22/05/2012 Daily Politics


22/05/2012

Jo Coburn is joined by Lord Adonis, Labour's new industrial strategy adviser. They look at the IMF's suggestion on VAT, the new replacement for ASBOs and the draft energy bill.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/05/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. We need more energy

:00:42.:00:46.

or the lights will go out. But how do ministers plan to generate it

:00:46.:00:52.

and how much more will it cost? Today they publish their plans.

:00:52.:00:55.

The police could be forced to investigate allegations of anti-

:00:55.:00:59.

social behaviour if more than five people complain. But what do the

:00:59.:01:02.

boys in blue make of the Home Secretary's scheme?

:01:02.:01:08.

Tony Blair said he had scars on his back trying to reform public

:01:08.:01:11.

services, is so wide to the Labour Party oppose reforms seeking to do

:01:11.:01:18.

that? -- why do the Labour Party? And a leading philosopher tells us

:01:18.:01:21.

why they should be some things that money cannot buy.

:01:21.:01:29.

The breaking news this lunchtime is that the International Monetary

:01:29.:01:32.

Fund's made an interesting assessment of the health of the UK

:01:32.:01:37.

economy. Lord Adonis, the New Labour Action Man, welcome to the

:01:37.:01:41.

programme. You have been asked to head up the industry strategy for

:01:41.:01:45.

the party. Let's start with a House of Lords, a subject close to your

:01:45.:01:54.

heart. Do you support the plans for an 80-20 elected-appointed to House

:01:54.:02:02.

of Lords? An opinion poll found that 0% of the House -- of the

:02:02.:02:07.

public felt that the House of Lords reform was important. So it may not

:02:07.:02:10.

be important right now. I have always thought that the House of

:02:10.:02:13.

Lords should be elected and Parliament should be elected.

:02:13.:02:16.

Either be perfectly happy and indeed enthusiastic about standing

:02:16.:02:21.

for election if the Lords were to be reformed. On the central

:02:21.:02:25.

principle of should it be elected or not, the answer is yes. But on

:02:25.:02:28.

the political thing, will you support the coalition's plans when

:02:28.:02:32.

it comes out? The key thing is that there should be a referendum and of

:02:32.:02:37.

course I support that. The same opinion poll showed that 0% thought

:02:37.:02:43.

that there should be reform also thought that there should be a

:02:43.:02:47.

referendum. People should have their say. What about the Labour

:02:48.:02:57.

peers that might vote against, with the rebel peers? We fought the last

:02:57.:03:01.

election on a commitment to have a democratically elected House of

:03:01.:03:05.

Lords. We also said there should be a referendum, so I think the right

:03:05.:03:10.

way forward, and I hope that party leaders can agree this, is to have

:03:10.:03:16.

a predominantly or wholly elected second chamber with the people.

:03:16.:03:20.

on the basis of what you have just said, it may not happen at all.

:03:20.:03:24.

That would defeat the purpose. think watch this space. It is quite

:03:24.:03:27.

possible that the coalition could decide that the way to bring

:03:27.:03:31.

everyone on board is a referendum. What about moving to Manchester?

:03:31.:03:38.

Why would that be a good idea? those people that come from North

:03:38.:03:42.

of Birmingham are very keen. they? I have got a very positive

:03:42.:03:46.

response. Even though people don't want reform of the House of Lords?

:03:46.:03:50.

The existing House of Lords moving there, they think that is a good

:03:50.:03:56.

idea. People from London, not so keen, very telling. People in the

:03:56.:03:59.

House of Lords are essentially Londoners, so we did not get an a

:03:59.:04:04.

disaster response from the South. I would not count your chickens on

:04:04.:04:09.

that one. -- we did not get an enthusiastic response from the

:04:09.:04:13.

South. Some good news for the economy. The

:04:13.:04:17.

consumer prices measure has fallen to 3%, the lowest level in three

:04:17.:04:20.

years. But if ministers felt good about that, it will not have lasted

:04:21.:04:25.

long. The head of the IMF was in town. Christine Lagarde said that

:04:25.:04:28.

she shivered to think of the state of the British economy had the

:04:28.:04:30.

Government not put a deficit reduction plan into place two years

:04:31.:04:36.

ago. So far so good for George Osborne. She went on to say that

:04:36.:04:38.

ministers have to prepare to change direction if growth failed to

:04:39.:04:43.

materialise. Unfortunately the economic recovery

:04:43.:04:48.

in the UK has not yet taken hold and uncertainty is abound. The

:04:48.:04:52.

stresses in the eurozone affect the UK through many channels. Growth is

:04:52.:04:56.

too slow and unemployment, including youth unemployment, is

:04:56.:05:00.

too high. Policies to bolster demand before low growth becomes

:05:00.:05:06.

entrenched are needed. Well, our political correspondent was

:05:06.:05:10.

listening to Christine Lagarde. What is she actually saying? That

:05:10.:05:15.

the Government should now look at a plan B? She was not saying that

:05:15.:05:18.

explicitly. I think on the whole the Treasury will be pleased with

:05:18.:05:24.

the IMF's assessment of how they have done so far. It is approval of

:05:24.:05:28.

their strategy. It was a fascinating moment in her press

:05:28.:05:31.

conference when she said that she shivered to think what would have

:05:31.:05:34.

happened if they had not been a deficit reduction plan in place in

:05:34.:05:44.

the UK. So good so far. But with that backdrop of stagnant growth

:05:44.:05:49.

and uncertainty across the global economy, she is saying that they

:05:49.:05:53.

should be a plan B in the Treasury's pocket in case recovery

:05:53.:05:58.

does not emerge. She says the Treasury should consider further

:05:58.:06:02.

fiscal easing measures, including temporary tax cuts. And in the

:06:02.:06:06.

press conference that followed her remarks, one of the IMF officials

:06:06.:06:12.

talked about the VAT cut playing right into a very charged and

:06:12.:06:16.

relevant political debate between Labour and the Government. And

:06:17.:06:22.

perhaps boosting demand may also be needed if growth does not appear

:06:23.:06:29.

soon. That will be something that Labour will jump on. They will.

:06:29.:06:32.

They are saying that the structure of the Government's plan is wrong

:06:32.:06:36.

and it is snuffing out growth by having a deficit reduction plan

:06:36.:06:40.

that is too severe. Labour of course argue that it should be

:06:40.:06:44.

slightly slower and the screw should be loosened. Christine

:06:44.:06:48.

Lagarde is not endorsing that. She is saying that there may need to be

:06:48.:06:52.

measures to stimulate the economy further down the line. That is

:06:52.:06:55.

something that Labour have been calling for and we have not had a

:06:55.:06:59.

response yet from Labour, not that I have seen. They will seize on her

:06:59.:07:03.

remarks, I am sure, arguing for fiscal easing measures to boost

:07:03.:07:08.

growth. She has stepped into a very controversial part of the political

:07:08.:07:12.

debate and there is something for both sides, to be honest. All right.

:07:12.:07:17.

Matthew Hancock, the Conservative MP, is with us now. He is a close

:07:17.:07:20.

associate of the Chancellor, George Osborne. Welcome back. Christine

:07:21.:07:24.

