sake. That is something that not going to be supported in
:20:26. > :20:29.the same way. On the question of free schools, free schools should
:20:29. > :20:35.be concentrated in areas where educational standards are low and
:20:35. > :20:41.where children are being failed. Not simply a quest for establishing
:20:41. > :20:47.more schools. But this is, it sounds like an argument, you
:20:47. > :20:51.support the thrust of the reform from the Government on thing like
:20:51. > :20:56.education, but the Labour Party now and you know Shadow Cabinet don't
:20:56. > :21:02.embrace it in the same way. Are you saying they should and they haven't
:21:02. > :21:09.been forthcoming enough? One Labour MP said Lord Adonis's argument is
:21:09. > :21:14.selective and in parts wrong. people, including some people in my
:21:14. > :21:20.party, didn't like the public reforms, and if thought school
:21:20. > :21:25.should continue to be run by local authorities. That debate is now
:21:25. > :21:29.largely over in the Labour Party. Tony Blair's mantra, what matter is
:21:29. > :21:35.what works, people accept that. Particularly in tackling
:21:35. > :21:39.disadvantage. Reforms which are geared at narrowing inqualities and
:21:39. > :21:43.tackling disadvantage, we support. But that is different from reforms
:21:43. > :21:49.which are intended to break up public services. Like? Which
:21:49. > :21:54.reforms are you against? One is the health reforms. The marketisation
:21:54. > :21:59.of the health service, which the coalition was proposing. It was
:21:59. > :22:03.muted by the House of Lords. support GP commissioning? We do. It
:22:03. > :22:06.is what the role of competition and this is the thing for the Liberal
:22:06. > :22:10.Democrats which has been difficult. Where you have an NHS that is
:22:10. > :22:14.working well and delivering for patients, where we put in place
:22:14. > :22:17.reforms to see that operations are delivered in a shorter time and
:22:17. > :22:21.hospital waiting lists are dealt with and patients have choice.
:22:21. > :22:26.Where those systems in place, we support them. Competition for
:22:26. > :22:36.competition's sake and t let's be clear what they want to do, they
:22:36. > :22:37.
:22:37. > :22:42.want to dismantle public service. One problem was the party could
:22:42. > :22:47.never embrace public sector reform. We have embraced reform. That
:22:47. > :22:51.doesn't mean to say we embrace the dismantling of the public services.
:22:51. > :22:57.That is the dividing line between Labour and the Conservatives. Many
:22:57. > :23:03.Conservatives would rather not have the NHS and would rather have
:23:03. > :23:08.private medicine. We see it as the best insurance policy in the world
:23:09. > :23:13.in respect of health. Now, today, the energy Secretary has published
:23:13. > :23:16.a draft bill to reform the electricity market. It is designed
:23:16. > :23:26.to solve a problem of how to generate enough power to keep the
:23:26. > :23:29.
:23:29. > :23:36.lights on and enable the Government to hit its climate change targets.
:23:36. > :23:40.It will introduce an emissions performance standard. The plans are
:23:40. > :23:45.intended to secure investment in clean energy to avert a gap in
:23:45. > :23:51.supplies. As some power stations come to the end of their lives. But
:23:52. > :23:59.will it lead to higher energy bills? Roger haar ban joins us.
:23:59. > :24:04.Will it lead to higher bills? inevitable. It will lead to higher
:24:04. > :24:11.bills. But the Government says any way, because of fructations in
:24:11. > :24:17.fossil fuel prices -- fluctuations -- consumer would have to pay
:24:17. > :24:20.higher bills and the Government says within a time of 20 years that
:24:20. > :24:25.consumers will be better off from the changes being made today. I
:24:25. > :24:28.have to say that is contested and some people think we would be
:24:28. > :24:33.cheaper off going down a fossil fuel route. But this is the
:24:33. > :24:38.Government's position. It believes it will be proved right. How is the
:24:38. > :24:44.Government to encourage investment in compleen energy? It has a
:24:44. > :24:50.problem? -- clean energy. It wants new nuclear power stations, but it
:24:50. > :24:54.is struggling to to co-that -- to do that. It has to get companies to
:24:54. > :25:04.put in billions up front before they make any cash back. So what it
:25:04. > :25:08.is trying to do is offer long-term contracts for different causes
:25:08. > :25:16.where ibin vestors get their money back as soon as they start planning.
:25:16. > :25:23.That funding will come from our own bills. That is in the form of a lvy.
