11/06/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/06/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics.


The markets react positively to the 100 billion euro bailout of Spain's


banks. But is the dramatic move enough to stop the rot?


The Leveson Inquiry is set for a high-profile week with Gordon Brown


and George Osborne appearing today, and David Cameron on Thursday.


We'll have the latest. Theresa May tells the courts to


stop using European Human Rights law to block deportations. We'll


debate Britain's membership of the European Court for Human Rights.


And lovely weather for cycling! Could we ever go Dutch and make


All that in the next hour. With us is Baroness Helena Kennedy.


Lukewarm applause, the breathing space to stagger on to the next


round, but no clear sign we will make it through. Not England's


chances at Euro 2012, but the future of the eurozone. After the


100 billion euros bail-out of Spain's Banks, the markets have


reacted positively. But many are saying it is buying time rather


than solving the issue. Is this a big moment, the bail-out will calm


the markets enough and the eurozone has been saved? Or is it just a


sticking plaster? I think it is just a sticking plaster. It will


work for while and will help the banks in Spain, but I don't think


it will be a solution in the long run. There is a problem around the


eurozone with the institutions. It is good Spain because their banks


are going to be sorted to some extent. Some people say it is not


enough, the bail-out. It has created a lot of resentment because


they have been treated differently. Conditions are not attached?


Absolut gleeful stock they have a much safer situation in many


respects. There crisis comes out of his property bubble that there was.


But I don't see this as being the answer on the eurozone. There are


issues around the whole model, the whole economic model on which this


is being based. I have some problems also with the simple


solutions of greater austerity and save the banks. You have to look at


issues on how growth is created. I say that as someone who thinks we


should be part of Europe, and they don't want it to feed into as a


general sense that people have in Britain, thank goodness we are not


in the Euro. And if we get the chance leads to pull away from us


all together. You can see why people are not part -- Britain is


not part of the eurozone because we are being spare part of the


problem? I am one of them, believe me. I am grateful to Gordon Brown


for keeping us out because Tony Blair was so keen to go in. But I


believe in a global world with global markets, we have to be part


of something bigger. I say this to people who think, let's cut all the


ties with Europe. It won't work because most of our products are


sold in Europe and we have good economic relationships with those


who betrayed with. What about having a referendum to let the


people decide? I would be worried about having it now because at this


moment, the debate is too crude. I would want there to be a more


sophisticated debate about what are the benefits to us for having links


with Europe. What would be the downside if we ended up going it


alone. Been little Brits is not going to do it in a globalised


world where we see huge entities developing at a pace. Now, with the


Jubilee behind us, all eyes are back on Leveson Inquiry, as it


continues its relationship -- look into the relationship between the


press and politicians. A-list celebrities have given evidence.


Jeremy Irons's face the heat as he and his lobbyist, Fred Michel face


questions over his handling of the BSkyB bid. There will be a bumper


line-up of high-profile witnesses. Gordon Brown is facing inquiry,


with George Osborne due to give evidence this afternoon. The


Chancellor's role in the hiring of Andy Coulson is expected to


dominate. Ed Miliband, and Harriet Harman will take to the witness box


tomorrow alongside John Major. Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg


and Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond give evidence on Wednesday.


And the week ends up on Thursday as the Prime Minister is the sole


witness who will expect detailed questions about Jeremy Hunt and


Andy Coulson as well as Rebekah Brooks.


I find it sad that even now in 2012, members of News International are


coming to this enquiry and maintaining this fiction that a


story that could only have been achieved or maintained through


medical information, or through me and my wife, which we never did, of


course - was obtained in another way. We cannot learn the lessons of


what has happened with the media unless there is some honesty about


what actually happened. Whether payment was made and whether this


is a practice that could continue. If we don't at root out this kind


of practice, I don't think we can sensibly say we have dealt with


some of the abuses that are problematical for us. Let's stop


now to our correspondent who is outside the inquiry at the Royal


Courts of Justice. I have only listen to some of it, and the


impression you get is that Gordon Brown is a man who is trying to get


things off his chest. This is therapeutic for him to talk about


some of the grievances he felt in terms of how he was dealt with by


the press when he was Prime Minister? Gordon Brown sees this as


more than therapy. It for him he is setting a record us -- straight. If


you read the records he put out during this inquiry with a cynical


mind, you could possibly see gaps in which she did not wholly deny


everything. He has been straightforward, he contradicts


what Rebekah Brooks says. Rebekah Brooks said they had permission up


from Gordon Brown and his family to publish the story about his son and


cystic fibrosis. He said that is not the case. Rupert Murdoch has


said Gordon Brown declared it on the phone to him that he would make


war on his company. They call did not happen that were at the time


when Rupert Murdoch said it happened. But when there was a call


someone Slater, though was no threat. Be very clear contradiction,


which when people are talking under oath, it is a serious business.