Lagarde did endorse the Government's plan of cutting the

:07:24.:07:29.

deficit from 2010. But she also said that we have to prepare for

:07:29.:07:33.

Plan B. Is the Treasury planning for that? Let's look at what she

:07:33.:07:37.

said. She said tersely that the fiscal consolidation dealing with

:07:37.:07:46.

our deficit is on track. -- firstly. People watching will be pleased to

:07:46.:07:52.

hear that a quarter of the progress has been made. She also said that

:07:52.:07:54.

growth is disappointing. We all know that. She explained the

:07:54.:07:58.

reasons. She said there was no growth and high unemployment in

:07:58.:08:02.

Britain, which was a worry, and that is why they are calling for

:08:02.:08:07.

austerity to be relaxed. That is not what she said. Hold on. Let's

:08:07.:08:12.

explain what she actually said. She said tersely that there should not

:08:12.:08:18.

be a fiscal relaxing now. -- firstly. And if growth continues to

:08:18.:08:22.

disappoint, then the first recourse should be looser monetary policy,

:08:22.:08:28.

lower interest rates, more clubs to be easing. And it is for the Bank

:08:28.:08:34.

of England to make that decision. - - more quantitative easing. I would

:08:35.:08:39.

support that decision if they decided to make it. They also want

:08:39.:08:42.

measures for small businesses, which the Government announced in

:08:42.:08:47.

November and brought in the Budget. And thirdly, changing the mixture

:08:47.:08:55.

of spending, away from spending on things like benefits and salaries

:08:55.:08:59.

and more towards infrastructure spending. Only if Gross still

:08:59.:09:03.

disappoints, and there has been substantial amounts of that, then

:09:03.:09:09.

we should consider other options. - - if growth disappoints. The idea

:09:09.:09:13.

that Ed Balls should listen to that programme, the proposals put

:09:13.:09:15.

forward, and listen to the confirmation of the Government's

:09:15.:09:20.

strategy, which has been fiscal responsibility and monetary

:09:20.:09:23.

activism, and that as a proposition for what should happen, actually

:09:24.:09:29.

this is very good news for the Government. All right. At what

:09:29.:09:33.

point is she saying that these things need to be changed and there

:09:33.:09:37.

may need to be a look at the policy mixture? When does that happen,

:09:37.:09:41.

bearing in mind that we have had flat growth for two years? When do

:09:41.:09:46.

we get to that point? How much longer is this Government going to

:09:46.:09:50.

tolerate no growth? The Government is not tolerating no growth. That

:09:50.:09:53.

is why it is already acting on credit easing and getting people

:09:53.:09:57.

into work through the biggest work programme that this country has

:09:57.:10:02.

ever seen. Over half a million people in six months have been

:10:02.:10:05.

engaged in that scheme. The answer directly to your question of when,

:10:05.:10:11.

she says it herself. The IMF say it themselves. Only after substantial

:10:11.:10:16.

further action has been taken on monetary policy, on credit easing,

:10:16.:10:20.

and from switching from current and into capital expenditure. But she

:10:20.:10:28.

said that if the recovery fails to take off, then the Government

:10:28.:10:31.

should focus on quantitative easing and one of the measures we should

:10:31.:10:37.

look at would be a temporary VAT cut. Are they right? They are not.

:10:37.:10:44.

Labour was calling for the VAT cut. You are totally misrepresenting the

:10:44.:10:48.

IMF. That is the quote. In answer to the question whether this should

:10:48.:10:53.

be done now, they say no. They say the current plan is the correct

:10:53.:10:57.

plan and it is on track. Separately we have borrowing figures showing

:10:57.:11:02.

deficits down by a quarter. The fiscal plan is on track, it is

:11:02.:11:07.

appropriate, it is essential. They said that in the future if things

:11:07.:11:10.

change, after several different other measures have been tried, we

:11:10.:11:16.

should look at other things. Let's get the deficit down and get growth

:11:16.:11:18.

growing through the infrastructure investment that we are doing,

:11:18.:11:22.

getting people out of unemployment. Is that how you read Christine

:11:22.:11:26.

Lagarde, that she was not criticising the Government so far

:11:26.:11:29.

and they are on track? I heard to say that growth is too low and

:11:29.:11:33.

there is not any at the moment and unemployment is too high. In that

:11:33.:11:37.

clip, she said there was a danger of youth unemployment, which is 20%

:11:37.:11:40.

higher than it has been since we started collecting records. There

:11:40.:11:44.

was a real danger of that becoming entrenched. What I have heard from

:11:45.:11:49.

Matthew is complacency, no change. They are going to carry on with the

:11:49.:11:53.

policies that have slowed growth, lead to unemployment rising, no

:11:53.:11:59.

change. What we have heard from the IMF... What we have heard...

:11:59.:12:03.

did not hear no change. She said that significant further steps are

:12:03.:12:07.

required to boost growth. That is the message. Military steps, which

:12:07.:12:12.

is what Matthew Hancock is saying. You do not have a one gear policy,

:12:12.:12:16.

you have policies across it. But a key thing must be support for new

:12:16.:12:20.

jobs, that is crucial. Labour is saying there should be a tax on

:12:20.:12:23.

bank are bonuses to create thousands more jobs for young

:12:23.:12:29.

people to counter the record levels of unemployment. And we should be

:12:29.:12:31.

accelerating infrastructure spending. That is what Labour is

:12:31.:12:35.

saying. She said no big fiscal stimulus, which is what Labour have

:12:35.:12:39.

been calling for, in effect. She said policies should be fiscally

:12:39.:12:43.

neutral, which is what the Government is trying to do, it says.

:12:43.:12:47.

The air will need to be more money going into the economy to create

:12:47.:12:53.

and sustain new jobs. -- there will need to be. That is crucial. If

:12:53.:12:57.

there is a vat cut, there needs a further injection. We need a plan B.

:12:57.:13:02.

What she was calling for, in diplomatic, coded language, is

:13:02.:13:06.

precisely what Ed Miliband has been calling for. She says she does not

:13:06.:13:09.

want to trample on political sensitivities here. But reading

:13:09.:13:13.

between the lines, she says the policies have worked so far and

:13:13.:13:16.

have made the Government credible in terms of dealing with the market

:13:16.:13:21.

and the price it is paying for its debt, but in terms of going on from

:13:21.:13:27.

here, it is not creating growth and jobs. She says that because of the

:13:27.:13:32.

difficult issues of higher commodity prices and the eurozone,

:13:32.:13:37.

we need to look at more monetary activism, and when asked do we need

:13:37.:13:46.

to borrow more now to get things down, she says no. Andrew, I think

:13:46.:13:49.

you are one of those great Labour politicians who normally tell it

:13:49.:13:54.

straight. It is slightly beneath you to mangle the words. Yes, she

:13:55.:14:00.

says let's do everything we can to get growth going. And yes...

:14:00.:14:04.

you doing everything you can to get growth going? Should we do more to

:14:04.:14:09.

deal with youth unemployment? Absolutely. Hold on. That is why

:14:09.:14:14.

the work programme... Why do they not have taxes on the bankers'

:14:14.:14:20.

bonuses? Oh, come on. Your friend Alistair Darling said it would not

:14:20.:14:25.

work. We did attacks and it did work and we could be doing it now.