:25:23. > :25:26.And they hope to attract investment. But eSen with those inducements is
:25:26. > :25:33.not certain they will get new nuclear power stations. They could
:25:33. > :25:38.end up with only one or two. joined by the energy minister
:25:38. > :25:45.Charles Hendry and Jenny Jones. Can you guarantee that we will get a
:25:45. > :25:51.new generation of nuclear plants? No, but we can create the right
:25:51. > :25:55.environment for companies to invest. We're trying to deliver energy
:25:55. > :26:00.security. How can you guarantee if, there are no state subsidies,
:26:01. > :26:06.although you're guaranteeing contracts for ndge supplies, so
:26:06. > :26:12.that is a subsidy, do you accept that? No there is a higher cost for
:26:12. > :26:16.low carbon technologies, the cheapest one gas. We want a
:26:16. > :26:23.balanced portfolio and if we want these to come through, we have to
:26:23. > :26:27.have a structure that encourages people to invest and make up for a
:26:27. > :26:33.catastrophic shortage of investment in energy. To get that investment,
:26:33. > :26:37.you have laid down inducements to energy suppliers and we will pay
:26:37. > :26:42.for that? The consumer will have to pay for berilding the
:26:42. > :26:47.infrastructure. How much will that add to an average bill What we have
:26:47. > :26:52.looked at it is what will happen with business if we went down the
:26:52. > :26:57.route of fossil fuel. It would be cheaper. Well it wouldn't, gas is
:26:57. > :27:02.at a high price and coal will become more expensive. We believe
:27:02. > :27:07.the way that we're doing it will be a cheaper way of doing it. Are you
:27:07. > :27:12.convinced? No, it is difficult to know what this bill is going for.
:27:13. > :27:17.Because it will not reduce prices for the consumer and it also won't
:27:17. > :27:21.I think produce the energy that we want. It won't reduce price for the
:27:21. > :27:27.consumer, but will it be cheaper, can you say it would be cheaper
:27:27. > :27:31.than if we stayed with the status quo. Of course not. If they only
:27:31. > :27:39.started insulating people's houses that would reduce each household's
:27:39. > :27:42.bill by �180. Then if you started investing in renewables, Germany
:27:42. > :27:48.has 21% market share in renewable energy and their prices have gone
:27:48. > :27:51.down. That is the way to bring prices down. You reduce the need
:27:51. > :27:55.for electricity by insulation and reduce prices by going for
:27:55. > :28:01.renewables, which have fewer long- term problems. So why aren't you
:28:01. > :28:10.doing that? That is what we did last year. The take up... It hasn't
:28:10. > :28:16.come in yet. But in terms, some incuesment -- inducements have come
:28:16. > :28:21.and people haven't taken them up. That is why we have gone for a new
:28:21. > :28:26.approach, so we can systemically improve the efficiency of houses.
:28:26. > :28:30.But the approach will deliver energy security at low cost and
:28:30. > :28:34.fundamentally move us in the low carbon dre,. Yes, it will be
:28:34. > :28:38.nuclear and be more renewables. have said yourself that you don't
:28:38. > :28:46.know whether we're going to get a new generation of nuclear plants
:28:46. > :28:51.and you're going to set up an system, who have shown an interest.
:28:51. > :28:55.EDF and Centrica. They haven't confirmed that. Well pev e they
:28:55. > :28:59.have spent billion of pounds so far. And everyone who looks at the
:28:59. > :29:04.country recognises in five years we have gone from a count which are ry
:29:04. > :29:09.where nuclear was not on the agenda so, one of the most exciting places
:29:09. > :29:14.to invest in nuclear. But also in renewables, we want to see a broad
:29:14. > :29:19.portfolio. What are you doing about getting that diversification?
:29:19. > :29:23.is what this bill does. It is providing an incentive for people
:29:23. > :29:28.to invest in low carbon technologies and bring down the
:29:28. > :29:34.cost of some of the renewables. you dismissing this bill before you
:29:34. > :29:37.have seen it? No, my impression it is unstable baby steps to what
:29:37. > :29:42.we're aiming for, which is a low carbon future that does haven't the
:29:42. > :29:47.burden of nuclear problems later. Cleaning up the nuclear problem
:29:47. > :29:53.will be a problem for the future. We can't afford that money. And my
:29:53. > :30:02.understanding is... It is cheaper. It isn't when you have to pay for
:30:02. > :30:07.it through taxpayers' and consumers' bills. The long-term
:30:07. > :30:13.bill of nuclear is way beyond this. Labour would have had to backed
:30:13. > :30:18.some investment to build a new generation of nuclear plants?