People will ask questions, someone is not telling the truth. Looking


ahead, what can we expect? We have George Osborne coming up this


afternoon. We did have a warning, a strict warning from Lord Justice


Leveson that us in the media shouldn't be reporting the tittle-


tattle and who is up and down of Westminster out of this. We hear is


a Chancellor whose judgment has been questioned and will have to


account for the decision to give Andy Coulson a job as director of


communications, and if it was him responsible to give Jeremy Hunt,


the job as the News Corporation BSkyB bid. George Osborne possibly


will hear from George Osborne this afternoon. The judgment of David


Cameron and George Osborne will be called into question in terms of


the appointment of Andy Coulson. The role of Jeremy hands over


BSkyB? We have had these sessions so far with senior members of the


Government, Jeremy hands giving evidence. It has given a clearer


picture of what went on and in terms of the procedure that was


following her over the Sky bid, it was not compromised by any external


oblique. You think Jeremy Hunt's position is secure? From what we


have heard so far, yes. Was he right to abuse whether this deal


should go through before he was given responsibility for it? People


can debate that. That his views get in the way of the due process he


had to follow, and there is no evidence it did. Perhaps the more


pertinent question is to George Osborne, the Chancellor's Texan


Essex to the Culture Secretary, "I hope you like our solution on the


day the bid for BSkyB was handed to Jeremy Hunt". One did you think he


meant by that? I don't know, but was is unreasonable that the


Government should ask he should have taken over the responsibility


for this bid? Even though he had made his position clear and said he


was in favour of it, it was the same as Vince Cable saying he was


against? He was more than sympathetic. The memo he sent to


the Prime Minister, he said whatever happens, to allow the


takeover bid to go ahead, has to be made on media polarity grounds. If


you fail on that task, the chances are it will be reviewed. He did


follow those principles when he handled it. Let's come back to the


George Osborne point, what do you think he meant when he said in a


text message, I think you are like a solution, which was to hand it


over to Jeremy Hunt? I have no idea, it is a text message. He will have


the chance this afternoon to speak about it. Was it unreasonable to


ask Jeremy Hunt to take on this role? Absolutely not. Is there any


evidence he handled it badly or suede? Not at all. Do you think


Jeremy Hunt should have been reported for breaching the


ministerial code? I don't think he did breach the ministerial code.


Should he have been reported so he could establish that? No, when you


have a public inquiry under way, it was right to allow that to take


precedence. I don't think any evidence that has come out of this


inquiry that this should be brought in. We're interested, Baroness


Warsi has been referred, have they been treated equitably? She has


admitted some irregularities and that has not happened with Jeremy


Hunt. The decision to bring in Andy Coulson, who's to blame for that?


The Prime Minister said last year when this was debated in Parliament,


he was given assurances by Andy Coulson, the same assurances given


to Scottish court and select committee is, if the Prime Minister


was misled in terms of what Andy Coulson you about phone hacking, he


was not the only one misled. Andy Coulson said he was only asked once


about assurances in terms of phone hacking? He was asked. His once


enough? He was asked and assurances were given and it turns out the


Prime Minister was misled, along with other people, too. All this is


coming out in the open, and we know why it is going on. The question


Gordon Brown has not answered this morning is, we knew this was going


on years ago, and there would be questions to answer. Nothing was


done about it. Let's pick up on Gordon Brown, first of all. He is


trying to set the record straight, as our correspondent set out. Is


there a level of hypocrisy in terms of the fact he was fraternising


with News Corporation in the same way as others? This story is


riddled with hypocrisy for all senior politicians because they put


up with it for years. Let's be clear, when he says we are the good


guys because we called the inquiry, but they have to because the game


was up. Something had to be done and that is why there was an


inquiry. It would have happened in the same way for whoever was in


Government. I hope you are rewarded for your great loyalties to


everybody around the story. Because it does not bear examination.


Sometimes as a QC, I feel I would love to have the opportunity to


cross-examine some people on it. It goes back to the business of, here


you came into Government in a coalition. There was a hoped some


things would be different, because there was a bad smell. But it


became clear have to get it points man. The points man who was brought


in to be the middle person between you and News International was Andy


Coulson. A terrible mistake? Let's go back on this point, which is we


have to call this inquiry now. Tony Blair was asked about this and he


said the Labour Party was not in a position to go to war with the


press in 2007. He did try, I know it is up to the Prime Minister to


make the decision, but he did say it could lead to a judicial review.