:14:25.:14:28.

Alistair Darling has said it will not work again. Alistair Darling

:14:28.:14:33.

has said that the bankers' bonus tax would not work again. Ed

:14:33.:14:37.

Miliband and Ed Balls have promised to spend it 10 times. The big

:14:37.:14:40.

picture question is do we give up on the benefits that the Government

:14:40.:14:46.

has got, that Christine Lagarde spelled out? Hold on. She is not

:14:46.:14:50.

asking for us to give up on the fiscal consolidation. That is

:14:50.:14:55.

precisely... Matthew is on Treasury autopilot. He has been sent here to

:14:55.:14:59.

defend us. Any member of the public understands that plan A is not

:14:59.:15:03.

working and unemployment has gone up since the election. There is no

:15:03.:15:06.

growth and there was substantial growth at the time of the last

:15:06.:15:09.

election. The head of the IMF is now saying there is a real danger

:15:09.:15:12.

of youth unemployment been entrenched, and this is the most

:15:12.:15:18.

alarming thing. Let the real about what this means for the country. --

:15:18.:15:23.

let's be real. There could be a whole generation of people not

:15:23.:15:26.

knowing what working is and that could be so damaging for the

:15:26.:15:32.

country. A banker's bonus tax would be so imperative. If you are saying

:15:32.:15:36.

that more has to be done in a monetary form, it sounds as if the

:15:36.:15:39.

Government is saying that we cannot do anything and it is up to the

:15:39.:15:42.

Bank of England to do things like cutting interest rates, and

:15:42.:15:51.

quantitative easing and there is No after youth unemployment rose

:15:51.:15:56.

during the boom times, the work programme and the work experience

:15:56.:16:00.

programme which we have brought in are the biggest programme to get

:16:00.:16:06.

people into work. I was in sufficient folk on Thursday with

:16:06.:16:11.

Chris greyling, meeting people who have been given work experience

:16:11.:16:15.

placements and by the end of the time they're taken on. So that is

:16:16.:16:20.

the action the government should be taken. As Christine Lagarde said,

:16:20.:16:26.

is now the right time to try borrow your way out of debt? No, it is not.

:16:26.:16:32.

Thank you. Now can't we all just get a I long that? That may seem a

:16:32.:16:38.

stretch, but some policies being pursued by the Government were

:16:38.:16:45.

dreamed up by New Labour. Adam has been investigating. Politics is a

:16:45.:16:50.

bit of a pick and mix business and you sometimes get a new government

:16:50.:16:57.

that seems strangely familiar. big divide in politics has been

:16:57.:17:01.

about the economy and the pace of deficit reductions, but there is

:17:01.:17:06.

continue is the on education, welfare reform, overseas aid, where

:17:06.:17:11.

the Government has kept track with what Labour have done. But Labour

:17:11.:17:15.

haven't been keen on the reforms in opposition. Take benefits, they

:17:15.:17:21.

pioneer rad tougher approach, but have opposed much of the

:17:21.:17:26.

coalition's crackdown. And there are accused Mees, Labour invented

:17:26.:17:33.

the idea, copy right Lord Adonis and the coalition increased them

:17:33.:17:38.

nine fold. But Labour were not happy. Why the change of heart?

:17:38.:17:40.

There was a sense of trepidation in the Labour Party that this was

:17:40.:17:44.

selling out the public sector. I don't think that was true, but

:17:44.:17:48.

there was a certain errors in describing the policies which

:17:48.:17:52.

allowed people to think that. The Labour Party was never comfort

:17:52.:17:57.

kpwrabl with a lot of its -- comfortable with a lot of its

:17:57.:18:00.

reforms. John Hutton has been in the position of being a Labour peer

:18:00.:18:06.

who has worked for enemy, reviewing public sector pensions and earning

:18:06.:18:14.

the label of collaborator from some. It is important to be, when your in

:18:14.:18:18.

government and you go into opposition to have continuity. We

:18:18.:18:23.

started this process and I don't think it serves our cause well if

:18:23.:18:29.

we then say, well we didn't really do that, but actually we did.

:18:29.:18:34.

this is going to be a feature as long as politics exists. When there

:18:34.:18:38.

is a new face as Prime Minister, they get some things they like the

:18:38.:18:46.

look of and opposition leaders are supposed to oppose. Well Lord

:18:46.:18:50.

Adonis is still with me. Do you think Labour is opposing just for

:18:50.:18:55.

the sake of opposing on key areas like welfare, health and education?

:18:55.:19:00.

I think Labour's doing the right thing, that is judging policies on

:19:00.:19:04.

their merits. You sympathise with Ed Miliband saying free schools are

:19:04.:19:09.

a bad thing. What we have said is we will look at free schools case

:19:09.:19:16.

by case. I invented aed -- academies. They were new schools in

:19:16.:19:20.

areas where there were not schools. Are you frustrated by Ed Miliband

:19:20.:19:26.

not embracing that? The policy was to bring good schools in areas

:19:26.:19:30.

where standards were low. Where new schools are being set up with that

:19:30.:19:34.

as the mission, I support them. Of course, the numbers given about the

:19:34.:19:40.

expansion of academies, it is not replacement schools for

:19:40.:19:46.

underperforming corps hen sifrs, most are existing schools. --

:19:46.:19:50.

comprehensives. And they are changing the label. No change in

:19:50.:19:54.

their governance, simply to pocket �25,000 that the Government gives

:19:54.:20:00.

for changes -- changing. You said in an article the Labour Party will

:20:00.:20:04.

get back into government by having a better plan for the future, not

:20:04.:20:07.

by opposing changes that are working well. We don't changes that

:20:07.:20:11.

are work. Why did you say that then? We don't oppose changes that

:20:11.:20:17.

are working well, we support them where change has been made for

:20:17.:20:20.

change's sake. That is something that not going to be supported in

:20:20.:20:26.

the same way. On the question of free schools, free schools should

:20:26.:20:29.

be concentrated in areas where educational standards are low and

:20:29.:20:35.

where children are being failed. Not simply a quest for establishing

:20:35.:20:41.

more schools. But this is, it sounds like an argument, you

:20:41.:20:47.

support the thrust of the reform from the Government on thing like

:20:47.:20:51.

education, but the Labour Party now and you know Shadow Cabinet don't

:20:51.:20:56.

embrace it in the same way. Are you saying they should and they haven't

:20:56.:21:02.

been forthcoming enough? One Labour MP said Lord Adonis's argument is

:21:02.:21:09.

selective and in parts wrong. people, including some people in my

:21:09.:21:14.

party, didn't like the public reforms, and if thought school

:21:14.:21:20.

should continue to be run by local authorities. That debate is now

:21:20.:21:25.

largely over in the Labour Party. Tony Blair's mantra, what matter is

:21:25.:21:29.

what works, people accept that. Particularly in tackling

:21:29.:21:35.

disadvantage. Reforms which are geared at narrowing inqualities and

:21:35.:21:39.

tackling disadvantage, we support. But that is different from reforms

:21:39.:21:43.

which are intended to break up public services. Like? Which

:21:43.:21:49.

reforms are you against? One is the health reforms. The marketisation

:21:49.:21:54.

of the health service, which the coalition was proposing. It was

:21:54.:21:59.

muted by the House of Lords. support GP commissioning? We do. It

:21:59.:22:03.

is what the role of competition and this is the thing for the Liberal

:22:03.:22:06.