:30:18. > :30:22.need new investment and we need furbt si. And we will see
:30:22. > :30:28.developments of nuclear power stations. The problem for the
:30:28. > :30:34.government is it doesn't seem to that is affordable. Two companies
:30:34. > :30:38.have pulled out and what we want to look at, because we're not signing
:30:38. > :30:45.blank cheques, when statements are made, that this isn't a subsidy,
:30:45. > :30:49.but we're signing long-term contracts ta at -- at guaranteed
:30:49. > :30:53.prices. And illegal. The higher cost of low carbon electricity. If
:30:53. > :30:57.we want to sea that, we have to get twice as much investment, each year
:30:57. > :31:02.of the decade, as Lord Adonis achieved in his decade in power,
:31:02. > :31:06.that we saw a catastrophic falling of investment in infrastructure and
:31:06. > :31:11.we have much of the coal plants closing and we're playing catch up
:31:11. > :31:21.for that appalling failure and we're determined to do it in a low
:31:21. > :31:21.
:31:21. > :31:25.Renewable energy cannot fill that gap in the way that the Green Party
:31:25. > :31:30.envisages. In Germany they are doing very well, closing down the
:31:30. > :31:35.power stations and using renewables more. It can be done. If you reduce
:31:35. > :31:40.the need, then you also resist this desperate drive to use other forms
:31:40. > :31:45.of fuel. It can be done. This Government is just not taking up
:31:45. > :31:52.the giant strides that they need to take in imagination. The Germans
:31:52. > :31:55.have just cut their solar fund. That was 50% of their energy,
:31:55. > :32:00.providing 3% of electricity. The German decision on nuclear is
:32:00. > :32:03.burning more coal and gas. We are looking at a balanced approach
:32:03. > :32:07.which is actually a very sensible for our energy security, and
:32:07. > :32:11.looking to see how we can secure that investment at the lowest cost.
:32:11. > :32:15.It does require a major change to the market, this is the most
:32:15. > :32:19.significant change. And there has also been controversy about the
:32:19. > :32:24.subsidies given to people having onshore wind technology and wind
:32:24. > :32:28.farms. Very expensive, with very low capacity, people say. We have
:32:28. > :32:32.to invest for the future and when you are investing in nuclear, who
:32:32. > :32:35.are committing to more problems and expense in the future. With
:32:35. > :32:39.renewables, it is an upfront cost but it becomes cheaper and cheaper
:32:39. > :32:44.later. Quite honestly, why would we not want to reduce people's need
:32:44. > :32:48.and at the same time make their bills lower? To me it is dinosaur
:32:48. > :32:53.economics that we are using to justify nuclear. I think it makes
:32:53. > :32:57.the case for why we need a balanced situation. Only if it is achievable.
:32:57. > :33:01.Are you going to reach the low carbon targets? Are you going to
:33:01. > :33:06.have a new generation of nuclear power stations? There is a big risk
:33:07. > :33:10.of the likes really going off. purpose of this is encouraging
:33:10. > :33:15.people to invest in the energy sector in the UK, which they have
:33:15. > :33:19.not been doing at these levels. When will you get this investment,
:33:19. > :33:23.contracts signed and sealed? We are working with people now to give
:33:23. > :33:27.people a price for that investment for next year. There is a process
:33:27. > :33:31.of negotiation. Companies like EDF Energy need that decision this year.
:33:31. > :33:37.My understanding is that they have withdrawn from the plant at
:33:37. > :33:41.Hinckley, for example, at a time when credit ratings agencies are
:33:41. > :33:46.backing away from nuclear. So why are you going forward and offering
:33:46. > :33:50.billions? I have to stop you there. Thank you.
:33:50. > :33:54.Theresa May have been talking about a radical overhaul of schemes to
:33:54. > :33:57.tackle anti-social behaviour. She wants to replace ASBOs with
:33:57. > :34:04.alternative ways of doing with troublemakers. These include
:34:04. > :34:09.forcing the police to take action in five households complain.
:34:09. > :34:13.Earlier today I launched a white paper. This new approach them
:34:13. > :34:17.powers local communities, placing victims' needs at its heart and
:34:17. > :34:22.putting more trust in professionals than ever before. It's perfectly
:34:22. > :34:25.complements our approach to wider local policing. A lot of what is
:34:25. > :34:29.called anti-social behaviour is actually crime and it should be
:34:29. > :34:32.taken seriously and it should be dealt with. 3 million incidents of
:34:32. > :34:36.anti-social behaviour are still being reported to the police each
:34:36. > :34:42.and every year, with many more doubtless going unreported. Theresa
:34:42. > :34:49.May. Let's join Cezanne on College Green to find a more.
:34:49. > :34:53.There was a time when Tony Blair was talking about hugging a hoodie.
:34:53. > :34:57.Theresa May wants to change the ASBO system, and is talking about a
:34:58. > :35:01.community trigger. If five people in a community complain about one
:35:01. > :35:06.individual, or if one person complains three times about the
:35:06. > :35:09.same individual, and police are obliged to investigate. I am joined
:35:10. > :35:13.by an MP from the Home Affairs select committee. People might
:35:13. > :35:17.think that the police are overstretched. Should we be giving
:35:17. > :35:23.them more work to do at the time when budgets are cut? This is a
:35:23. > :35:27.question about how to deploy your police. A lot of members of the
:35:27. > :35:32.public feel that when they complain to the authority, when they raised
:35:32. > :35:37.an issue, they hit a brick wall and nothing is done about it. We had
:35:37. > :35:41.the tragic case of Fiona Ann Pilkington. This is designed so
:35:41. > :35:45.that when somebody repeatedly complains, and somebody in a
:35:45. > :35:49.community is repeatedly complaining about the same thing, then police
:35:49. > :35:53.actually investigate and deal with the issue. But how to regulate it?
:35:53. > :35:58.The Centre for crime and justice has talked about it from the point
:35:58. > :36:03.of view of bullies and snoops. How do we know that somebody is a
:36:03. > :36:07.genuine victim of crime? We leave that to the good sense of the
:36:07. > :36:12.neighbourhood officer on the spot. Also to the police and crime
:36:12. > :36:20.commissioners, who we will be acting in November. I leave it to
:36:20. > :36:24.them rather than the Home Office. One person in overall charge,
:36:24. > :36:27.overseeing the police, will be elected by the public. And secondly
:36:27. > :36:31.there will be a mechanism whereby if people are not having their
:36:31. > :36:36.concerns dealt with, that police will listen and investigate those
:36:36. > :36:40.concerns. The Police Federation have told me that they think it is
:36:40. > :36:43.a metaphor for handcuffs for police officers. They will be forced to
:36:43. > :36:48.investigate situations that may be could be dealt with without police
:36:48. > :36:53.involvement. Arguments over the garden fence, for example. Let me
:36:53. > :36:57.give you an example. In my area in Kent, there was a problem of street
:36:57. > :37:01.prostitution for centuries, really. The police did not do much about it.
:37:01. > :37:05.They made the odd arrest but they accepted it was there, putting it
:37:05. > :37:12.in there too difficult box. Then a council ran for office saying that
:37:12. > :37:14.he was going to deal with this problem and he got the police and
:37:14. > :37:19.the Council working together and he has eradicated this problem in
:37:19. > :37:26.Chatham. That is what we want, proper oversight and responsiveness
:37:26. > :37:33.from our police service. Thank you. The ASBOs are going to be replaced
:37:33. > :37:37.by something called the Community criminal behaviour order. It will
:37:37. > :37:44.be a slightly known for something slightly different. Whether it
:37:44. > :37:51.makes any difference remains to be seen. Are you sad to see as buyers
:37:51. > :37:54.going? -- ASBOs going? It is clearly a complete dog's breakfast.
:37:54. > :37:57.They have committed to replacing ASBOs and they are fishing around
:37:57. > :38:02.for something as close to an ASBO as they can get with a different
:38:02. > :38:05.name. I think the public will be very depressed about this. When
:38:05. > :38:08.there is anti-social behaviour, they expected to be dealt with.
:38:08. > :38:18.din never really was dealt with. The councils did not follow up on
:38:18. > :38:22.it. That is precisely why the ASBO is popular. ASBOs give a real
:38:22. > :38:28.redress for tenants whose lives are made a misery. Renaming them with
:38:28. > :38:34.the huge bureaucratic waste that will go on, and Dennis arbitrary
:38:34. > :38:38.cut-off, -- then it is arbitrary cut off. Will it be five, four,
:38:38. > :38:42.three? We want to see properly responsive police locally but there
:38:42. > :38:46.are fewer police and the Government reforms as well. You will be very
:38:46. > :38:52.pleased to know that our quiz is about ASBOs, son to like them so
:38:52. > :38:55.much. Which of the following cases did not result in an ASBO? A
:38:55. > :38:59.grandmother listing to Frank Sinatra too loudly. A shepherd not
:38:59. > :39:05.controlling his sheep in Gloucestershire. The soup than
:39:05. > :39:10.company serving food to 100 homeless people in Manchester. --
:39:10. > :39:13.pursued fund company. And familiar flying his helicopter to close to
:39:13. > :39:16.his neighbours. We will get the correct answer at the end of the
:39:16. > :39:19.programme. The long awaited report into
:39:19. > :39:23.employment law was published yesterday. The Government had not
:39:23. > :39:27.wanted to publish it yet, but it was forced to after the Telegraph
:39:27. > :39:32.leaked an early draft. It in the craft had been asked to do the
:39:32. > :39:38.report and it is full of controversial ideas. -- Adrian
:39:38. > :39:43.Beecroft. One of the most controversial proposals is no fault
:39:43. > :39:46.dismissal and also the delay of compulsory pensions. Vince Cable is
:39:46. > :39:51.away from Parliament, but that has not stopped his opposite number
:39:51. > :39:57.from demanding questions to be answered in the Commons.
:39:57. > :40:01.What a complete and utter shambles! Can the Minister confirm that his
:40:01. > :40:06.department was complacent and fully co-operated in a production of this
:40:06. > :40:10.report despite the Secretary of State's misgivings? We believe that
:40:10. > :40:14.improvements can be made to the way that employment tribunals operate
:40:14. > :40:19.for the sake of employers and employees, but we do not think that
:40:19. > :40:22.watering down the fundamental rights of workers can be
:40:22. > :40:31.substituted for a proper growth strategy. A lot of cliches but not
:40:31. > :40:36.much substance, I'm afraid. He asks whether I am complicit. If he had
:40:36. > :40:41.listened to my opening statement, he would have heard that this
:40:41. > :40:45.department commissioned the report, and so we were complicit. What
:40:45. > :40:52.would be the increase in output if all these measures recommended by B
:40:52. > :40:56.Croft were adopted? -- Adrian Beecroft. I cannot say that, which
:40:57. > :41:01.is why we are calling for evidence. My honourable friend is right to
:41:01. > :41:05.question this issue and was not present during any of the comments
:41:05. > :41:14.from the gentleman opposite. agree on the need for balance.
:41:14. > :41:20.Would he agree with me that we would be creating an environment of
:41:20. > :41:24.fear if we bring in a fire at will, which would not bring in growth and
:41:24. > :41:26.would just be bonkers? We have to get the balance right so that
:41:26. > :41:29.businesses are competitive and we do not tie them up with the red
:41:29. > :41:34.tape we suffered in the last Government, and we make sure that
:41:34. > :41:38.we do not strip away those basic rights, as she rightly says. As a
:41:38. > :41:44.former shop steward and proud trade unionist, I welcome many of these
:41:44. > :41:49.proposals. Would the Minister agree with me that we need to change so
:41:50. > :41:57.much of our rules and regulations so that instead of having a card to
:41:57. > :42:01.culture, we have a can-do culture? I only wish that were the case on
:42:01. > :42:04.the benches opposite. Adrian Beecroft is an asset-stripping
:42:05. > :42:11.venture capitalist. Surely putting him in charge of a report that
:42:11. > :42:16.decides whether or not it is easier to sack workers, isn't that like
:42:16. > :42:24.putting Hannibal Lecter in charge of deciding the nutritional
:42:24. > :42:27.benefits of cannibalism? That is a good joke. I think he needs to be
:42:27. > :42:31.very careful about talking about asset-stripping vultures and all of
:42:31. > :42:37.that. If we want people to develop and create jobs and invest in this
:42:37. > :42:41.country, we need to watch our language very carefully.
:42:41. > :42:46.We are joined now by the Conservative MP John Redwood, who
:42:46. > :42:49.you saw in that debate, and Lord Razzall, the Lib Dem peer. Do you
:42:49. > :42:53.back most of Adrian Beecroft's proposals, including making it
:42:53. > :42:57.easier for business to sack people? I back most of what he is saying
:42:57. > :43:01.but I do not welcome the idea of fire at will, and no sensible
:43:01. > :43:06.person would want that. We want these and protection for people in
:43:06. > :43:10.the work force. What we are talking about is very small businesses. The
:43:10. > :43:13.entrepreneur thinking about taking on his first employee, as someone
:43:13. > :43:16.with two of three employees. If they choose wrongly and they take
:43:16. > :43:19.someone that is not co-operating and is letting the side down and
:43:19. > :43:23.they have warned them, they want to feel that there is some way of
:43:23. > :43:27.getting rid of a badly performing employee without a huge bill and
:43:27. > :43:31.lots of law is involved. I hope we can find a compromise to deal with
:43:31. > :43:36.that point. That sounds like you agree with no fault dismissal.
:43:36. > :43:39.is not no fault dismissal, there has to be some kind of fault. The
:43:40. > :43:43.fear that the entrepreneur has is that they are going to take someone
:43:43. > :43:49.on in good faith, they don't turn up, they mess around, and they do
:43:49. > :43:54.not perform to a normal stand-up. - - normal standard. It is very
:43:54. > :43:57.difficult to manage those people out. Do you agree? We have to look
:43:57. > :44:03.at the changes that have just taken place with the unfair dismissal
:44:03. > :44:07.rules. Up until last week, if somebody was there for more than a
:44:07. > :44:11.year, they could claim for unfair dismissal. That has now changed to
:44:11. > :44:15.two years. I fail to understand why it is a disincentive to take
:44:15. > :44:18.somebody on, if you think you cannot get rid of them when they
:44:18. > :44:22.are no good, considering you have two years to make that decision
:44:22. > :44:28.before they have a claim against you. That was one of the reasons
:44:28. > :44:32.why my party supported the extension to two years. If the
:44:32. > :44:40.employer has not made up his mind about them after two years, he
:44:40. > :44:44.should not have no fault dismissal. The idea put forward by Adrian
:44:44. > :44:53.Beecroft is bonkers, then? Yes. agree with the Business Secretary?
:44:53. > :44:58.I would not use the word bonkers. It was the son! I think what we
:44:58. > :45:02.need is a proper consultation. it was the Sun newspaper! There is
:45:02. > :45:07.a problem at that needs to be tackled, but none of us want fire
:45:07. > :45:10.at will, that is not reasonable. And that would create a climate of
:45:11. > :45:20.fear, yes. Let's look at making it easier for businesses to hire
:45:21. > :45:21.
:45:21. > :45:27.people. What did you like in the Anything that makes it a fairer ae
:45:27. > :45:32.easier process for both sides, it has gt too expensive and gives
:45:32. > :45:36.lawyers too many fees. The proposals to reduce the cost and
:45:36. > :45:43.make it easier for both sides are welcome. What about the Liberal
:45:43. > :45:49.Democrats, Vince Cable did call it bonkers, will it end up in the
:45:49. > :45:52.scrap heap? No fault dismissal will. But the others are being
:45:52. > :45:56.implemented. The laibds -- Liberal Democrats are happy about that.
:45:56. > :46:02.the other one there is a consultation and I'm sure Vince
:46:02. > :46:05.Cable and the minister will take into account both sides. What about
:46:05. > :46:10.family friendly policies, it has been reported that No 10 doctored
:46:10. > :46:17.the bits that said there should be a delay to family friendly policies,
:46:17. > :46:21.was that the rigt thing for No 10 to do? I think that is disputed.
:46:21. > :46:28.The man changed his report from first draft to final draft. That is
:46:28. > :46:34.normal. He decided that the -- that some of the thing were going too
:46:34. > :46:37.far. Do you not agree that the original that said it would be too
:46:38. > :46:41.expensive to deal with those changes at this time? All these
:46:41. > :46:46.things are a balance, as the minister said. We want a fair
:46:46. > :46:50.balance, we felt that the previous settlement was sending too many
:46:50. > :46:56.negatives to employers. We want to do something about that. We don't
:46:56. > :47:04.want to live in a Victorian world where the mill owner grinds the
:47:04. > :47:10.faces of the emply ployees. argument was it was a cost to the
:47:10. > :47:17.employer. I don't agree with the postponement. The family friendly
:47:17. > :47:20.policies are not that expensive. you have any costs if they had to
:47:20. > :47:30.introduce flexible work and removing regulations around the
:47:30. > :47:33.employment of young people? Well no. There noise direct costing, but it
:47:33. > :47:37.is not that expensive. This I why I asked for numbers yesterday. I
:47:37. > :47:41.can't answer the questions until I see the numbers. If you make it too
:47:41. > :47:46.expensive you will have fewer people in jobs. If you don't allow
:47:46. > :47:52.enough for the employees, you have a miserable position at work.
:47:52. > :47:56.is the problem. We have a report in advance of the evidence. John asked
:47:56. > :47:59.yesterday what was the evidence. To my astonishment, the response of
:47:59. > :48:05.the minister was we are going to call for evidence, after the report.
:48:05. > :48:10.I may be a bit old fashioned, when I was in government we assembled
:48:10. > :48:14.the evidence first. That is because it was leaked. Yes but it we have
:48:14. > :48:19.been waiting for the proposals. intention was to have the
:48:19. > :48:24.consultation before the report. These were firm conclusions that
:48:24. > :48:28.Adrian Beecroft made, but there haven't -- hadn't been evidence.
:48:28. > :48:33.They were conclusions of Adrian Beecroft, not Government's. What I
:48:33. > :48:38.was saying is they need evidence before they make decisions.
:48:38. > :48:42.Wouldn't it have been a good idea if their own advisor had assembled
:48:42. > :48:48.the evidence. The fact that there is no evidence tells you a lot.
:48:48. > :48:53.this is a way of spuring on growth, how do you do that, if we don't
:48:53. > :48:57.have any evidence? I think we agree on that. We need the costs, because
:48:57. > :49:02.some of the coasts imposed by European legislation have been
:49:02. > :49:09.expensive and may not give the best benefits. There are limits to what
:49:09. > :49:14.we can do about that. We can look at our domestic one and draw up a
:49:14. > :49:20.budget to make sense. That should have happened before the report
:49:20. > :49:24.came forward. The fact it has not shows... It look like a shambles,
:49:24. > :49:27.if you have to ask questions, it hasn't been presented well.
:49:27. > :49:31.we're half way through and we can judge it when the ministers have
:49:31. > :49:37.the evidence and come to their conclusions. They want will Ed, I
:49:37. > :49:42.urge them to have evidence, then we can have the debate on an informed
:49:42. > :49:49.basis that we can't have tide today. Thank you to both of you. Has too
:49:49. > :49:53.much of life been taken over by the ideas of the market in his new book,
:49:53. > :49:58.professor Michael Sandel says that we have gone from having a market
:49:58. > :50:05.economy to being a market society. And he does not think that has been
:50:05. > :50:11.a positive trend. From the 1980s and the election of Margaret
:50:11. > :50:19.Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, Britain and the United States saw a period
:50:19. > :50:23.of market triumphalism. More and more area of life are subject to
:50:23. > :50:29.markets. In health and education, as well as airport and theme parks,
:50:29. > :50:35.paying extra can help you jump the queue. Sport has become
:50:35. > :50:40.commercialised and there is even a market in old Oscar statue. This
:50:40. > :50:45.comes at a cost, according to processor Sandel, markets can crowd
:50:45. > :50:49.out morals and undermine more noble reasons for action he thinks we
:50:49. > :50:54.would be better off if there were more things that money can't buy.
:50:54. > :50:58.Michael Sandel joins us now. You could say looking at the examples
:50:58. > :51:02.you have put forward, that actually this is the natural progression of
:51:03. > :51:08.things and people are motivated by money and money will enter into
:51:08. > :51:14.more streams of life. But it's happened with an intensity that
:51:14. > :51:20.didn't exist before. What about the case just recently, should people
:51:20. > :51:26.sell their Olympic torchs for private gain? What about some of
:51:26. > :51:31.other examples that you have used. You talk about queue jumping for
:51:31. > :51:36.public services. That may have been accelerated, but it has happened
:51:36. > :51:40.before. Who has created that market? I think all of us have by
:51:40. > :51:48.not having a public debate about where markets serve the public good
:51:48. > :51:51.and where they don't belong, we have allowed a kind of market faith.
:51:51. > :51:57.So I'm not arguing for, I'm not giving the answers to any
:51:57. > :52:02.particular case, but I do think that we as democratic societies,
:52:02. > :52:06.unless we want markets to govern everything, we need to have a
:52:06. > :52:11.debate about where markets belong and where they don't. Where do they
:52:11. > :52:17.belong? Stkphrie I am a great believer in freedom and I think
:52:17. > :52:21.people have a right to buy and sell things. We 45 had this debate in my
:52:21. > :52:25.youth where we have the communist system to the east and a more free
:52:25. > :52:31.system to the west and in the United States. And people decided
:52:31. > :52:36.in their millions that they would rather live in the free enterprise
:52:36. > :52:41.system. The communist system got rid of planning and they had to
:52:41. > :52:47.shoot people, because so many were trying to leave. How far would you
:52:47. > :52:54.take it? Should there be a free market in kidneys let's say for
:52:54. > :52:59.transplantation. I don't work on that. Is it communist to say there
:52:59. > :53:03.may not be a free market in kidneys. It is a state imposition of
:53:03. > :53:07.something o' above the market and I accept as a democratic politician,
:53:07. > :53:12.it is my duty from my colleagues to say there are certain things the
:53:13. > :53:17.market shouldn't do. I don't want a free market in nuclear bombs.
:53:17. > :53:20.do you, if you agree with freedom and people to make their own
:53:20. > :53:27.decisions, you can't stop the market invading into areas which
:53:27. > :53:33.you don't believe in either? It is difficult to do. As we're
:53:33. > :53:38.discovering with nuclear technology and drugs. But I'm not one who
:53:38. > :53:43.thinks you should stop somebody selling their Olympic torch. It
:53:43. > :53:47.would be intrusive to have Government inspectors coming around
:53:47. > :53:54.to check up you have still got certain items. That would not be a
:53:54. > :54:00.free society. When you try to solve the problem of babies being born to
:54:00. > :54:04.drug addicted women, by offering money to a woman to be sterilised,
:54:04. > :54:07.should such a charity operate? is the kind of thing you have a
:54:07. > :54:13.democratic Parliament to debate. You're opening implied you wanted
:54:13. > :54:17.to stop all sorts of markets functioning that are harmless.
:54:17. > :54:21.is interesting is that the reference to higher values, and
:54:21. > :54:27.that is the point of my book, there are some values, as you say, that
:54:27. > :54:31.are higher than markets, and lead us, we disagree about where to draw
:54:31. > :54:35.the line. But we need a public debate about which higher values
:54:35. > :54:41.should restprictst extension of markets -- restrict the extension
:54:41. > :54:50.of markets in some areas. If you accept that people in their
:54:50. > :54:55.millions rejected egalitarianism at the level of communism, this is the
:54:55. > :55:00.natural order and won't there be a backlash, against the market
:55:00. > :55:04.invading in areas which are too sensitive? We may be seeing a
:55:04. > :55:10.backlash now. I think that rather than have it be a blind backlash,
:55:10. > :55:14.better it be a deliberate one that, we that debate openly what are the
:55:14. > :55:18.higher values that should constrain the reach of market into certain
:55:18. > :55:20.areas, so that markets can do their work and perform the public good in
:55:20. > :55:27.areas where they belong. Do you think there should be some
:55:27. > :55:33.restrictions in what markets do? What was interesting about the book
:55:33. > :55:37.is the grey areas, we agree there shouldn't be a market in nuclear
:55:37. > :55:43.bombs. The book says a nursery which your parents have been
:55:43. > :55:46.expected to pick up their children on time, they don't soshes
:55:46. > :55:51.introduces fines, the number of late parents increase, because they
:55:51. > :55:56.want to pay the fine to get another hour at the nursery. What the
:55:56. > :56:00.conclusion from that? It is that market mechanisms alone are not
:56:00. > :56:06.enough. You need to have moral expectations, so people do honour
:56:06. > :56:12.their contracts and do what they say. But clearly they don't. It is
:56:12. > :56:16.difficult to stop a market. We see that in a country like Greece,
:56:16. > :56:20.where informal cash markets are breaking out to deal with the
:56:21. > :56:25.collapse of the state. But the point I took is that markets are
:56:25. > :56:28.not enough. You need a strong moral underpinning and unless you have
:56:28. > :56:33.those, you don't have a well functioning society. Are you saying
:56:33. > :56:39.the market invading stops people having a moral view. That is the
:56:39. > :56:44.point, if you have markets dominate, people's morals go out of window.
:56:44. > :56:50.No markets are amoral, not immoral. We live in a pluer is tick society
:56:50. > :56:56.without a single morality that everyone accepts. There are
:56:56. > :57:02.conflict of view over what is the moral position. What is your moral
:57:02. > :57:06.position in so-called death bond, life assurance that pay out when
:57:06. > :57:13.others die. That's right, Wall Street has created death bonds
:57:13. > :57:18.where you can invest in a stranger, or a bundle of a group of strangers
:57:18. > :57:22.dying sooner rather than later. I would say that coarsens our
:57:22. > :57:28.attitude to life. Be what about that. Any objection? I would need
:57:28. > :57:33.to see what was involved. Named contracts on people would be
:57:33. > :57:38.unpleasant. If it is a way of managing mortality risks, I would
:57:38. > :57:42.want to understand it. We haven't got much time I have been told. But
:57:42. > :57:46.on the nursery thing, if people are being late in the first place, that
:57:46. > :57:52.is why they were being fined, and then it doesn't work, do you just
:57:52. > :57:56.drop the whole market force in that sense? That is the market, you are
:57:56. > :58:02.in the market, to provide the place and take your child and there is
:58:02. > :58:09.cash changing hands. They have got to get their pricing right. Or only
:58:09. > :58:14.the very rich can afford to let their children stay late.
:58:14. > :58:18.Whrafrpblgts has been pointed out is central to the idea of book,
:58:18. > :58:22.sometimes markets crowd out none market value worth caring about.
:58:22. > :58:27.Thank I yo. Just time for the answer to the quiz. Which of the
:58:27. > :58:34.following cases did not result in a as bow. I think it was the
:58:34. > :58:39.helicopter. Ce you're right. reckon he was a non-Dom and nobody
:58:39. > :58:46.cowl track him down. Lord Adonis you have had too long to think