And there was an attempt. He became Prime Minister in months of this


debate taking place. And at the time of the information


commissioner report. And also the claim which is the Prime Minister,


David Cameron said this Government would be whiter than white and


transparency would be the byword for this Government. The Leveson


inquiry seems to have laid claim to that. We have never had greater


disclosure about the contact of senior members of the Government


with senior members of the media. The Prime Minister called the


inquiry with the support of the There's an inquiry which is


producing information. The idea that the Secretary of State for


culture media and sport had been basically on side with News


International, was in contact with e-mails and text messages more than


most people have with their lover, with their wife. It was a contact


that was absolutely showing they were in the pockets of News


International. I take issue with that. You have to distinguish


between contact before the responsibility and afterwards. I'm


not trying to say one government is whiter than white. When Gordon


Brown tries to create this fantasy that somehow he was distant from


the media, that the Labour Party took a very different approach, as


Rupert Murdoch said himself, he was closer to Gordon Brown than any


other senior politician throughout this period. Gordon Brown never


mentioned phone hacking. What tone should George Osborne be setting


this afternoon? It is a serious inquiry and he will give evidence


in a serious way. People will want to know about the text message and


today is an opportunity to end the speculation and set the record


straight. Thank you. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is


gearing up for yet another battle with the courts - this time over


whether foreign prisoners' rights to a family life should mean they


can avoid being deported. It's a long-running saga, but just one of


many tussles between successive British governments and the


judiciary. In particular, ministers have been at loggerheads with the


Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, with the current


government keen for reform and some Tory backbenchers saying we should


pull out altogether. But can a workable balance be struck between


politicians and judges? We sent This is Belmarsh prison in south-


east London. It holds some of the country's most dangerous inmates,


including some who have been accused of terrorist offences. But


who decides he will end up here and what their rights should be? It is


not always asked. Sometimes, it is the judges who sit here, the


European Court of Human Rights. Britain helped set it up and we


abide by its decisions even when they override our own courts and


Parliament. There's the blocking of Britain's attempt to deport Abu


Qatada, although they have rejected his latest appeal. Then there's


votes for prisoners and the rights to a family life of up MPs and


ministers, dead set against, European Court says they should


have them. It makes some Tory MPs blood boil. But here's the thing. A


lot of Lib Dems like the European Court under laws that go with it.


David Cameron had to find a way of keeping everyone happy so he set up


a commission to look at creating a British Bill of Rights one also


reforming the European Court of Human Rights. All fine, until one


of the commissioners came onto the Sunday politics and said this.


After one year, it is now clear that it has been intended all along


to issue a report in favour of the status quo. We have considered the


question of parliamentary sovereignty only once in the whole


year that we've been in existence. I'm afraid it leaves me with no


alternative but to resign. I think the cause is so important to look


in a mature way at human rights and to make it consistent with


parliamentary sovereignty that I do need to pursue it, but not on the


commission. So is the commission likely to actually please anyone?


think the most the commission are going to do is define the problem,


to assess whether there's a problem and what it is. They are not going


to come up with any clear solutions and if there are solutions, they


will go out for consideration and discussion. We can't expect to see


a bill before the next general election and who knows what the


political complexion will be after that. High but some critics think


that is not good enough and that if we can't reform the European Court


and established his supremacy of Parliament, we should go. But is


that really an option? If you want to join the European Union as an


emerging democracy, you must first sign up to the human rights


convention and joined the Council of Europe. If we were to pull out


of the Convention, would we have to pull out of the EU? Nobody knows.


Theoretically that would be a risk. There are some people who say we


would be better off out of the EU, but it seems to be a big step to


take or to risk just because we are reluctant to give a few votes to a


few prisoners who probably would not vote anyway. Justice may be


blind, ministers have to keep at least one eye on the politics of it


all. Ultimately, who makes Britain's laws is about as


political as it gets. Joining us from Oxford now is


Michael Pinto-Dushinsky, who earlier this year resigned as one


of the eight commissioners examining whether a British Bill of


Rights is needed. This afternoon, the Home Secretary will make a


statement to Parliament which many suggest will be a showdown with the


courts over this issue of the rights of foreign prisoners


battling to avoid deportation. Is she right to take them on over


this? I certainly don't favour politicians interfering with judges


on cases that are going on. I would not talk about the Abu Qatada case


because it is still going on, it is improper to interfere with judges.


When we come to matters of general policy, which is in a sense making


laws, then it is for Parliament to make laws and it is for judges to


enforce those laws. If Parliament doesn't like it, Parliament can


make new laws. That is what a democracy under rule of law means.