Democrats which has been difficult. Where you have an NHS that is

:22:06.:22:10.

working well and delivering for patients, where we put in place

:22:10.:22:14.

reforms to see that operations are delivered in a shorter time and

:22:14.:22:17.

hospital waiting lists are dealt with and patients have choice.

:22:17.:22:21.

Where those systems in place, we support them. Competition for

:22:21.:22:26.

competition's sake and t let's be clear what they want to do, they

:22:26.:22:36.
:22:36.:22:37.

want to dismantle public service. One problem was the party could

:22:37.:22:42.

never embrace public sector reform. We have embraced reform. That

:22:42.:22:47.

doesn't mean to say we embrace the dismantling of the public services.

:22:47.:22:51.

That is the dividing line between Labour and the Conservatives. Many

:22:51.:22:57.

Conservatives would rather not have the NHS and would rather have

:22:57.:23:03.

private medicine. We see it as the best insurance policy in the world

:23:03.:23:08.

in respect of health. Now, today, the energy Secretary has published

:23:09.:23:13.

a draft bill to reform the electricity market. It is designed

:23:13.:23:16.

to solve a problem of how to generate enough power to keep the

:23:16.:23:26.
:23:26.:23:29.

lights on and enable the Government to hit its climate change targets.

:23:29.:23:36.

It will introduce an emissions performance standard. The plans are

:23:36.:23:40.

intended to secure investment in clean energy to avert a gap in

:23:40.:23:45.

supplies. As some power stations come to the end of their lives. But

:23:45.:23:51.

will it lead to higher energy bills? Roger haar ban joins us.

:23:52.:23:59.

Will it lead to higher bills? inevitable. It will lead to higher

:23:59.:24:04.

bills. But the Government says any way, because of fructations in

:24:04.:24:11.

fossil fuel prices -- fluctuations -- consumer would have to pay

:24:11.:24:17.

higher bills and the Government says within a time of 20 years that

:24:17.:24:20.

consumers will be better off from the changes being made today. I

:24:20.:24:25.

have to say that is contested and some people think we would be

:24:25.:24:28.

cheaper off going down a fossil fuel route. But this is the

:24:28.:24:33.

Government's position. It believes it will be proved right. How is the

:24:33.:24:38.

Government to encourage investment in compleen energy? It has a

:24:38.:24:44.

problem? -- clean energy. It wants new nuclear power stations, but it

:24:44.:24:50.

is struggling to to co-that -- to do that. It has to get companies to

:24:50.:24:54.

put in billions up front before they make any cash back. So what it

:24:54.:25:04.

is trying to do is offer long-term contracts for different causes

:25:04.:25:08.

where ibin vestors get their money back as soon as they start planning.

:25:08.:25:16.

That funding will come from our own bills. That is in the form of a lvy.

:25:16.:25:23.

And they hope to attract investment. But eSen with those inducements is

:25:23.:25:26.

not certain they will get new nuclear power stations. They could

:25:26.:25:33.

end up with only one or two. joined by the energy minister

:25:33.:25:38.

Charles Hendry and Jenny Jones. Can you guarantee that we will get a

:25:38.:25:45.

new generation of nuclear plants? No, but we can create the right

:25:45.:25:51.

environment for companies to invest. We're trying to deliver energy

:25:51.:25:55.

security. How can you guarantee if, there are no state subsidies,

:25:55.:26:00.

although you're guaranteeing contracts for ndge supplies, so

:26:01.:26:06.

that is a subsidy, do you accept that? No there is a higher cost for

:26:06.:26:12.

low carbon technologies, the cheapest one gas. We want a

:26:12.:26:16.

balanced portfolio and if we want these to come through, we have to

:26:16.:26:23.

have a structure that encourages people to invest and make up for a

:26:23.:26:27.

catastrophic shortage of investment in energy. To get that investment,

:26:27.:26:33.

you have laid down inducements to energy suppliers and we will pay

:26:33.:26:37.

for that? The consumer will have to pay for berilding the

:26:37.:26:42.

infrastructure. How much will that add to an average bill What we have

:26:42.:26:47.

looked at it is what will happen with business if we went down the

:26:47.:26:52.

route of fossil fuel. It would be cheaper. Well it wouldn't, gas is

:26:52.:26:57.

at a high price and coal will become more expensive. We believe

:26:57.:27:02.

the way that we're doing it will be a cheaper way of doing it. Are you

:27:02.:27:07.

convinced? No, it is difficult to know what this bill is going for.

:27:07.:27:12.

Because it will not reduce prices for the consumer and it also won't

:27:13.:27:17.

I think produce the energy that we want. It won't reduce price for the

:27:17.:27:21.

consumer, but will it be cheaper, can you say it would be cheaper

:27:21.:27:27.

than if we stayed with the status quo. Of course not. If they only

:27:27.:27:31.

started insulating people's houses that would reduce each household's

:27:31.:27:39.

bill by �180. Then if you started investing in renewables, Germany

:27:39.:27:42.

has 21% market share in renewable energy and their prices have gone

:27:42.:27:48.

down. That is the way to bring prices down. You reduce the need

:27:48.:27:51.

for electricity by insulation and reduce prices by going for

:27:51.:27:55.

renewables, which have fewer long- term problems. So why aren't you

:27:55.:28:01.

doing that? That is what we did last year. The take up... It hasn't

:28:01.:28:10.

come in yet. But in terms, some incuesment -- inducements have come

:28:10.:28:16.

and people haven't taken them up. That is why we have gone for a new

:28:16.:28:21.

approach, so we can systemically improve the efficiency of houses.

:28:21.:28:26.

But the approach will deliver energy security at low cost and

:28:26.:28:30.

fundamentally move us in the low carbon dre,. Yes, it will be

:28:30.:28:34.

nuclear and be more renewables. have said yourself that you don't

:28:34.:28:38.

know whether we're going to get a new generation of nuclear plants

:28:38.:28:46.

and you're going to set up an system, who have shown an interest.

:28:46.:28:51.

EDF and Centrica. They haven't confirmed that. Well pev e they

:28:51.:28:55.

have spent billion of pounds so far. And everyone who looks at the

:28:55.:28:59.

country recognises in five years we have gone from a count which are ry

:28:59.:29:04.

where nuclear was not on the agenda so, one of the most exciting places

:29:04.:29:09.

to invest in nuclear. But also in renewables, we want to see a broad

:29:09.:29:14.

portfolio. What are you doing about getting that diversification?