Is this really, in your view, empty rhetoric saying that she is going


to do battle and have a showdown, because as you say, without making


a new law, she can't tell judges how they should interpret the


existing ones. She can introduce a new law. Maybe it is wise to do so.


The interpretation of family life has been broadened far beyond the


original intention. If she does introduce the new law, it is the


judges obligation to obey the law unless the court in Strasbourg over


rules the British judges and the British Parliament. But that would


take several years and would not happen within this Parliament. In


effect, she can making new law safely until 2015. Maybe that is


what she intends to do. So without a new law, Theresa May is a bit


restricted in terms of what she can tell judges to do, but she says she


has the public on her side on this. And judges and courts do listen to


public opinion so is this the right way to approach this campaign?


Michael is a political scientist and he is not a lawyer. He is not


in courts on a regular basis. There's a very interesting two step


that takes place between the law and politics. Judges don't exist in


a vacuum, they do listen to public debates and they are very conscious


of public temperature. They know that at the moment, we have a


government, and a government before, it is not just this particular


coalition government, the coalition before also had its run-ins with


some of the decisions by judges, but what happens is that judges


listen, but they know there are basic principles they should not


override. Have they over interpreted this particular law in


terms of the right to a family life? The question there is most of


us would agree, and it is set down in the principles of the European


Convention, that people are entitled to a family life and that


means that if you are given immigration status in this country


and you are allowed to be in this country, you are entitled to have


your wife and children with you. Where it comes into question is our


interpretation in relation to homosexuality, are you entitled to


have your homosexual partner? Are you entitled to have your


grandmother? Some people would say if granny has to stay at home.


There's an issue which has to be examined and it is usually dealt


with case by case. Families differ. What would be right for one family


is not always right for another. His Theresa May right to say you


have overstepped your remit, the public isn't with you either and


nor is the political establishment. Rain in your interpretation or we


will do -- change the law. In the months to come, you will not find


any cases that accountant... Judges will be sensitive to it and when


they are making their individual interpretations they will have in


mind that there's a general feeling that we should not be saying your


second cousin is somebody who is part of your family. Do you agree


with that? Do you have confidence that that is what will happen?


should say that on legal matters, I have every confidence in Helen The.


I have immense personal and professional respect for her and as


she says, she knows the courts and I don't. I am a bit concerned about


the view that judges should take account of public opinion in the


sense of becoming semi- political themselves. It is their role to


make judgments on the merits of the judgments. One wouldn't want judges


to be too politicised. But in general, I do agree with Helena on


that. Let's turn to the British Bill of Rights. We heard in that


clip where you resigned as one of the eight commissioners examining


where a British Bill of Rights was needed. You said the commission


deliberately ignored the prime minister, is that still the case?


And so Livy. Since I resigned, the only two oomph public hearings that


have been read, and they were to have taken place by now, have been


postponed until the autumn. We don't know if they will take place


at all. The commission is the only employee one graduate student as


far as I know to look into parliamentary sovereignty and


indeed I think there's no guarantee that that graduate student will


even be big eater -- be paid the minimum wage. There isn't any


serious inquiry at all. The whole notion is to waste time and to


block the government from doing anything by wasting its time. May I


just say one other thing that Helena may want to answer? It has


now come out that Nick Clegg spoke to one of the commissioners in


person, Lord Lester, and had a joint telephone call with the other


three commissioners, including Helena, two days before the first


meeting of the commission. Clearly there was some kind of fix up in


place before we even started. there a stitch-up with Nick Clegg


phoning you and others on the commission beforehand? The only


time I have had a conversation with Nick Clegg on the telephone was


when he invited me to be a commissioner. Each of the coalition


partners were able to choose four persons to sit on the commission


and I was one of the people selected to be on the commission by


the Lib Dem end, although I'm a Labour person. I think that is true


of everybody, we all had a call from the people selecting us to be


on the commission. There certainly was no stitch-up. It is interesting,


I'm sure Labour leaders will find it hard to believe that I'm capable


of being stitched into anything, if I were to choose not be. There is


the other point, Michael has no faith that the commission will


deliver an alternative, that this is a waste of time and they will


not explore all the options. became very clear, and it is one of


the reasons Michael is no longer on the commission,... Michael would


like to see that this was not the remit of this commission. This


commission's terms of reference were not to be saying we should be


leaving the European Convention on Human Rights... Parliament has


sovereignty. No. Parliamentary sovereignty is part of what we are


looking at. When it comes to the report which will be published at


the end of this year, it will be giving recommendations to


government as to how they could take this forward and it will give


recommendations in relation to should there be a British Bill of


Rights, if so what form it would take, or should we stick with what


we have an make amendments and find other ways of enriching this


process? Thank you both very much. Towards the end of the year, we


will have the recommendations and you will see if your fears are


You may remember we towed due of some research the University of


Strathclyde was doing to study the mood of the nation. Participants


were being tested that being exposed to a flagging image would


affect their answers. This is what they found. Seeing a flag does


affect how the respondent response to the state of the economy in


England and Scotland. It made people feel more anxious. Exposure


to the Union Jack increases estate of pride in being English. It was


not the case for the Scottish flag. What does this mean? Joining us


from Glasgow is a professor who has been conducting his research for


Strathclyde University. What does it mean? We emphasise straight away


but these are representative surveys. We have two samples from


England and Scotland of people who responded to this particular quiz.