:29:14.:29:19.

is what this bill does. It is providing an incentive for people

:29:19.:29:23.

to invest in low carbon technologies and bring down the

:29:23.:29:28.

cost of some of the renewables. you dismissing this bill before you

:29:28.:29:34.

have seen it? No, my impression it is unstable baby steps to what

:29:34.:29:37.

we're aiming for, which is a low carbon future that does haven't the

:29:37.:29:42.

burden of nuclear problems later. Cleaning up the nuclear problem

:29:42.:29:47.

will be a problem for the future. We can't afford that money. And my

:29:47.:29:53.

understanding is... It is cheaper. It isn't when you have to pay for

:29:53.:30:02.

it through taxpayers' and consumers' bills. The long-term

:30:02.:30:07.

bill of nuclear is way beyond this. Labour would have had to backed

:30:07.:30:13.

some investment to build a new generation of nuclear plants?

:30:13.:30:18.

need new investment and we need furbt si. And we will see

:30:18.:30:22.

developments of nuclear power stations. The problem for the

:30:22.:30:28.

government is it doesn't seem to that is affordable. Two companies

:30:28.:30:34.

have pulled out and what we want to look at, because we're not signing

:30:34.:30:38.

blank cheques, when statements are made, that this isn't a subsidy,

:30:38.:30:45.

but we're signing long-term contracts ta at -- at guaranteed

:30:45.:30:49.

prices. And illegal. The higher cost of low carbon electricity. If

:30:49.:30:53.

we want to sea that, we have to get twice as much investment, each year

:30:53.:30:57.

of the decade, as Lord Adonis achieved in his decade in power,

:30:57.:31:02.

that we saw a catastrophic falling of investment in infrastructure and

:31:02.:31:06.

we have much of the coal plants closing and we're playing catch up

:31:06.:31:11.

for that appalling failure and we're determined to do it in a low

:31:11.:31:21.
:31:21.:31:21.

Renewable energy cannot fill that gap in the way that the Green Party

:31:21.:31:25.

envisages. In Germany they are doing very well, closing down the

:31:25.:31:30.

power stations and using renewables more. It can be done. If you reduce

:31:30.:31:35.

the need, then you also resist this desperate drive to use other forms

:31:35.:31:40.

of fuel. It can be done. This Government is just not taking up

:31:40.:31:45.

the giant strides that they need to take in imagination. The Germans

:31:45.:31:52.

have just cut their solar fund. That was 50% of their energy,

:31:52.:31:55.

providing 3% of electricity. The German decision on nuclear is

:31:55.:32:00.

burning more coal and gas. We are looking at a balanced approach

:32:00.:32:03.

which is actually a very sensible for our energy security, and

:32:03.:32:07.

looking to see how we can secure that investment at the lowest cost.

:32:07.:32:11.

It does require a major change to the market, this is the most

:32:11.:32:15.

significant change. And there has also been controversy about the

:32:15.:32:19.

subsidies given to people having onshore wind technology and wind

:32:19.:32:24.

farms. Very expensive, with very low capacity, people say. We have

:32:24.:32:28.

to invest for the future and when you are investing in nuclear, who

:32:28.:32:32.

are committing to more problems and expense in the future. With

:32:32.:32:35.

renewables, it is an upfront cost but it becomes cheaper and cheaper

:32:35.:32:39.

later. Quite honestly, why would we not want to reduce people's need

:32:39.:32:44.

and at the same time make their bills lower? To me it is dinosaur

:32:44.:32:48.

economics that we are using to justify nuclear. I think it makes

:32:48.:32:53.

the case for why we need a balanced situation. Only if it is achievable.

:32:53.:32:57.

Are you going to reach the low carbon targets? Are you going to

:32:57.:33:01.

have a new generation of nuclear power stations? There is a big risk

:33:01.:33:06.

of the likes really going off. purpose of this is encouraging

:33:07.:33:10.

people to invest in the energy sector in the UK, which they have

:33:10.:33:15.

not been doing at these levels. When will you get this investment,

:33:15.:33:19.

contracts signed and sealed? We are working with people now to give

:33:19.:33:23.

people a price for that investment for next year. There is a process

:33:23.:33:27.

of negotiation. Companies like EDF Energy need that decision this year.

:33:27.:33:31.

My understanding is that they have withdrawn from the plant at

:33:31.:33:37.

Hinckley, for example, at a time when credit ratings agencies are

:33:37.:33:41.

backing away from nuclear. So why are you going forward and offering

:33:41.:33:46.

billions? I have to stop you there. Thank you.

:33:46.:33:50.

Theresa May have been talking about a radical overhaul of schemes to

:33:50.:33:54.

tackle anti-social behaviour. She wants to replace ASBOs with

:33:54.:33:57.

alternative ways of doing with troublemakers. These include

:33:57.:34:04.

forcing the police to take action in five households complain.

:34:04.:34:09.

Earlier today I launched a white paper. This new approach them

:34:09.:34:13.

powers local communities, placing victims' needs at its heart and

:34:13.:34:17.

putting more trust in professionals than ever before. It's perfectly

:34:17.:34:22.

complements our approach to wider local policing. A lot of what is

:34:22.:34:25.

called anti-social behaviour is actually crime and it should be

:34:25.:34:29.

taken seriously and it should be dealt with. 3 million incidents of

:34:29.:34:32.

anti-social behaviour are still being reported to the police each

:34:32.:34:36.

and every year, with many more doubtless going unreported. Theresa

:34:36.:34:42.

May. Let's join Cezanne on College Green to find a more.

:34:42.:34:49.

There was a time when Tony Blair was talking about hugging a hoodie.

:34:49.:34:53.

Theresa May wants to change the ASBO system, and is talking about a

:34:53.:34:57.

community trigger. If five people in a community complain about one

:34:58.:35:01.

individual, or if one person complains three times about the

:35:01.:35:06.

same individual, and police are obliged to investigate. I am joined

:35:06.:35:09.

by an MP from the Home Affairs select committee. People might

:35:10.:35:13.

think that the police are overstretched. Should we be giving

:35:13.:35:17.

them more work to do at the time when budgets are cut? This is a

:35:17.:35:23.

question about how to deploy your police. A lot of members of the

:35:23.:35:27.

public feel that when they complain to the authority, when they raised

:35:27.:35:32.

an issue, they hit a brick wall and nothing is done about it. We had

:35:32.:35:37.

the tragic case of Fiona Ann Pilkington. This is designed so

:35:37.:35:41.

that when somebody repeatedly complains, and somebody in a

:35:41.:35:45.

community is repeatedly complaining about the same thing, then police

:35:45.:35:49.

actually investigate and deal with the issue. But how to regulate it?

:35:49.:35:53.

The Centre for crime and justice has talked about it from the point

:35:53.:35:58.

of view of bullies and snoops. How do we know that somebody is a

:35:58.:36:03.

genuine victim of crime? We leave that to the good sense of the

:36:03.:36:07.

neighbourhood officer on the spot. Also to the police and crime

:36:07.:36:12.

commissioners, who we will be acting in November. I leave it to

:36:12.:36:20.

them rather than the Home Office. One person in overall charge,

:36:20.:36:24.

overseeing the police, will be elected by the public. And secondly

:36:24.:36:27.

there will be a mechanism whereby if people are not having their

:36:27.:36:31.

concerns dealt with, that police will listen and investigate those

:36:31.:36:36.

concerns. The Police Federation have told me that they think it is

:36:36.:36:40.

a metaphor for handcuffs for police officers. They will be forced to

:36:40.:36:43.

investigate situations that may be could be dealt with without police

:36:43.:36:48.

involvement. Arguments over the garden fence, for example. Let me

:36:48.:36:53.

give you an example. In my area in Kent, there was a problem of street

:36:53.:36:57.

prostitution for centuries, really. The police did not do much about it.