Straight away we put the little caveat in, they are groups of


English and Scottish respondents who are possibly particularly


interested because they are watching your programme. What was


interesting is the way different UK flag splayed out in different ways


within the two difference sample groups. Critically, the story on


the economy was interesting. And there has been a tendency to say


there has been a split between national identity issues that tried


public opinion, and economic, hard rational views that drive public


opinion. What we think it shows is these two have closely combined,


which is a commonsense thing, but not what people using their


analysis. The fact you trigger their national identity seems to


affect how they make rational decisions on whether they think the


economy is doing well, whether it feels them feel confident or a bit


uneasy. It is this point, respondents who saw a Scottish flag


felt more anxious about the economy. Is that because of the current


economic times that we are in now? What did he make of that? He is


difficult to tell. We get this data and we have to interpret it wide it


has to that effect and it is open to speculation. We had the number


of people who came back and said it is difficult for them to


disentangle the question of the Scottish of the English economy.


They are feeling a bit, when they say you make them feel English on


make them feel Scottish, they feel they don't have that much control


over the economy in England and Scotland because is a part of the


UK economy. Also, given the current debates on whether there should be


more control over the economy in Scotland. The other side of it


could be the opposite. It could be people are feeling anxious about if


we were to go it alone, if there was some kind of control over the


economy, would they feel more anxious? Helena Kennedy, on the


headlines of that, would you, on the basis of those answers hazard a


guess the question on Scottish independence would be on identity?


I think it will be Economics that it will determine it. The Scots are


very canny and they will want to know if they can survive on their


own. When we hear Scottish Nationalist politicians saying, we


could be absolutely successful without being linked to England, I


think there is a lot of concern about whether it is true. I think


they should be some hard, independent, economic analysis done


with no British economists or Scottish ones, but a set of


economists from abroad to look at it independently. Independently


always been difficult. I was struck over the Jubilee period and the


events, and the number of Union Jack flags, no negatives


connotations associated with that? I was of the generation in the 70s


when I was a young woman demonstrating, I was concerned


about racism and it is the flag that was used by the National Front.


It lived at me for a long time, being linked with racists. It has


shed that very largely. People did not feel that at all, watching the


sea of flags. Adam Shaw in Scotland or in Northern Ireland, seeing the


Union Jack, it may create different ripples because there are people


who still see it as a flag which is about imperialism and about somehow


being conquered nations. I don't know, but I suspect it still lives


on. A fan's for bringing us that research and Helena Kennedy, being


a guest of the day for. MPs are now back in Westminster for


the last session before the summer holidays. It is looking like a busy


week for political hacks. We will hear more from Theresa May on


immigration this afternoon's. She has already said she will get tough


and judges who will refuse to deport foreign criminals because of


their human rights. PMQs should be interesting. Expect


the Prime Minister to be questioned on the recent U-turns. On Thursday


the Prime Minister is in the spotlight giving evidence at


Leveson Inquiry. An economy will be back on the agenda with George


Osborne's mansions house speech at the Lord Mayor's dinner. Let's talk


to George Parker from the Financial Times and Alison little from the


Daily Express. George Parker, the Financial Times has written a lot


about George Osborne blaming the eurozone for Britain's lack of


growth. But a lot of the criticism comes from the Tory party, how


dangerous is it for the Chancellor? It is the central political


argument, who is to blame for Britain's poor economic


performance? Labour have been St George Osborne cannot possibly


blame it all on the eurozone. He should be doing more to stimulate


the economy, cutting taxes. We have at least three senior Tory right-


wingers St George Osborne shouldn't use the euro zone crisis as an


alibi, and to be doing more in terms of cutting business taxation,


cutting red tape to get business going. It is a difficult position


for George Osborne to find himself to be in, being attacked from the


left and the right as to who is to blame for this double-dip recession.


Alison, how much more pressure it is there now for a referendum?


is growing all the time. My paper would support that. We have become


increasingly mainstream. George Osborne, he has been trying to


signal in recent days he would support a referendum. He is trying


to throw that in his own right wingers, but they are sceptical,


they would want to see it written down in black and white. They


wouldn't be satisfied with the hints because we have had hints


over a referendum before and it has not happened. But pressure is


definitely growing. Looking over the recess and the U-turn is that


one made over various tax policies, do you think it will be


regurgitated at PMQs this week? certain it will be. If I was Ed


Miliband, it is something I would want to look at and what my


colleagues said, Martin Brown dubbed the Budget. The series of U-


turns that have taken place. Labour are using one of their debate days


to call a debate about the VAT on caravans, which the Government has


poof formed -- has not yet performed a four U turn on. I am


certain Ed Miliband will go on the economy as well. The budgie U-turns


were not particularly significant, but it is a question of competence


and capability of the Treasury. But the Treasury cannot do the simple


things right, that will be the next question going into the next


election. Abington all there will be an urgent question on budget U-


turns. -- I have been told. We have had, we have just been talking


about the jubilee celebrations, the football is on, is there a feel-


good factor this week? Feel-good factors can be over done in


politics. We are still a couple of years off from the next general --


General Election. The Olympics is giving a feel-good factor. But


going back to the 1966 World Cup, there is a myth propagated that


Harold Wilson won the election because of the 1966 World Cup


victory, but he did actually win the election months before.


what about the news David Cameron and his wife, Samantha, manage to


leave it there a year old daughter in the pub after Sunday lunch?


could not make it up. A lot of parents will be sympathetic to this


because a lot have said, I have done this, and done even worse


things. More serious questions however, they are coming up this


morning with people saying if the Prime Minister's security personnel


were with him, don't they do a head count to see who is there? And also


some parents seem to be reporting they have done similar things in


the past and got a visit from social services about it. What will


happen to the Prime Minister? It is a mixed blessing, but it definitely


plays into the sense at the moment, anything could Government such as


falls apart. The narrative does not help, he cannot look after his own


children, can he look after the country. Most of the criticism is


he has been spending too much time thinking about his family and Tory


MPs saying he puts the school run before the national interests. It


is difficult to pin this on him that he neglects his children. It


would have been more difficult for Ed Miliband, because he did not put


his name on the birth certificates of one of his children. But pinning


this on David Cameron that he neglects his children, would be a


bit tricky. Now, this morning markets in Europe


and Asia welcomed the bail-out of Spain's bangs that was agreed over


the weekend. On Saturday, eurozone ministers agreed to lend Spain up


to 100 billion euros. -- banks. We can now talk to Richard Hunt of.


Reasonably positive, the market reaction? Yes it was. Equally, it


is another chapter on what will be an ongoing saga in terms of


resolving the ongoing crisis. Whilst the market open probably 100


points up, a couple of minutes ago it had given away most of those


gains. The realisation is beginning to dawn, this is something of a fix


rather than a long-term solution. You say it is a fix, and it does


sound like a lot of money and the IMF had identified around 40


billion euros needed to help out Spain in trouble. Does this do more


than put a sticking plaster over the banking, could the


recapitalisation of the banking crisis separate it from the


sovereign debt crisis? The way it looks like it is going to work, and


this is the uncertainty, the money will pass to the banks through the


Sovereign and the possibility there of course is the sovereign which is


them effectively underlying this amount of money. It would put


pressure on it, when it has to go back to the markets to borrow for


its own purposes. There are other ramifications, for example - the


fact this has gone through so quickly may call into question


whether the likes of Portugal, Ireland and Greece now come back to


the table to renegotiate their own debt which will put more pressure


on the stability facility within the eurozone. It is not bad news


and the market has reacted accordingly, but equally they


remain a lot of unanswered questions.


I have been joined for the rest of the programme by the Conservative


MP, the Labour MP, Tony Perkins and the Liberal Democrat Mr Perkins. We


have had this phrase from George Osborne the eurozone is killing of


Britain's chances of any growth, paraphrasing it slightly, but that


was the broad thrust of it. Is the Government impotent in terms of


doing anything to promote growth? There is a lot the Government can


do to promote growth. He said he cannot. We put 49% of our exports


to the eurozone area. It is clear for everyone to see the eurozone is


lurching from one crisis to another, and there isn't a clear solution in


sight, that will be implemented. That will have an effect on his


economic situation at home. What we have seen is the Chancellor and the


Prime Minister saying and shouting loud, to Angela Merkel, you have


got to sort this problem out now. Everybody accepts the Euros and


crisis is having an effect, not only on Europe, but globally. --


eurozone stock in the case of Switzerland, not even in the


European Union, they do have rows, why can't Britain promote its own


growth? But there is a lot been done to promote growth. But it has


not happened, there is no growth. If you speak to international


investors, people who have money and looking for places to put it.


Britain is one of the top destinations. Whether it is Nissan,


China Investment Corporation, but we need to do more to promote that


activity. So there are opportunities. When do you see


growth coming back? I cannot predict, but what we have got to do


to promote growth is do the right things to raise business confidence.


It is businesses and businesses investing that will drive the


growth we need. The danger in this debate, the substance of raising


business confidence is to focus on austerity and whether that is


driving growth or not driving growth and that is the wrong path


to go down. Is it all the eurozone's fault? It has to be


partly their fault. When I talk to businesses, they say they have


noticed a decline in their order books from eurozone countries. It


will have an impact on their ability to invest in their own


firms and drive the job-creation we want to see here. Do you believe


the British Government's cannot do anything? It can only rely on


monetary policy. It seems to be the general direction of travel, the


historic low interest rates, we have still have no growth, we have


had some quantitative easing but still no growth. Is it really just


Of course not. There are many things the British government can


do and is doing. It is important... Driving infrastructure projects,


creating growth on the ground at home, creating jobs. Spending, you


would like to see Morse capital spending? In one area. Housing. We


know that every pound invested in housing generates �3, it generates


about four jobs. It will also help tackle the housing crisis. Do you


agree with Chris Huhne when he said a couple of years ago that Britain


should not be lashed to the mast of austerity? No. It is not a choice.


We have to bring the finances under control, we have one of the highest


debt to GDP ratios of the G7. We need to take difficult decisions.


We also need to do everything we can to get every infrastructure


project, every piece of investment out of the door and spending the


money the government is spending on those projects to develop jobs and


create growth. I think the government is getting it broadly


right. In terms of infrastructure spending, you would support that?


Yes, it has been a part of Ed Balls's 5. Plan for a while and we


continued to urge the government to do more. People this weekend will


have been horrified by the sense of hopelessness we have with the


Chancellor, who on the back of his shambolic budget, is now coming out


and saying he has finally realised the global context that our


economy... We were telling him about that during the global


economic recession. What he is failing to do is get any growth


into the economy, he inherited an economy that was growing and he is


delivering stagnation. A sense of hopelessness? That is absolutely


wrong. One of the things the Chancellor spoke about in autumn is


moving forward infrastructure projects and getting private


investors to invest in those. It is still in the works. There's no


sense of hopelessness. If you step out of the Westminster bubble and


you speak to people who have the money to invest, Britain is a safe


haven. What we've got to do is give them the confidence to invest their


money here. We would compromise that confidence if we go back on


the central judgment that the government made at the start of


this Parliament, that deficit- reduction, sensible deficit


reduction should be at the heart of the policy. Christine Lagarde gave


her prognosis recently of the British economy. Is there a time at


which, if growth hasn't improved and we are still flatlining, say by


the autumn, and we still have low interest rates, is there time that


there should be a more dramatic change in terms of what the


Chancellor is doing? What we can do more of, and you can always do more,


is more around access to finance for businesses. It has been talked


about, but it never happens. Credit easing, National Loan guarantee


Scheme, is a step in the right direction. It will allow businesses


to refresh existing loans, something I have called for his may


be the Bank of England looking to buy corporate bonds so that


businesses can get more cash for so they are more likely to hire and


invest in that plant. Some of it is being done by the Treasury. What I


will not be pushing for is to compromise the fundamental decision


that was made at the start of the Parliament that we are going to


make sure we can pay our debts in a sensible way while at the same time


protecting the vulnerable. Stay with us. We will have some


questions in a moment. See what kind of education you had at


Now, what's seven times nine? How do you say "my name is Jo" in


French? And which poet wrote about wandering "lonely as a cloud"? If


you know, then well done. If not, well, Mr Gove will see you after


class. Because the Education Secretary thinks that children have


been "let down on the basics" by the current curriculum - leaving


the UK falling behind other nations. Is he right? Our teacher's pet,


young Adam Fleming, has been to find out. I've got a list of


complicated words, I'm sure I know the 12 times table off by heart and


we have a bus station full of people. Let's put the curriculum to


the test. What is 12 times 11? 132. Close! In the Oster -- in


Australia, do you learn the 12 times table? Yes. How important is


it to learn things like that? not that important. 144. Everyone


knows that one! Did you know you're 12 times table by the time you left


school? No. In the States, do you have to learn your 12 times table?


Yes. No. I didn't! Do you know how to spell accommodate? A, C, C, oh


it... A, C, C, is a double M? missed out 1 M. Double M! Does


anyone know any poetry? I know a few Australian ones but I will not


recite them. Twinkle twinkle little star, I wonder what you are. Little


Miss Muffet. Jack Horner. Jack and Jill. I could go on! You obviously


know them very well. Good to see you.


That is reassuring! Let's have a chat with our political bright


sparks - Sam Gyimah, Toby Perkins, Stephen Gilbert. What is seven


times nine? Six D three. Very good. Toby, how do you say my name is


Tavy in French? Vision of hell Tavey. Who wrote I wandered lonely


as a cloak? I haven't the foggiest. Wordsworth. Two points to you.


You'll have to see Mr Gove after class. Report for detention. Maybe


something you know about! Is this yet another change that teachers


are going to resent and schools are going to resent because the biggest


complaint they have his constant change. Constant change is ideally


something you want to stay away from. If you are a responsible


politician, when confronted with the fact that a lot of employer


organisations are saying children do not have the basic mental


arithmetic, spelling skills that they need when they get into the


workforce, you need to do something. Labour said education, education,


education. Men and people say they expect their children to know these


basic things by the age of 11. Where did it fall down? There was


masses of progress made under the previous Labour government in


education. We now see 89% of schools having 30% of children


leaving with five good GCSEs. Only half of that achieved that at the


time we came into power. At the same time... It is still not very


high. We moved the state education for would be a tremendous amount,


but there's more to do. The move of the government towards introducing


languages earlier is a positive one. At the same time, we are hearing


from Michael Gove that he is listening to business, but


businesses are saying that the engineering diploma or, the JCB


Academy, is really valuable and he is downgrading that. The wary


people have about Michael Gove is he going to listen to the


educationalists or is it based on the idea -- ideology and the ideas


he heard from his friends down the golf club. There's no ideology


behind making sure that people can spell properly, can do their mental


arithmetic. That is just educational standards. Absolutely.


When you said that at the end of the Labour peerage in office, only


one in three people were leaving with half of the qualifications we


expect people to get. We need to make sure people who know best how


to teach, the teachers, are free to do that in a way that response...


Are they free? What you are seeing is a lot of educationalists saying


this is the right way forward, it Free's head teachers and schools to


respond to the situations they may face. When it is combined with the


pupil premium, it stands much more likely heard of delivering real


results. It sounds very prescriptive, all of this stuff


that has been laid out. Labour did the same thing with its league


tables and changing curriculums. This is a greater simplification


but Mr under Labour. It was like a Christmas tree under Labour. They


Hom more and more on the Christmas tree. What Michael Gove and the


coalition are trying to do is free schools, freak educationalists, to


report -- respond to the circumstances they face. The key


test is does it put pupil's first? No doubt, when there's any change,


teachers would say we don't really like this. But the key test is, is


it raising educational standards and is putting pupils first? This


is an important thing that needs to be tackled. What is going to


change? If the figures that Toby used, if pupils were not reaching


those basic standards by the age of 11, with the money that was put in


under Labour, and with curriculum changes, what is going to make this


any different? Are you expecting to see 60% of pupils knowing their 12


times table and being able to read a reasonably hard book or not?


of the things I like about what Michael Gove is doing is the


recognition that raising academic standards in schools is not simply


a function of how much money do is poured into the system, but is


knowing what the priorities are. But the requirement to pass a


language by the time you do your GCSEs is something that Labour did


not put emphasis on and I'm glad we will have an emphasis on something


like that. If we are going to be competitive in the global economy,


it is important that our children leave school being competent in


another language. Isn't there an argument that says our education


system will still be behind what is needed in the workplace by the time


the current primary-school children leave university or school and get


a job? The first thing I would correct you on... We said 89% of


schools had 30% of children leaving at a basic level, a lot of them had


many more than 30%. A basic benchmark was put in place and


there was a dramatic improvement against a benchmark. And in terms


of the difference the government can make, what you learn from the


best education systems is it is all about the way that children learn


and we need less of a focus on the simple pieces of history. It does


sound much more prescriptive than what it was previously. They need


to know these facts. What we need is to help children to get a love


of learning and on the back of that, you can hang all sorts of other


things, as they do in Singapore and Hong Kong and the best education


systems. Do you think poetry is important? It is, but it is not for


Michael Gove to say you need to learn this poem of that poem.


Children need a rate -- rounded education. You're in favour of more


state interference? Find in favour of making sure that schools are


free to make the difference circumstances that pupils find


themselves in. There's a difference between the children going to


school in my constituency and Toby's or Sam's. Why is it


different? You have agreed it does about improving standards. Because


of the community, the background, the levels of advantage and other


aspects that individual communities face. The important point is that


we deliver money to help disadvantaged children and Wheeler


Download Subtitles