:36:57.:37:01.

They made the odd arrest but they accepted it was there, putting it

:37:01.:37:05.

in there too difficult box. Then a council ran for office saying that

:37:05.:37:12.

he was going to deal with this problem and he got the police and

:37:12.:37:14.

the Council working together and he has eradicated this problem in

:37:14.:37:19.

Chatham. That is what we want, proper oversight and responsiveness

:37:19.:37:26.

from our police service. Thank you. The ASBOs are going to be replaced

:37:26.:37:33.

by something called the Community criminal behaviour order. It will

:37:33.:37:37.

be a slightly known for something slightly different. Whether it

:37:37.:37:44.

makes any difference remains to be seen. Are you sad to see as buyers

:37:44.:37:51.

going? -- ASBOs going? It is clearly a complete dog's breakfast.

:37:51.:37:54.

They have committed to replacing ASBOs and they are fishing around

:37:54.:37:57.

for something as close to an ASBO as they can get with a different

:37:57.:38:02.

name. I think the public will be very depressed about this. When

:38:02.:38:05.

there is anti-social behaviour, they expected to be dealt with.

:38:05.:38:08.

din never really was dealt with. The councils did not follow up on

:38:08.:38:18.

it. That is precisely why the ASBO is popular. ASBOs give a real

:38:18.:38:22.

redress for tenants whose lives are made a misery. Renaming them with

:38:22.:38:28.

the huge bureaucratic waste that will go on, and Dennis arbitrary

:38:28.:38:34.

cut-off, -- then it is arbitrary cut off. Will it be five, four,

:38:34.:38:38.

three? We want to see properly responsive police locally but there

:38:38.:38:42.

are fewer police and the Government reforms as well. You will be very

:38:42.:38:46.

pleased to know that our quiz is about ASBOs, son to like them so

:38:46.:38:52.

much. Which of the following cases did not result in an ASBO? A

:38:52.:38:55.

grandmother listing to Frank Sinatra too loudly. A shepherd not

:38:55.:38:59.

controlling his sheep in Gloucestershire. The soup than

:38:59.:39:05.

company serving food to 100 homeless people in Manchester. --

:39:05.:39:10.

pursued fund company. And familiar flying his helicopter to close to

:39:10.:39:13.

his neighbours. We will get the correct answer at the end of the

:39:13.:39:16.

programme. The long awaited report into

:39:16.:39:19.

employment law was published yesterday. The Government had not

:39:19.:39:23.

wanted to publish it yet, but it was forced to after the Telegraph

:39:23.:39:27.

leaked an early draft. It in the craft had been asked to do the

:39:27.:39:32.

report and it is full of controversial ideas. -- Adrian

:39:32.:39:38.

Beecroft. One of the most controversial proposals is no fault

:39:38.:39:43.

dismissal and also the delay of compulsory pensions. Vince Cable is

:39:43.:39:46.

away from Parliament, but that has not stopped his opposite number

:39:46.:39:51.

from demanding questions to be answered in the Commons.

:39:51.:39:57.

What a complete and utter shambles! Can the Minister confirm that his

:39:57.:40:01.

department was complacent and fully co-operated in a production of this

:40:01.:40:06.

report despite the Secretary of State's misgivings? We believe that

:40:06.:40:10.

improvements can be made to the way that employment tribunals operate

:40:10.:40:14.

for the sake of employers and employees, but we do not think that

:40:14.:40:19.

watering down the fundamental rights of workers can be

:40:19.:40:22.

substituted for a proper growth strategy. A lot of cliches but not

:40:22.:40:31.

much substance, I'm afraid. He asks whether I am complicit. If he had

:40:31.:40:36.

listened to my opening statement, he would have heard that this

:40:36.:40:41.

department commissioned the report, and so we were complicit. What

:40:41.:40:45.

would be the increase in output if all these measures recommended by B

:40:45.:40:52.

Croft were adopted? -- Adrian Beecroft. I cannot say that, which

:40:52.:40:56.

is why we are calling for evidence. My honourable friend is right to

:40:57.:41:01.

question this issue and was not present during any of the comments

:41:01.:41:05.

from the gentleman opposite. agree on the need for balance.

:41:05.:41:14.

Would he agree with me that we would be creating an environment of

:41:14.:41:20.

fear if we bring in a fire at will, which would not bring in growth and

:41:20.:41:24.

would just be bonkers? We have to get the balance right so that

:41:24.:41:26.

businesses are competitive and we do not tie them up with the red

:41:26.:41:29.

tape we suffered in the last Government, and we make sure that

:41:29.:41:34.

we do not strip away those basic rights, as she rightly says. As a

:41:34.:41:38.

former shop steward and proud trade unionist, I welcome many of these

:41:38.:41:44.

proposals. Would the Minister agree with me that we need to change so

:41:44.:41:49.

much of our rules and regulations so that instead of having a card to

:41:50.:41:57.

culture, we have a can-do culture? I only wish that were the case on

:41:57.:42:01.

the benches opposite. Adrian Beecroft is an asset-stripping

:42:01.:42:04.

venture capitalist. Surely putting him in charge of a report that

:42:05.:42:11.

decides whether or not it is easier to sack workers, isn't that like

:42:11.:42:16.

putting Hannibal Lecter in charge of deciding the nutritional

:42:16.:42:24.

benefits of cannibalism? That is a good joke. I think he needs to be

:42:24.:42:27.

very careful about talking about asset-stripping vultures and all of

:42:27.:42:31.

that. If we want people to develop and create jobs and invest in this

:42:31.:42:37.

country, we need to watch our language very carefully.

:42:37.:42:41.

We are joined now by the Conservative MP John Redwood, who

:42:41.:42:46.

you saw in that debate, and Lord Razzall, the Lib Dem peer. Do you

:42:46.:42:49.

back most of Adrian Beecroft's proposals, including making it

:42:49.:42:53.

easier for business to sack people? I back most of what he is saying

:42:53.:42:57.

but I do not welcome the idea of fire at will, and no sensible

:42:57.:43:01.

person would want that. We want these and protection for people in

:43:01.:43:06.

the work force. What we are talking about is very small businesses. The

:43:06.:43:10.

entrepreneur thinking about taking on his first employee, as someone

:43:10.:43:13.

with two of three employees. If they choose wrongly and they take

:43:13.:43:16.

someone that is not co-operating and is letting the side down and

:43:16.:43:19.

they have warned them, they want to feel that there is some way of

:43:19.:43:23.

getting rid of a badly performing employee without a huge bill and

:43:23.:43:27.

lots of law is involved. I hope we can find a compromise to deal with

:43:27.:43:31.

that point. That sounds like you agree with no fault dismissal.

:43:31.:43:36.

is not no fault dismissal, there has to be some kind of fault. The

:43:36.:43:39.

fear that the entrepreneur has is that they are going to take someone

:43:40.:43:43.

on in good faith, they don't turn up, they mess around, and they do

:43:43.:43:49.

not perform to a normal stand-up. - - normal standard. It is very

:43:49.:43:54.

difficult to manage those people out. Do you agree? We have to look

:43:54.:43:57.

at the changes that have just taken place with the unfair dismissal

:43:57.:44:03.

rules. Up until last week, if somebody was there for more than a

:44:03.:44:07.

year, they could claim for unfair dismissal. That has now changed to

:44:07.:44:11.

two years. I fail to understand why it is a disincentive to take

:44:11.:44:15.

somebody on, if you think you cannot get rid of them when they

:44:15.:44:18.

are no good, considering you have two years to make that decision

:44:18.:44:22.

before they have a claim against you. That was one of the reasons

:44:22.:44:28.

why my party supported the extension to two years. If the

:44:28.:44:32.

employer has not made up his mind about them after two years, he

:44:32.:44:40.

should not have no fault dismissal. The idea put forward by Adrian

:44:40.:44:44.

Beecroft is bonkers, then? Yes. agree with the Business Secretary?

:44:44.:44:53.

I would not use the word bonkers. It was the son! I think what we

:44:53.:44:58.

need is a proper consultation. it was the Sun newspaper! There is

:44:58.:45:02.

a problem at that needs to be tackled, but none of us want fire

:45:02.:45:07.

at will, that is not reasonable. And that would create a climate of

:45:07.:45:10.

fear, yes. Let's look at making it easier for businesses to hire

:45:11.:45:20.
:45:21.:45:21.

people. What did you like in the Anything that makes it a fairer ae

:45:21.:45:27.

easier process for both sides, it has gt too expensive and gives

:45:27.:45:32.

lawyers too many fees. The proposals to reduce the cost and

:45:32.:45:36.

make it easier for both sides are welcome. What about the Liberal

:45:36.:45:43.

Democrats, Vince Cable did call it bonkers, will it end up in the

:45:43.:45:49.

scrap heap? No fault dismissal will. But the others are being

:45:49.:45:52.

implemented. The laibds -- Liberal Democrats are happy about that.

:45:52.:45:56.

the other one there is a consultation and I'm sure Vince

:45:56.:46:02.

Cable and the minister will take into account both sides. What about

:46:02.:46:05.

family friendly policies, it has been reported that No 10 doctored

:46:05.:46:10.

the bits that said there should be a delay to family friendly policies,

:46:10.:46:17.

was that the rigt thing for No 10 to do? I think that is disputed.

:46:17.:46:21.

The man changed his report from first draft to final draft. That is

:46:21.:46:28.

normal. He decided that the -- that some of the thing were going too

:46:28.:46:34.

far. Do you not agree that the original that said it would be too

:46:34.:46:37.

expensive to deal with those changes at this time? All these

:46:38.:46:41.

things are a balance, as the minister said. We want a fair

:46:41.:46:46.

balance, we felt that the previous settlement was sending too many

:46:46.:46:50.

negatives to employers. We want to do something about that. We don't

:46:50.:46:56.

want to live in a Victorian world where the mill owner grinds the

:46:56.:47:04.

faces of the emply ployees. argument was it was a cost to the

:47:04.:47:10.

employer. I don't agree with the postponement. The family friendly

:47:10.:47:17.

policies are not that expensive. you have any costs if they had to

:47:17.:47:20.

introduce flexible work and removing regulations around the

:47:20.:47:30.

employment of young people? Well no. There noise direct costing, but it

:47:30.:47:33.

is not that expensive. This I why I asked for numbers yesterday. I

:47:33.:47:37.

can't answer the questions until I see the numbers. If you make it too

:47:37.:47:41.

expensive you will have fewer people in jobs. If you don't allow

:47:41.:47:46.

enough for the employees, you have a miserable position at work.

:47:46.:47:52.

is the problem. We have a report in advance of the evidence. John asked

:47:52.:47:56.

yesterday what was the evidence. To my astonishment, the response of

:47:56.:47:59.

the minister was we are going to call for evidence, after the report.

:47:59.:48:05.

I may be a bit old fashioned, when I was in government we assembled

:48:05.:48:10.

the evidence first. That is because it was leaked. Yes but it we have

:48:10.:48:14.

been waiting for the proposals. intention was to have the

:48:14.:48:19.

consultation before the report. These were firm conclusions that

:48:19.:48:24.

Adrian Beecroft made, but there haven't -- hadn't been evidence.

:48:24.:48:28.

They were conclusions of Adrian Beecroft, not Government's. What I

:48:28.:48:33.

was saying is they need evidence before they make decisions.

:48:33.:48:38.

Wouldn't it have been a good idea if their own advisor had assembled

:48:38.:48:42.

the evidence. The fact that there is no evidence tells you a lot.

:48:42.:48:48.

this is a way of spuring on growth, how do you do that, if we don't

:48:48.:48:53.

have any evidence? I think we agree on that. We need the costs, because

:48:53.:48:57.

some of the coasts imposed by European legislation have been

:48:57.:49:02.

expensive and may not give the best benefits. There are limits to what

:49:02.:49:09.

we can do about that. We can look at our domestic one and draw up a

:49:09.:49:14.

budget to make sense. That should have happened before the report

:49:14.:49:20.

came forward. The fact it has not shows... It look like a shambles,

:49:20.:49:24.

if you have to ask questions, it hasn't been presented well.

:49:24.:49:27.

we're half way through and we can judge it when the ministers have

:49:27.:49:31.

the evidence and come to their conclusions. They want will Ed, I

:49:31.:49:37.

urge them to have evidence, then we can have the debate on an informed

:49:37.:49:42.

basis that we can't have tide today. Thank you to both of you. Has too

:49:42.:49:49.

much of life been taken over by the ideas of the market in his new book,

:49:49.:49:53.

professor Michael Sandel says that we have gone from having a market

:49:53.:49:58.

economy to being a market society. And he does not think that has been

:49:58.:50:05.

a positive trend. From the 1980s and the election of Margaret

:50:05.:50:11.

Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, Britain and the United States saw a period

:50:11.:50:19.

of market triumphalism. More and more area of life are subject to

:50:19.:50:23.

markets. In health and education, as well as airport and theme parks,

:50:23.:50:29.

paying extra can help you jump the queue. Sport has become

:50:29.:50:35.

commercialised and there is even a market in old Oscar statue. This

:50:35.:50:40.

comes at a cost, according to processor Sandel, markets can crowd

:50:40.:50:45.

out morals and undermine more noble reasons for action he thinks we

:50:45.:50:49.

would be better off if there were more things that money can't buy.

:50:49.:50:54.

Michael Sandel joins us now. You could say looking at the examples

:50:54.:50:58.

you have put forward, that actually this is the natural progression of

:50:58.:51:02.

things and people are motivated by money and money will enter into

:51:03.:51:08.

more streams of life. But it's happened with an intensity that

:51:08.:51:14.

didn't exist before. What about the case just recently, should people

:51:14.:51:20.

sell their Olympic torchs for private gain? What about some of

:51:20.:51:26.

other examples that you have used. You talk about queue jumping for

:51:26.:51:31.

public services. That may have been accelerated, but it has happened

:51:31.:51:36.

before. Who has created that market? I think all of us have by

:51:36.:51:40.

not having a public debate about where markets serve the public good

:51:40.:51:48.

and where they don't belong, we have allowed a kind of market faith.

:51:48.:51:51.

So I'm not arguing for, I'm not giving the answers to any

:51:51.:51:57.

particular case, but I do think that we as democratic societies,

:51:57.:52:02.

unless we want markets to govern everything, we need to have a

:52:02.:52:06.

debate about where markets belong and where they don't. Where do they

:52:06.:52:11.

belong? Stkphrie I am a great believer in freedom and I think

:52:11.:52:17.

people have a right to buy and sell things. We 45 had this debate in my

:52:17.:52:21.

youth where we have the communist system to the east and a more free

:52:21.:52:25.

system to the west and in the United States. And people decided

:52:25.:52:31.

in their millions that they would rather live in the free enterprise

:52:31.:52:36.

system. The communist system got rid of planning and they had to

:52:36.:52:41.

shoot people, because so many were trying to leave. How far would you

:52:41.:52:47.

take it? Should there be a free market in kidneys let's say for

:52:47.:52:54.

transplantation. I don't work on that. Is it communist to say there

:52:54.:52:59.

may not be a free market in kidneys. It is a state imposition of

:52:59.:53:03.

something o' above the market and I accept as a democratic politician,

:53:03.:53:07.

it is my duty from my colleagues to say there are certain things the

:53:07.:53:12.

market shouldn't do. I don't want a free market in nuclear bombs.

:53:13.:53:17.

do you, if you agree with freedom and people to make their own

:53:17.:53:20.

decisions, you can't stop the market invading into areas which

:53:20.:53:27.

you don't believe in either? It is difficult to do. As we're

:53:27.:53:33.

discovering with nuclear technology and drugs. But I'm not one who

:53:33.:53:38.

thinks you should stop somebody selling their Olympic torch. It

:53:38.:53:43.

would be intrusive to have Government inspectors coming around

:53:43.:53:47.

to check up you have still got certain items. That would not be a

:53:47.:53:54.

free society. When you try to solve the problem of babies being born to

:53:54.:54:00.

drug addicted women, by offering money to a woman to be sterilised,

:54:00.:54:04.

should such a charity operate? is the kind of thing you have a

:54:04.:54:07.

democratic Parliament to debate. You're opening implied you wanted

:54:07.:54:13.

to stop all sorts of markets functioning that are harmless.

:54:13.:54:17.

is interesting is that the reference to higher values, and

:54:17.:54:21.

that is the point of my book, there are some values, as you say, that

:54:21.:54:27.

are higher than markets, and lead us, we disagree about where to draw

:54:27.:54:31.

the line. But we need a public debate about which higher values

:54:31.:54:35.

should restprictst extension of markets -- restrict the extension

:54:35.:54:41.

of markets in some areas. If you accept that people in their

:54:41.:54:50.

millions rejected egalitarianism at the level of communism, this is the

:54:50.:54:55.

natural order and won't there be a backlash, against the market

:54:55.:55:00.

invading in areas which are too sensitive? We may be seeing a

:55:00.:55:04.

backlash now. I think that rather than have it be a blind backlash,

:55:04.:55:10.

better it be a deliberate one that, we that debate openly what are the

:55:10.:55:14.

higher values that should constrain the reach of market into certain

:55:14.:55:18.

areas, so that markets can do their work and perform the public good in

:55:18.:55:20.

areas where they belong. Do you think there should be some

:55:20.:55:27.

restrictions in what markets do? What was interesting about the book

:55:27.:55:33.

is the grey areas, we agree there shouldn't be a market in nuclear

:55:33.:55:37.

bombs. The book says a nursery which your parents have been

:55:37.:55:43.

expected to pick up their children on time, they don't soshes

:55:43.:55:46.

introduces fines, the number of late parents increase, because they

:55:46.:55:51.

want to pay the fine to get another hour at the nursery. What the

:55:51.:55:56.

conclusion from that? It is that market mechanisms alone are not

:55:56.:56:00.

enough. You need to have moral expectations, so people do honour

:56:00.:56:06.

their contracts and do what they say. But clearly they don't. It is

:56:06.:56:12.

difficult to stop a market. We see that in a country like Greece,

:56:12.:56:16.

where informal cash markets are breaking out to deal with the

:56:16.:56:20.

collapse of the state. But the point I took is that markets are

:56:21.:56:25.

not enough. You need a strong moral underpinning and unless you have

:56:25.:56:28.

those, you don't have a well functioning society. Are you saying

:56:28.:56:33.

the market invading stops people having a moral view. That is the

:56:33.:56:39.

point, if you have markets dominate, people's morals go out of window.

:56:39.:56:44.

No markets are amoral, not immoral. We live in a pluer is tick society

:56:44.:56:50.

without a single morality that everyone accepts. There are

:56:50.:56:56.

conflict of view over what is the moral position. What is your moral

:56:56.:57:02.

position in so-called death bond, life assurance that pay out when

:57:02.:57:06.

others die. That's right, Wall Street has created death bonds

:57:06.:57:13.

where you can invest in a stranger, or a bundle of a group of strangers

:57:13.:57:18.

dying sooner rather than later. I would say that coarsens our

:57:18.:57:22.

attitude to life. Be what about that. Any objection? I would need

:57:22.:57:28.

to see what was involved. Named contracts on people would be

:57:28.:57:33.

unpleasant. If it is a way of managing mortality risks, I would

:57:33.:57:38.

want to understand it. We haven't got much time I have been told. But

:57:38.:57:42.

on the nursery thing, if people are being late in the first place, that

:57:42.:57:46.

is why they were being fined, and then it doesn't work, do you just

:57:46.:57:52.

drop the whole market force in that sense? That is the market, you are

:57:52.:57:56.

in the market, to provide the place and take your child and there is

:57:56.:58:02.

cash changing hands. They have got to get their pricing right. Or only

:58:02.:58:09.

the very rich can afford to let their children stay late.

:58:09.:58:14.

Whrafrpblgts has been pointed out is central to the idea of book,

:58:14.:58:18.

sometimes markets crowd out none market value worth caring about.

:58:18.:58:22.

Thank I yo. Just time for the answer to the quiz. Which of the

:58:22.:58:27.

following cases did not result in a as bow. I think it was the

:58:27.:58:34.

helicopter. Ce you're right. reckon he was a non-Dom and nobody

:58:34.:58:39.

cowl track him down. Lord Adonis you have had too long to think

:58:39.:58:46.

Jo Coburn is joined by Lord Adonis, Labour's new industrial strategy adviser. They look at the economy, after the IMF suggested that the government could cut VAT to stimulate growth. Plus the new replacement for ASBOs and the draft energy bill. Could there be more nuclear power stations?


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS