:00:42. > :00:45.Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. We've had Gordon,
:00:45. > :00:49.we've had Tony, we've had John. We've even had Nick, in case you
:00:49. > :00:51.didn't notice. Today, it's Dave's turn in the witness box at the
:00:51. > :00:54.Leveson Inquiry. The Prime Minster's apparently had a day's
:00:54. > :01:00.coaching from lawyers to prep for the event, which might explain why
:01:00. > :01:10.so far this morning it's been pretty tedious. The PM's giving
:01:10. > :01:15.evidence as I speak and will do for the rest of the day. This is what
:01:15. > :01:20.he had to say. This is idea that somehow the Conservative Party and
:01:20. > :01:28.News International got together and said, "You give us your support and
:01:28. > :01:34.we'll waive through this merger .". It's nonsense. Back in the real
:01:34. > :01:37.world, Spain's 100 billionn euro bail out is already in crisis as
:01:37. > :01:42.bond yields in Madrid this morning hit an unsustainable 7%. A
:01:42. > :01:45.snooper's charter or a crucial tool in the fight against crime? We'll
:01:45. > :01:54.be looking at the Government's new surveillance plans. And who tickles
:01:54. > :01:59.your fancy? Balls or Osborne. We let the balls decide. I wouldn't
:01:59. > :02:04.trust Ed Balls as far as I can throw me and I don't like Osborne
:02:04. > :02:06.either. Fairly conclusive. Happy All that in the next hour and with
:02:07. > :02:10.us for the duration is the businesswoman and FT columnist,
:02:10. > :02:12.Heather McGregor. People on this programme. Welcome. Now, first this
:02:13. > :02:15.morning, let's talk about the crisis in Europe, because this
:02:15. > :02:25.morning Spanish borrowing costs, under the euro, rose to a record
:02:25. > :02:28.
:02:28. > :02:38.high. That's dispute the Europeans agreed to a 100 billion euro The
:02:38. > :02:44.
:02:44. > :02:47.yield on benchmark 10-year bonds hit 7%.. Bail out of the banks.
:02:47. > :02:53.This was true of Ireland and Portugal and in Greece as well at
:02:53. > :02:57.7%. This news came as moody's cut Spain's credit rating. It's now
:02:57. > :03:04.just one notch above junk. That explains why they are having to pay
:03:04. > :03:09.over 7%. It seems even 100 billion bail out now, it doesn't last 24
:03:09. > :03:13.hours? No. This is the inevitable result of fiscal union, without
:03:13. > :03:16.political union. Does this mean we'll get political union? This is
:03:16. > :03:21.the first step towards the United States of Europe. It's not time to.
:03:21. > :03:24.That may be the road we are going and people in the eurozone and even
:03:24. > :03:29.our own Government even talk that that is the direction we'll have to
:03:29. > :03:35.go in, but this crisis is today. have a strong European Central Bank.
:03:35. > :03:40.What they will do or they'll have to do, is step in, just as Alistair
:03:40. > :03:44.Darling had to save the Royal Bank of Scotland. It's completely
:03:44. > :03:50.unsustainable. 7% is a huge rate for a Government to have to pay.
:03:50. > :03:54.But, you say the strong mechanism, but the ECB by law is not allowed
:03:54. > :04:00.to by government debt in the primary market. It can't buy the
:04:00. > :04:04.bonds. It's confineed by lots of rules. Those rules can be changed
:04:04. > :04:07.quite quickly. They can't be changed that quickly. Isn't it the
:04:07. > :04:10.situation, that when you look at this, you look at the election
:04:10. > :04:16.coming up in Greece, which could have some very strange results, you
:04:16. > :04:23.see what has happened in Spain this morning, what we haven't reported
:04:23. > :04:27.is the Italians had to pay over 5% for three-year bonds. It looks like
:04:27. > :04:32.they are losing control. We are missing the point. The point here,
:04:32. > :04:36.there but for the grace of God go we. We, we talk about austerity and
:04:37. > :04:40.how we have it under control. Actually we are still spending more
:04:40. > :04:45.money than the previous Government and borrowing more than we said.
:04:45. > :04:51.understand that. We, at the moment, are simply going to be caught up in
:04:51. > :04:56.the backwash. We are not the story. We could be one of the victims. We
:04:56. > :05:01.could be collateral damage. Indeed, if it all goes bellyup. My concern
:05:01. > :05:05.this morning, with the events in Greece, Spain and Italy, the
:05:05. > :05:09.European elite that controls the eurozone it seems to have lost
:05:09. > :05:12.control. It's almost like they are rabbits stuck in the headlight.
:05:12. > :05:18.They need to wake up and smell the coffee. If you see what the
:05:18. > :05:22.Americans did with Tarp, some similar scheme needs to be put in
:05:22. > :05:26.place in Europe. It will come more quickly than we realise. That would
:05:26. > :05:33.require a banking union. Yes. the eurozone to agree and a new
:05:33. > :05:37.treaty. In the meantime, Spain burns. That will make them get off
:05:37. > :05:46.their backsides a lot more quickly. May be they will be burnt by the
:05:46. > :05:48.time we get there. What a horrible thought. Well, Mr Cameron is still
:05:48. > :05:51.giving evidence at the Leveson Inquiry this morning. The Prime
:05:51. > :05:54.Minister described the inquiry as a cathartic opportunity to sort out
:05:54. > :05:57.the relationship between the press, politicians and the police. At the
:05:57. > :05:59.beginning of the morning, Mr Cameron began by explaining why he
:05:59. > :06:06.believed politicians haven't been successful in sorting out the
:06:06. > :06:12.problems before. Because the relationship has been too close, as
:06:12. > :06:17.I put it, the politicians and the press haven't spent enough time
:06:17. > :06:22.discussing and sorting out the regulatory system under which the
:06:22. > :06:26.press exist. We need to fix that and I thought Ed Miliband put this
:06:26. > :06:31.quite well. He identified another risk, which is it's quite difficult
:06:31. > :06:36.for the politician to sort out on their own the regulatory situation
:06:36. > :06:41.the press face, because we are clearly - we are an interested
:06:41. > :06:47.party. If we just steamed ahead and said, "We'll regulate in this or
:06:47. > :06:50.that way." Then the press would have an argument to say, "Hold on,
:06:50. > :06:56.you are beneficiaries and we need independence." That's part of what
:06:56. > :06:59.this investigation is about. Prime Minister then went on to
:06:59. > :07:06.address allegatons that there had been some sort of deal between the
:07:06. > :07:08.Conservatives and the press. don't accept that. On the idea of
:07:08. > :07:13.overdeals, this idea that somehow the Conservative Party and News
:07:13. > :07:17.International got together and said, "If you give us your support and
:07:17. > :07:20.we'll waive through this merger." We didn't even know about that at
:07:20. > :07:24.that stage. The idea of that is nonsense and you've heard that from
:07:24. > :07:30.lots of people in front of this inquiry. I also don't believe in
:07:30. > :07:35.this theory that there was a sort of nod and a wink and some sort of
:07:35. > :07:38.covert agreement. Of course, I wanted to win over newspapers and
:07:38. > :07:41.other journalists, editors, priorors and broadcasters. I worked
:07:41. > :07:43.hard, because I wanted to communicate what the Conservative
:07:43. > :07:53.Party and my leadership could bring to the country. I made those
:07:53. > :07:57.arguments, but I didn't do it on the basis of saying, "For all this,
:07:57. > :08:01.I'll give you a better time on this policy." There are plenty examples
:08:01. > :08:05.of policies which I believe in, that the people who are backing me,
:08:05. > :08:12.didn't believe in. However, he explained why he felt he needed to
:08:12. > :08:17.spend more time quoting certain parts of the media. I did
:08:17. > :08:24.progressively realise over 2006 and 2007, that it's very difficult in -
:08:24. > :08:29.if you are running a political part -- party and trying to create
:08:29. > :08:34.momentum, it's difficult if you don't have what I would call the
:08:34. > :08:38.different bits of the family behind you. You need the MPs and MEPs and
:08:38. > :08:44.councillors and members and you also need the parts of the of the
:08:44. > :08:49.press that should be sort of getting behind you. I had this
:08:49. > :08:54.situation where some quite conservative parts of the press, I
:08:54. > :09:01.wasn't getting much backing from them and I was struggling frankly a
:09:01. > :09:05.bit to get the message across. So, I put in a lot of work already, but
:09:05. > :09:08.maybe I'll put in some more work. He's got his work cut out. With us
:09:08. > :09:13.now is the Tory Chairman of the Culture Select Committee, John
:09:13. > :09:17.Whittingdale, and the former Labour Culture Secretary, Ben Bradshaw.
:09:17. > :09:20.There is some juicy bits to come, I suspect. His relationship with
:09:20. > :09:25.remembering brooks and so on. Have we learnt anything this morning?
:09:25. > :09:29.From what I've seen, David Cameron has given the answers very much I
:09:29. > :09:32.would have expected. There is no revelation? Is there anything today
:09:32. > :09:35.that you didn't know before? There is nothing that I was surprised to
:09:35. > :09:39.hear from him. I thought there were a couple of interesting points.
:09:39. > :09:42.Firstly, in the clip you played about the transactional
:09:42. > :09:47.relationship with the Murdochs, he took a deep intake of breath and
:09:47. > :09:51.then said there was no deal. He said in that sentence, he wasn't
:09:51. > :09:54.aware that Murdoch wanted to take full control of BSkyB, which I find
:09:54. > :09:57.surprising. This is the biggest media issue out there before the
:09:57. > :10:03.election and after. Secondly, he also said that he didn't think
:10:03. > :10:05.there was a case, as I understand, I didn't hear the exact parts, for
:10:05. > :10:09.re-examining cross-media ownership. That is a bit disappointing and a
:10:09. > :10:12.different position from the one taken by Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband.
:10:12. > :10:18.Are you surprised that the Prime Minister didn't realise that Rupert
:10:18. > :10:22.Murdoch wanted all of BSkyB? Well, I am not surprised in that the
:10:22. > :10:25.actual details of the bid he might not have been familiar with. He's
:10:25. > :10:30.saying the principal he didn't even know that Mr Murdoch wanted the 60%
:10:30. > :10:33.that he didn't have. I would - I follow the media. I would have
:10:33. > :10:36.guessed it would be something that Rupert Murdoch would like, because
:10:37. > :10:41.BSkyB generates a huge amount of money. What Ben Bradshaw is saying
:10:41. > :10:46.that the Prime Minister's claiming he didn't know that Rupert Murdoch
:10:46. > :10:52.wanted all of BSkyB. Is that credible? If it was after the bid
:10:52. > :10:58.had actual ln been announced. this was before the bid. Then I'm
:10:58. > :11:02.not surprised. No? You didn't know ironing? We all knew. No, I didn't.
:11:02. > :11:05.Because it was the biggest story around. They delayed the
:11:05. > :11:08.application until after the election. I knew it was likely they
:11:09. > :11:13.would want it, because it's a hugely successful country that
:11:13. > :11:18.generates billions of profit. The fact that the bid hadn't been there.
:11:18. > :11:23.You did know? I didn't know. I would have guessed. I didn't know.
:11:23. > :11:27.All right. In a sense, there's not a lot happening here. What we have
:11:27. > :11:32.learned is that David Cameron set out when he became leader not to
:11:32. > :11:37.woo the Murdoch press, not to do what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown
:11:37. > :11:42.had done, but by summer 2007 it was sticky and he had no friends, so he
:11:42. > :11:48.decided to woo them the way they had done. I think probably even to
:11:48. > :11:51.have more meetings. I can't remember the exact figure, 17, 11,
:11:51. > :11:53.ten and that's without the informal social gathers that the Prime
:11:54. > :12:00.Minister had to acknowledge he hadn't included all of in his
:12:01. > :12:05.evidence. He went back on what he intended to do. He said to me in
:12:05. > :12:08.2005, he wasn't going to go the route of Blair and Brown, but then
:12:08. > :12:11.he did. I think the fact that meetings took place, doesn't
:12:11. > :12:15.necessarily mean he was going cap in hand in the way that perhaps
:12:15. > :12:19.others have. However, I think it's a fact of life that any leader of a
:12:19. > :12:23.political party has to deal with the most important media
:12:23. > :12:27.organisations. Yeah. That was the biggest. Of course. In every
:12:27. > :12:29.democracy in the world political leaders deal with the media and if
:12:29. > :12:36.there are press proprietors as there are in America and in France
:12:36. > :12:41.and Germany, you deal with them. But is it necessary to be as
:12:41. > :12:44.incestious with them as ours have been? Starting with Mr Blair?
:12:44. > :12:48.think the number of meetings, the frequency of meetings came as
:12:48. > :12:51.something of a surprise to me. I think David Cameron himself has
:12:51. > :12:54.said that actually that relationships had become too close
:12:54. > :12:59.and that is one of the reasons why Lord Justice Leveson was asked to
:12:59. > :13:04.conduct the inquiry. Everybody was at it. That is the truth? Yes.
:13:05. > :13:09.Except the Lib Dems, because nobody cared. Yes. I have said before, as
:13:09. > :13:13.Jeremy Hunt's predecessor what changed massively was that media
:13:13. > :13:18.policy was subcontracted to the Murdochs, not just on this bid, but
:13:18. > :13:21.free-to-air and cricket on TV and regional TV news. Every single
:13:21. > :13:27.issues that James Murdoch attacked me for doing, the Tories reversed
:13:27. > :13:33.when he were in Government. were the political arm of the
:13:33. > :13:38.Murdoch media? Me? The Conservative Party. I'm not saying that. It's
:13:38. > :13:42.the accusation that Mr Bradshaw is making. It's nonsense. It's the
:13:42. > :13:46.case that generally the outlook of the Murdoch organisation, which was
:13:46. > :13:49.promarket, it was deregulatory, was very similar to that of the
:13:49. > :13:53.Conservative Party, so it wasn't that surprising that when we
:13:53. > :13:58.adopted policies, which were much more promarket and deregulatory,
:13:58. > :14:03.that those would be supported by the Murdoch organisation. As I said
:14:03. > :14:09.before, but because you were in short trousers you denied knowledge,
:14:09. > :14:12.the 2003 Labour communication act was the most deregulatory act in
:14:12. > :14:17.modern British telecoms history and passed under your government.
:14:17. > :14:21.you asked me, I've looked in it and it was a mistake. I welcome the
:14:21. > :14:24.fact that Ed Miliband is talking about the need for tighter rules on
:14:24. > :14:28.cross-media ownership and the amount of the media that one single
:14:28. > :14:34.person it allowed to own. If you take the position that the
:14:34. > :14:38.Conservatives were overfriendly, oversupportive of some Murdoch
:14:38. > :14:43.media positions, that criticism would absolutely be true as well of
:14:43. > :14:47.the Blair government around the year 2000? Wouldn't that be fair?
:14:47. > :14:50.Except, that the takeover of BSkyB, if it had happened, was in a
:14:50. > :14:55.completely different order. Every other media organisation opposed it,
:14:55. > :14:58.because they thought and they worried it would mean total
:14:58. > :15:02.dominance and the ability to cross- subsidise and the multimedia
:15:02. > :15:08.platforms. I understand that. only reason it didn't go through
:15:08. > :15:11.was because of Milly Dowler. agree with all of that. Why was it
:15:11. > :15:21.possible for Rupert Murdoch to mount a bid for all of BSkyB in the
:15:21. > :15:23.
:15:23. > :15:27.That was possible because of the act that I think was a mistake.
:15:27. > :15:30.2003 Labour act? We would have preferred that bid to the
:15:30. > :15:35.Competition Commission, as would Vince Cable have done -- we would
:15:35. > :15:40.have referred. The policy changed when Jeremy Hunt took over. Follow
:15:40. > :15:44.the policy. If you want to see what has happened, follow the policy.
:15:44. > :15:49.understand there is some text coming out with the Prime Minister
:15:49. > :15:53.and Rebekah Brooks, former chief executive, have you got it there?
:15:53. > :15:56.This is about the relationship and how close they came, we already
:15:56. > :15:59.heard from the Prime Minister about admitting you could still have
:15:59. > :16:05.friends in organisations and be able to keep enough distance to
:16:05. > :16:13.make decisions impartially. This is where they started to see more of
:16:13. > :16:21.each other because the Brooks family moved nearby. She has moved
:16:21. > :16:24.into Charlie Brooks' s house, it is near where we live, there is talks
:16:24. > :16:29.about country suppers where they discussed, yes, but seriously, this
:16:29. > :16:34.is a text. I understand the issue with the Times, let's discuss over
:16:34. > :16:39.country supper soon. On the party, it was because I had asked a number
:16:39. > :16:45.of people to post the endorsement. Sam was wonderful... It is all too
:16:45. > :16:48.cosy, isn't it? Cosy country suppers. The fact that the Prime
:16:48. > :16:52.Minister is friends with a leading executive from News International
:16:52. > :16:55.is not a matter of shame in his cell. The fact that he has country
:16:55. > :16:59.suppers seems perfectly understandable. When this media
:16:59. > :17:04.organisation is lobbying like mad to get permission for the biggest
:17:04. > :17:09.media takeover in British history? That is a separate matter which was
:17:09. > :17:13.clearly not something he suggested discussing over a country supper.
:17:14. > :17:17.We know it was discussed over a country Christmas supper. We know
:17:17. > :17:20.that the subject was raised. David Cameron was clear that it was a
:17:20. > :17:24.matter which was quasi judicial in the hands of the Business Secretary
:17:25. > :17:29.and was out of his control. The fact that David Cameron was friends
:17:29. > :17:37.with Rebekah Brooks, as was Gordon Brown for a time, as was Tony Blair,
:17:37. > :17:41.is not in itself something which would immediately -- which we
:17:41. > :17:45.should immediately criticised them for. Is it appropriate for that
:17:45. > :17:50.level of access? Robert Jay has read out a text message from
:17:51. > :17:55.Rebekah Brooks, 2009, pre- election, I am so rooting for you tomorrow,
:17:55. > :17:58.not just as a personal friend but because professionally, we are both
:17:58. > :18:03.in this together. It does give a sense that they were working on the
:18:03. > :18:05.same side with the same aims. fact that Rebekah Brooks and a
:18:05. > :18:10.newspapers were backing the Conservative Party in the last
:18:10. > :18:15.election is on the record. issue is that the media group
:18:15. > :18:21.backing the party is one thing, but a media group backing your party,
:18:21. > :18:26.and once a major business favour, is something entirely different. --
:18:26. > :18:32.and wants. Any sensible politician would surely keep their distance.
:18:32. > :18:39.It only becomes wrong if the two island. The policy changed.
:18:39. > :18:41.policy did not change. -- becomes wrong if the two are linked.
:18:41. > :18:46.recommendation was to refer the bid to the Competition Commission, he
:18:46. > :18:50.did not do it. Jeremy Hunt bent over backwards to do James
:18:50. > :18:56.Murdoch's bidding in not referring it. It would have delayed the bid
:18:56. > :18:59.by a year and cost News Corp millions. Jeremy Hunt did that.
:18:59. > :19:03.Jeremy Hunt was required by the law when he received that
:19:03. > :19:09.recommendation, to have a period which alternative suggestions could
:19:09. > :19:14.be made. During which a special adviser provided a back channel.
:19:14. > :19:20.followed the code to the letter. David Cameron: I think it means we
:19:20. > :19:24.were friends, we were going to be pushing the same political agenda.
:19:24. > :19:27.I suspect most of our viewers watching think that both of their
:19:27. > :19:32.parties got far too close to the Murdoch organisation? I think most
:19:32. > :19:37.of the viewers thought that anyway. They may not have known the extent.
:19:37. > :19:42.They may not. I am not sure we needed such a massive inquiry at
:19:42. > :19:45.such a massive public expense, in order to get to the extent of it. I
:19:46. > :19:49.have no idea why the Leveson inquiry was set up. I have long
:19:49. > :19:56.since forgotten. All I believe now is that he must have set it up as
:19:56. > :20:01.some kind of distracting activity. That didn't work, did it? That is a
:20:01. > :20:05.great political judgment! Some sort of cabaret to fill up newspaper
:20:05. > :20:08.columns and time, in order to get away from the real problem, that we
:20:08. > :20:12.in business believe that the government is not pursuing an
:20:12. > :20:17.agenda for growth. That is what I want to see. Frankly, if I wanted
:20:17. > :20:27.this kind of distracting activity, I would load fridge manger on to my
:20:27. > :20:34.
:20:34. > :20:38.I remind you that Spanish bond yields hit 7%. Thank you.
:20:38. > :20:42.We are going to do more of this! Things got heated in the Commons in
:20:42. > :20:45.the debate over Jeremy Hunt's handling of the BSkyB. Mr Hunt
:20:45. > :20:50.survive the ordeal but it was all hands on deck for the Conservative
:20:50. > :21:00.Party, he even called back one MP from his honeymoon to ensure they
:21:00. > :21:01.
:21:01. > :21:06.Either he didn't know what he was doing when his special adviser was
:21:06. > :21:10.overstepping the mark, and that was a breach of the code, or as people
:21:10. > :21:14.think more likely, he did know what he was doing when Adam Smith was
:21:14. > :21:19.overstepping the mark, and that, too, would have been a breach of
:21:19. > :21:24.the code. Whichever way you look at it, there has been a clear breach
:21:24. > :21:29.of the ministerial code. First of all, the disgraceful allegation
:21:29. > :21:33.that I deliberately misled Parliament. In response to a
:21:33. > :21:40.question... Well, do you want to hear what I'm going to say about it,
:21:40. > :21:47.because you call to the debate. If you want to hear the facts... In
:21:47. > :21:51.response to a question on 3rd March 2011, I stated that I had published
:21:51. > :21:55.correspondence between myself and News Corp. In answer to those
:21:55. > :21:57.questions, I referred back to that statement. If there was any
:21:57. > :22:02.misunderstanding about the extent to which I was publishing
:22:02. > :22:05.correspondents, it was addressed as long ago as last September. What
:22:05. > :22:09.the minister just referred to was his reply on 7th September when he
:22:10. > :22:14.said it was for reasons for cost he was not able to provide anything
:22:14. > :22:17.more. How much would it have cost him to remember he had sent a memo
:22:17. > :22:21.to the Prime Minister on the matter, or to have checked his own mobile
:22:21. > :22:31.phone for the text messages he sent to James Murdoch. He has lied to
:22:31. > :22:33.
:22:33. > :22:37.I am not sure if everyone correctly heard the allegation that was made
:22:37. > :22:41.by the honourable member. As I understood it, he accused Mike
:22:41. > :22:47.right honourable friend of lying to Parliament. My understanding was
:22:47. > :22:55.that that was unparliamentary language which should be withdrawn.
:22:55. > :23:00.What I say to the... Members can shout as loudly or as long as they
:23:00. > :23:05.like, and it doesn't make any sense, it won't make any difference. I am
:23:05. > :23:10.simply saying that on advice that I have taken, nothing disorderly has
:23:10. > :23:14.occurred. It may be orderly to accuse my right honourable friend
:23:14. > :23:20.of being a liar, would it be orderly to accuse the front bench
:23:20. > :23:25.opposite of being the most sanctimonious, hypocritical humbug
:23:25. > :23:28.sin recent political memory. their credit, the Liberal Democrats
:23:28. > :23:33.have decided they cannot go along with the Prime Minister's cynical
:23:33. > :23:36.charade, good for them. But Mr Speaker, I struggled to see why
:23:36. > :23:41.they should not join us in the lobby for the vote tonight. They
:23:41. > :23:45.should be in the lobby with us, upholding the integrity of the
:23:45. > :23:49.ministerial code. The house is well aware that this is not a decision
:23:49. > :23:57.for the house. It is a decision for the Prime Minister. He has made
:23:57. > :24:06.that decision. This is, therefore, a political ruse by the Labour
:24:06. > :24:09.Party, whose behaviour on these issues is frankly appalling.
:24:10. > :24:13.Well, as you may have realised, the Lib Dems did not back Labour's call
:24:13. > :24:17.for an inquiry into Jeremy Hunt's behaviour, they abstained. The
:24:17. > :24:20.government still had enough to win the vote with a majority of 38. We
:24:21. > :24:24.are joined by one of the MPs you saw in the film, the Liberal
:24:24. > :24:30.Democrat Don Foster, who speaks for the party on matters cultural.
:24:30. > :24:33.Let's read -- beat about the thing which led to uproar in the House,
:24:33. > :24:38.Labour's Chris Bryant accusing Jeremy Hunt of lying -- speak about.
:24:38. > :24:41.Was it fair that it was allowed by Speaker Bercow? My view is not, I
:24:41. > :24:44.think it brings the house into disrepute to have that sort of
:24:44. > :24:48.language. I understand why the Speaker said what he said, he said
:24:48. > :24:52.he had had some advice that it was going to be OK in those particular
:24:52. > :24:56.circumstances. I don't want it to happen. It is almost irrelevant.
:24:56. > :25:00.The substance of the debate was a situation where Liberal Democrats
:25:00. > :25:06.were very clear we were not going to support the Prime Minister's
:25:06. > :25:11.decision not to refer Jeremy Hunt to the independent adviser. We
:25:11. > :25:15.believe, and questions remain to be answered, that the public want
:25:15. > :25:19.answers to. You have already made clear that you're happy with the
:25:19. > :25:22.way Jeremy Hunt dealt with the bid. Absolutely right. Is it that you
:25:22. > :25:26.are unhappy with the way he handled, or perhaps should have taken more
:25:26. > :25:29.responsibility for the behaviour of his special adviser? Or is it the
:25:29. > :25:32.accusation that he misled Parliament? I think all of the
:25:32. > :25:36.questions that were being raised from the Labour benches were
:25:36. > :25:41.legitimate questions to raise, and they are the ones that I think we,
:25:41. > :25:45.and the public, one to have wants us to. But not just because the
:25:45. > :25:49.Prime Minister says I am satisfied, the public wants to have the
:25:49. > :25:54.independent adviser look at the issue so it can have confidence in
:25:54. > :25:59.the outcome. How angry are your colleagues with first novel, the
:25:59. > :26:02.Liberal Democrats and Speaker Bercow? -- first of all. We are a
:26:02. > :26:05.bit disappointed in the Liberal Democrats. I think Jeremy Hunt give
:26:05. > :26:09.a good account and answered the questions. We expect in a coalition
:26:09. > :26:13.that all members should reach a collective view and support it.
:26:13. > :26:18.This was not an issue of collective responsibility. The Prime Minister
:26:18. > :26:22.did not even consult the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, before
:26:22. > :26:26.he made his announcement. So it wasn't collective... This is not a
:26:26. > :26:29.collective decision-making so there is no collective responsibility.
:26:29. > :26:33.terms of the substance, that is not really what Liberal Democrats were
:26:33. > :26:37.unhappy with. What they are unhappy about is that David Cameron did not
:26:37. > :26:41.consult the Liberal Democrats in terms of the decision? Nick Clegg
:26:41. > :26:44.made absolutely clear a long time ago that if questions remained
:26:44. > :26:48.following Jeremy Hunt's appearance at Leveson, those question should
:26:48. > :26:52.be fully addressed. And if they were about the ministerial code,
:26:52. > :26:55.that should have been done by the independent adviser. That is what
:26:55. > :26:59.the Prime Minister decided not to do. Nick Clegg was clear he doesn't
:26:59. > :27:03.endorse that decision as Prime Minister. You got what you deserve?
:27:03. > :27:07.In my view in a coalition, if the Prime Minister reaches a decision,
:27:07. > :27:11.we expect the supporters of the government to back that decision. I
:27:11. > :27:16.do think that there is some disappointment and some anger. And
:27:16. > :27:19.it may have reverberations for some of the folks to come. There is a
:27:20. > :27:23.lot of unhappiness about Lords reform and it may be that my
:27:23. > :27:28.colleagues think, perhaps they may feel it is something they don't
:27:28. > :27:35.have the same compulsion to vote for. Have you spoken to those who
:27:35. > :27:39.have expressed that view? We have. House of Lords reform was in the
:27:39. > :27:42.Conservative manifesto and Liberal Democrat manifesto. It is part of
:27:42. > :27:46.the agreement that we address this issue and is totally separate from
:27:46. > :27:49.an issue that was a decision made entirely by the Prime Minister, not
:27:49. > :27:53.even with consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister. You have now
:27:53. > :27:58.been warned, are you worried about the repercussions that may now make
:27:58. > :28:02.policy decisions difficult? Frankly, I am not. Because when the
:28:02. > :28:05.Conservative Party members sit down and reflect on this, they will
:28:05. > :28:09.realise that two opposing political parties came together in a
:28:09. > :28:12.coalition to sort out the economic mess. We didn't say we were going
:28:12. > :28:16.to love each other through the process but we will get on and work
:28:16. > :28:19.together to deal with the issues that we agreed to deal with. This
:28:19. > :28:23.isn't making coalition politics looking good, if we now have
:28:23. > :28:26.threats from Tory MPs, saying that we may not back you over policies
:28:26. > :28:31.that were agreed in the manifesto? It has always been the case that
:28:31. > :28:36.there are issues which still divide us. We worked together on the big
:28:36. > :28:41.issues but there will always be occasions where there will put
:28:41. > :28:46.people on one side of the fence or the other who are unhappy with the
:28:46. > :28:50.decision reached. Can I ask you about one issue of substance?
:28:50. > :28:54.Jeremy Hunt saying I have publish all the documents. What do you take
:28:54. > :28:58.that to mean? I think what he made clear was that he published all the
:28:58. > :29:02.documents which he felt were relevant at the time. That isn't
:29:02. > :29:06.what he said. And which he was aware of. Part of the problem was
:29:06. > :29:09.the extent of the Communication taking place between the special
:29:09. > :29:14.adviser and News Corp was not something he was aware of, and it
:29:14. > :29:19.became apparent later. He did in the memo of his own expressing
:29:19. > :29:24.concern about Vince Cable's handling of the BSkyB bid. That was
:29:24. > :29:28.before he was given responsibility. He was specifically asked a
:29:28. > :29:33.question about that in the House of Commons. He denied he had made
:29:33. > :29:37.representations when Vince Cable had responsibility. We know that is
:29:37. > :29:43.not true because he had written a strongly worded memo to the Prime
:29:43. > :29:49.Minister. The second issue was the one you drew attention to, that he
:29:49. > :29:52.claimed he had published the communications. He admitted he may
:29:52. > :29:56.have inadvertently misled Parliament on those counts. If that
:29:56. > :30:00.is the case, you have be come back and apologised and acknowledge it,
:30:00. > :30:04.as soon as you realise, and he didn't.
:30:04. > :30:08.We are about to move on to some other issues. We welcome the was
:30:08. > :30:12.from Scotland, who have been watching First Minister's Questions
:30:12. > :30:17.live from Holy Rood. You're now with The Daily Politics in London.
:30:17. > :30:22.We get more details of Rebekah Brooks's text messages to David
:30:22. > :30:27.Cameron, before his conference breach in 2009. I am so rooting for
:30:27. > :30:30.you tomorrow -- conference speech. Not just as proud friend but
:30:30. > :30:37.because professionally, we are definitely in this together. Speech
:30:37. > :30:40.of your life, yes he can. She was chief executive of News
:30:40. > :30:43.International at the time. I don't think we will be hearing we are all
:30:43. > :30:46.in this together again from the Prime Minister very soon. Is Big
:30:46. > :30:49.Brother watching you? How would you feel about the police and
:30:49. > :30:56.intelligence services having access to the details of your internet
:30:56. > :30:59.use? For the record, I thank the Cat Protection League website very
:30:59. > :31:09.informative indeed -- I find. There are proposals which the government
:31:09. > :31:09.
:31:09. > :31:14.says they will help in the fight Local authorities wouldn't have the
:31:14. > :31:17.new powers. The police could track e-mails, websites and mobiles.
:31:17. > :31:21.They'll be able to reveal such details as the time of
:31:21. > :31:25.communications, sender, recipient and location. Basically, the when,
:31:25. > :31:33.who and where of their enquiries. It will remain the case they will
:31:33. > :31:36.not be allowed to access the content of e-mails, texts and
:31:36. > :31:40.mobiles without a warrant from the Home Secretary. This is all about
:31:40. > :31:44.making sure that the police and security services can continue to
:31:44. > :31:49.catch criminals and stop terrorists. At the moment, what they are able
:31:49. > :31:53.to do is get access to what is called communications data, and
:31:53. > :31:58.that's The Who, when and where of telephone calls. They have access
:31:58. > :32:01.to that. The police have used it in 95% of serious organised crime
:32:02. > :32:04.investigations and security services have used it in every
:32:04. > :32:09.counter-terrorism investigation and this is used by the police as
:32:10. > :32:13.evidence to prosecute criminals and put them behind bars. In the new
:32:14. > :32:18.world, people communicate differently. They are no longer
:32:18. > :32:22.using mobiles, but the internet, so we want to update the ability of
:32:22. > :32:26.the services to have access to the data. It's not about the content or
:32:26. > :32:30.reading people's e-mails or listening to their calls. This is
:32:30. > :32:34.purely about the communications, which is the information about who,
:32:34. > :32:37.when and where made the communications and as I say, it's
:32:37. > :32:42.about ensuring we can catch criminals and stop terrorists.
:32:42. > :32:44.was the Home Secretary. We are joined by one of her many ministers,
:32:44. > :32:49.James Brokenshire and the Conservative MP, David Davis, who
:32:49. > :32:54.is not one of her ministers. Welcome to both you. The Home
:32:54. > :32:58.Secretary says she needs this to fight crime. She is wrong. Look, if
:32:58. > :33:01.you are a burglar and you are captured and convicted on the basis
:33:01. > :33:06.of evidence found in his house of stolen materials, that happens
:33:06. > :33:10.quite a lot, it doesn't mean the next door neighbour should have his
:33:10. > :33:16.house searched without a warrant, which is the logic of this. There
:33:16. > :33:20.are of course, important times when the State needs access to where you
:33:20. > :33:23.are, what your e-mails are to and from, but it's really important
:33:23. > :33:27.they should get a judge to issue the warrant, as he would to search
:33:28. > :33:31.a house. Why don't you? Well, to take David's point on, this is
:33:31. > :33:35.actually about nuts and bolts policing, on the ensuring that the
:33:35. > :33:41.police are able to know who is communicating with whom. As they do
:33:41. > :33:46.at the moment, that's with mobiles and fixed lines and also on some of
:33:46. > :33:49.the internet traffic. That is not with warrants at the moment. If you
:33:49. > :33:53.are seeking to gain the information on what you are saying yes, that is
:33:53. > :33:56.warranted, but there is oversight with the interception of
:33:56. > :34:01.communications and ensuring that any decisions are made, they are
:34:01. > :34:06.made at a level to give that. you were to tap my phone, do you
:34:06. > :34:09.need a warrant? If it's a wire, listening, yes, it is, because of
:34:09. > :34:13.the intrusive nature. If you want to know where I'm going on the
:34:13. > :34:18.internet, shouldn't you need a warrant? It's a different level of
:34:18. > :34:21.intrusion and therefore it is a separate system that we have for
:34:21. > :34:26.this, with a senior officer making that decision and it has to be
:34:26. > :34:30.based on the fact that it's an investigation of crime, it to be
:34:30. > :34:33.for the protection of life and that system itself is overseen by a
:34:33. > :34:39.Commissioner, so it's not that there aren't safeguards, there are.
:34:39. > :34:42.It's a different type of system. You have one police officer giving
:34:42. > :34:45.permission to another police officer and that's not satisfying.
:34:45. > :34:50.How many commissioners are there? One of the things that we are
:34:50. > :34:56.looking at, as part of the Bill, is the strength of that. The point of
:34:56. > :35:02.this question is this - if 2010, the last year for which there were
:35:02. > :35:04.numbers, there were 5 50,000 accesss. That's a lot of feed files
:35:04. > :35:08.and gangsters, but also it's almost impossible to oversee something
:35:08. > :35:14.like that and it's so big, because there isn't a restraint, there
:35:14. > :35:20.isn't a judge saying, "I'm sorry, no that's too far. It's not
:35:20. > :35:25.relevant." But the point that David makes and the number was 550,000
:35:25. > :35:30.last year, but that isn't individuals. If you look at an
:35:30. > :35:33.inquiry it may generate 1,000 requests. There are 18 million
:35:33. > :35:38.individual phone subscriptions and around 129 billion texts each year,
:35:38. > :35:41.so what we are saying is as we live our lives online increasingly, so
:35:42. > :35:48.do the criminals and therefore Aztec knollgy changes we need to
:35:48. > :35:54.reflect that in the tools available to the police to be able to police.
:35:54. > :35:59.The FBI in a country six times as big of us have 14,000 equivalent
:35:59. > :36:03.applications in the same year. That is how much we overuse this already.
:36:03. > :36:06.Secondly, other countries, Germany, the Czech Republic, they tried to
:36:06. > :36:09.introduce even the old system, before e-mails and it was struck
:36:09. > :36:15.down by their courts, because it was such an intrusion on privacy.
:36:15. > :36:21.Where you are, who you are calling, and in fact to a very large extent
:36:21. > :36:26.where you are all day is given. It's excessive. It shouldn't be
:36:26. > :36:29.that the State should interfere and intrude., as was said by David
:36:29. > :36:32.Cameron and the Shadow Home Secretary and the Shadow Attorney
:36:32. > :36:40.General when this was Government policy under Labour and we were the
:36:40. > :36:48.opposition. Firstly, what guarantee do I have that you are not reading
:36:48. > :36:51.my e-mail? Well, a number of things. The law itself provides that under
:36:51. > :36:54.our draft bill that nothing constitutes that interception. That
:36:54. > :36:58.would be an offence and nothing we are doing in the proposals
:36:58. > :37:02.published today do that. But the government can break the law. So
:37:02. > :37:06.what is the guarantee? If you have access to my e-mails, so that you
:37:06. > :37:11.know where I'm sending and to whom I'm sending, how can I be sure you
:37:11. > :37:14.are not reading it as well? Well, let me just clarify on the fact
:37:14. > :37:18.that it isn't Government that would be holding that information. It
:37:18. > :37:24.would be the individual phone and communications providers. Therefore,
:37:24. > :37:27.there are safeguards in place around that, that the data is
:37:27. > :37:31.protected under, to ensure that's held securely and separately
:37:31. > :37:37.requests have to comply and be based on the fact it's solving
:37:37. > :37:42.crime and protecting life. Let me get this right, my safeguard is
:37:42. > :37:45.Google? No, it's not. You just said it was. That's right. The safeguard
:37:45. > :37:51.is the law that is there, and the commissioners that operate around
:37:51. > :37:54.this and the fact that they will be doing further audits and
:37:54. > :37:59.examinations of that work. Ultimately if you break the law,
:37:59. > :38:07.it's criminal. To misuse that information. You can send someone
:38:07. > :38:11.to prison. Secondly, could I now give you a list of browsers on the
:38:11. > :38:14.internet which I'm sure most criminals will get to, which will
:38:14. > :38:21.scramble my I SP address and make it impossible for you to find out
:38:21. > :38:26.who I am and who I'm sending it to or should I give you a range of
:38:26. > :38:30.apps called VPNs, which you can't break? Actually, Andrew, you make
:38:30. > :38:37.the case very clearly as to why the Government needs to change. All the
:38:37. > :38:41.bad guys will use this. The point is that 95% of the organised crime
:38:41. > :38:47.cases have a communications data element there. That capacity is
:38:47. > :38:53.there. Let's pick one, 7/7, and we are talking about terrorism. They
:38:53. > :38:57.used phones. Of course, we can track down where they were, but
:38:57. > :39:03.they were pre-paid and cash bought. The ones that drug dealers use.
:39:03. > :39:08.can do the same with e-mails. You hack somebody's WiFi or go to a
:39:08. > :39:13.cafe and use a created e-mail identity. No contact. The ways
:39:13. > :39:19.around this are Legion. The people who will be caught by this are the
:39:19. > :39:27.incompetent and innocent. I'll give you the final word, and what do you
:39:27. > :39:32.make of this? It's like looking at Jeremy mustn't on the previous clip.
:39:32. > :39:35.That bad? I think it's the greatest privilege. I grew up believing it
:39:35. > :39:37.was the greatest privilege to represent their country in
:39:37. > :39:42.Parliament and their constituents in Parliament and I look at things
:39:42. > :39:46.like that and I think, they live in a parallel universe. I'm out there
:39:46. > :39:50.sweating to pieces, paying 50% tax and creating jobs, which is more
:39:50. > :39:55.than anybody in the chamber has done and most of them haven't had a
:39:55. > :40:01.commercial job to be honest, including the Prime Minister.
:40:01. > :40:04.that bit, but I'm at a loss as to what this has to do with e-mails.
:40:04. > :40:09.You've lost me. Straight to the Prime Minister on e-mails. I bet
:40:09. > :40:14.you he changes his mind about this kind of thing when he reads acres
:40:15. > :40:20.of print about his texts with Rebekah Brooks. It's possible.
:40:20. > :40:25.are they there. He may say, of course, "If all mine have been out
:40:25. > :40:30.there, so can injures." Do we not have better things to do with our
:40:30. > :40:33.time in all seriousness? The Leveson and this thing, we need to
:40:33. > :40:37.pursue an agenda for jobs and growth and none of that seems to me
:40:38. > :40:42.to be happening. The final word to you. I appreciate it. If you
:40:42. > :40:47.promise not to read my e-mails. are not reading those. Ultimately.
:40:47. > :40:52.Do you promise? I do personally, I won't be reading your e-mails.
:40:53. > :40:57.You've been privatised into somebody else? I'm only teasing you.
:40:57. > :41:01.Make the final point. This does matter and I absolutely hear the
:41:01. > :41:04.points about liberty and freedom, that's why many draft that we
:41:04. > :41:07.published today has significant safeguards in it, but ultimately,
:41:07. > :41:11.doing nothing is not an option, because the ability for the police
:41:11. > :41:16.to do the ordinary stuff about bringing bad guys to justice will
:41:16. > :41:25.be eroded unless we take action. Where are we in the process on
:41:25. > :41:28.this? A long way to go? Briefly. Draft published today. Oversight by
:41:28. > :41:32.a joint committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
:41:32. > :41:42.That is expected to report back at the end of the year. Are the
:41:42. > :41:45.
:41:45. > :41:47.Scottish viewers covered by this? It's a UK-wide. It's a UK-wide
:41:47. > :41:53.publication. Thank you very much. How to solve youth unemployment.
:41:53. > :41:58.It's something the Government's keen to tackle. A report from the
:41:58. > :42:02.CBI shows that many firms think school and colleague leavers lack
:42:02. > :42:12.the skills. Our guest runs a scheme and we have been to see it in
:42:12. > :42:15.
:42:15. > :42:21.action. A college, some students and a direct link to business.
:42:22. > :42:25.Heather. This course at Oldham College is one of 130 so-called
:42:25. > :42:31.career academies around the country to teach people the skills they
:42:31. > :42:36.need. You did something really well there, which is that you shook my
:42:36. > :42:40.hand properly. Everybody looked me in the eye. Each student gets to to
:42:40. > :42:43.an internship with a local business and some will get jobs out of it.
:42:43. > :42:48.For 19-year-old Lynne it's opened the door to higher education,
:42:48. > :42:52.something no-one in her family's ever done. If I went to this class
:42:52. > :42:57.I didn't think I would go to university. I thought to finish the
:42:57. > :43:01.course and do something extra or get a job, but I thought why not?
:43:01. > :43:06.You go to university and get the experience and now I have the work
:43:06. > :43:14.experience, so there's no way that when I get out of uniy I go and get
:43:14. > :43:16.a job, because I will have the experience. This is one of the
:43:17. > :43:21.hardest-hit areas. Oldham has some of the highest numbers across the
:43:21. > :43:27.country of young people claiming jobseeker's allowance. Outside this
:43:27. > :43:31.job centre, I meet one young bricklayer who has been out of work.
:43:31. > :43:35.I'm not looking for work as much, because I see it as a waste of time,
:43:35. > :43:39.but the work is through agencies, where they could phone you one day
:43:39. > :43:44.and then you are not in for four. It's nothing proper. It's not
:43:44. > :43:47.strong how it used to be. They can get rid of you. More than 2.5
:43:47. > :43:51.million people are out of work in the first three months of this year.
:43:51. > :43:57.Just over one million were young people. The north-west was the
:43:57. > :44:03.region with the highest percentage of 16 to 24-year-olds out of work.
:44:03. > :44:10.But this Oldham factory has 15 vabg siz it can't fill. -- vacancies it
:44:10. > :44:15.can't fill. She puts in a number of different notes. It takes it into
:44:15. > :44:18.the machine. The finance director, who is mentoring this student, set
:44:18. > :44:22.the Government -- said the Government has to work with
:44:22. > :44:26.businesses. It's important to talk to the employers and understanding
:44:26. > :44:30.the employers' needs and making sure that the colleges and
:44:30. > :44:36.universities deliver what the employers really want. Would that
:44:36. > :44:41.do enough to get young people into jobs? The minister for employment,
:44:41. > :44:44.Chris Grayling is with us now. Governments have tried many things
:44:44. > :44:47.to deal with unemployment and particularly youth unemployment.
:44:47. > :44:57.Why will the Government's latest scheme work better than the others
:44:57. > :44:58.
:44:58. > :45:02.Two parts, the first is through the work programme. We have stepped
:45:02. > :45:07.back and created a black box approach. We are saying to the
:45:07. > :45:10.organisations involved, you do what works, we won't seek to set
:45:10. > :45:14.parameters but will only pay you when you are successful. The aim is
:45:14. > :45:19.to allow the most successful approaches to flourish. Alongside
:45:19. > :45:22.that what we are trying to do, and what the project we have seen it
:45:22. > :45:26.does so well, is we are trying to get people into the workplace
:45:26. > :45:29.through our work experience scheme and the support we are providing
:45:29. > :45:31.with these contracts. Very often a person coming out of university
:45:32. > :45:35.without previous experience is up against someone five or six years
:45:35. > :45:38.older, has come from another country, maybe more experienced and
:45:38. > :45:42.more qualified and the employer is tempted to go for the more
:45:42. > :45:45.experienced person. If we can get them into the workplace, the
:45:45. > :45:52.employer starts to build a workplace and says, they are pretty
:45:52. > :45:57.good, I will keep them. -- starts to build eight impression.
:45:57. > :45:59.problem might be that the majority of the jobs were created in the
:45:59. > :46:06.public sector. The jobs that are being created under new government
:46:06. > :46:09.schemes, are the permanent jobs? Are they full-time jobs? We are not
:46:09. > :46:14.trying to create artificial jobs. What is the evidence that it will
:46:14. > :46:18.work? My goal, if you look at a young person coming out of school,
:46:18. > :46:21.college or university, are we better off putting them in a six-
:46:21. > :46:25.month placement which has nothing beyond that, in a part of the
:46:25. > :46:29.economy where there isn't going to be a lot of growth in the future,
:46:29. > :46:32.all the better trying to get them into a private sector employer,
:46:32. > :46:37.with an apprenticeship, in the hope it builds a career for them. What
:46:37. > :46:40.is your view on that? I applaud the idea that people should have an
:46:40. > :46:47.opportunity to go into the workplace and the career academy
:46:47. > :46:52.scheme, which I chair in the UK, that is what we set out to do.
:46:52. > :46:55.People come into our scheme and we help them by giving them a mentor
:46:55. > :47:00.and a six week paid employment opportunity. That is the important
:47:00. > :47:03.bit, it is paid. The fact that it is paid is very important. The
:47:03. > :47:08.people on the whole are in parts of the country where it is very
:47:08. > :47:11.difficult. More importantly, it is being there, on their CV, when they
:47:11. > :47:15.leave school or university, they have already been in the workplace.
:47:15. > :47:20.We find that people become more employable and raise their
:47:20. > :47:24.aspirations. Do they get jobs? do. We have put 4,000 people
:47:24. > :47:28.through the skin, they -- we have spent something like �8 million
:47:28. > :47:33.with almost no government help whatsoever. -- through the scheme.
:47:33. > :47:37.We have done all this, I have never been invited into the DWP to talk
:47:37. > :47:41.about the scheme. Very kindly the minister said before we came on air
:47:41. > :47:45.that he would come and visit us, and this -- we are delighted.
:47:45. > :47:50.this is working, surely this is the model you should be looking at,
:47:50. > :47:58.even if you want to say you want to step back. With all due respect, it
:47:58. > :48:02.Stop we pay for success but we don't so, you must do it this way.
:48:02. > :48:08.If an organisation has a good way of supporting people back to work,
:48:08. > :48:11.the door is open to help young people get back into the workplace.
:48:11. > :48:15.Why is unemployment so high for young people? One of the things
:48:15. > :48:19.that tends not to be spotted is that if you cut the number of
:48:19. > :48:24.people want Jobseeker's Allowance and benefits overall, it has fallen
:48:24. > :48:28.over the last two years. Claimant count figures, the reforms are
:48:28. > :48:32.moving from one benefit to the other. You would think there are
:48:32. > :48:35.jobs hanging on trees by the way you are talking. Why isn't
:48:35. > :48:38.unemployment coming down specifically in large numbers?
:48:38. > :48:45.are going through a difficult economic time. So there are no jobs,
:48:45. > :48:51.that is not what -- that is what I It is not true that there are no
:48:51. > :48:56.jobs. In Oldham, they could not fill 15 jobs. That is the other
:48:56. > :49:00.side, there are jobs. Young people are not qualified properly. Yes.
:49:01. > :49:04.Graduates are unemployed in large numbers as well, who you might say
:49:04. > :49:08.are qualified educationally. They have not had enough work place
:49:08. > :49:14.experience. In a different scheme were I take ethnic-minority
:49:14. > :49:18.graduates straight into university, we have to equip them with
:49:18. > :49:21.workplace skills. That is crucial for the bit you talk to employers,
:49:21. > :49:25.it is often not about, do I have somebody who knows how to operate
:49:25. > :49:28.the machinery or the software, it is actually somebody who is not yet
:49:28. > :49:32.fully geared up or experienced in the workplace. That is what
:49:32. > :49:36.employers are looking for. If you can get them into the workplace,
:49:36. > :49:43.they start to build those skills. If you are taking them from 16 to
:49:43. > :49:47.24, would you say that university it is not the great panacea, that
:49:47. > :49:54.going to get a job after school might be better. Is that the sort
:49:54. > :49:58.of thing you might guide people to do? So 62% of the young people who
:49:58. > :50:03.have been through our programme go into higher education. At least
:50:03. > :50:07.half of them, they are the first person in their family to go to
:50:07. > :50:10.university. What I would say, it is a not-for-profit scheme, the
:50:10. > :50:15.government largely out source is what it does to profit
:50:16. > :50:20.organisations. We are a charity. We get private sector employers like
:50:20. > :50:25.me to provide other private-sector employers, like my clients, to come
:50:25. > :50:28.together and work with schools and colleges to deliver this programme.
:50:28. > :50:33.On the manners, on the, I can't be bothered to get up and no one, do
:50:33. > :50:38.you find that? Getting people to go to work every day is a real problem.
:50:38. > :50:42.The you have found that? We teach them. This idea of a lost
:50:42. > :50:46.generation, is that exaggerated or really true? It is partially
:50:46. > :50:50.exaggerated. If you look at young people have become unemployed, most
:50:50. > :50:54.come off benefits within three months. There is a called young
:50:54. > :50:59.people who are struggling, not getting to work. We have to do
:50:59. > :51:03.everything we can to help them. I don't want to countenance a lost
:51:03. > :51:10.generation because we want to make sure that does not happen.
:51:10. > :51:13.Spare a thought for Ed Balls, who only wants to be loved. R. The
:51:14. > :51:19.Shadow Chancellor has apparently spent thousands of pounds on
:51:19. > :51:23.private polling on an effort to find out if voters like him. Ed, we
:51:23. > :51:27.could have saved a lot of money. One call and we could have told you.
:51:27. > :51:32.Anyway, it is sweet and we thought we would help him out. We thought
:51:32. > :51:36.we would ask what people thought of the Chancellor, too.
:51:36. > :51:40.We have come to Spitalfields Market, a stone's throw from the City of
:51:40. > :51:43.London, to find out if people prefer a George Osborne or Ed Balls.
:51:43. > :51:49.There will be voting with these, which I suppose for balance we
:51:49. > :51:55.should call coloured spheres. both irritates me. Also irritates
:51:55. > :52:00.me an awful lot more than was born. Very positive. -- Ed Balls
:52:00. > :52:05.irritates me an awful lot more. Balls has got it. What has he got?
:52:05. > :52:10.He is not looking like Mr Bean and doing a whirling dervish act.
:52:10. > :52:16.don't like Osborne for by just don't like him. But you are a Tory
:52:16. > :52:19.voter? Yes. He doesn't make the right choices, the economy is not
:52:19. > :52:27.growing. A what do you like about George Osborne? I know more about
:52:27. > :52:31.him, Ed Balls doesn't seem as visible. It has to be... What do
:52:31. > :52:38.you think it is about him? People do have quite a strong reaction to
:52:38. > :52:44.him. I have heard on the grapevine that he can be a bit belligerent.
:52:44. > :52:47.Osborne. Why? I don't trust Ed Balls. I wouldn't trust Ed Balls as
:52:48. > :52:57.far as I could throw him. And I don't like Osborne either. It is
:52:58. > :52:59.
:52:59. > :53:06.not much of a choice. Ed Balls is BLEEP. Osborne is a gap Les BLEEP.
:53:06. > :53:10.This guy. He is less of a BLEEP. have never heard so much bad
:53:10. > :53:13.language during -- doing one of these things were but I am amazed
:53:13. > :53:17.how many people can't pick either, but it is looking pretty evenly
:53:17. > :53:22.matched. Coming up for lunchtime, who would you rather have lunch
:53:22. > :53:31.with? Definitely Ed Balls. He would be entertaining. Why would you talk
:53:31. > :53:34.about? Current affairs. Ed Balls looks the more rich. Really?
:53:35. > :53:40.Because he is fatter so I feel like he has more money to feed himself.
:53:40. > :53:43.A appearances can be deceiving. ? George Osborne is loaded. Who
:53:43. > :53:51.would you rather be stuck on a desert island with out of those
:53:51. > :53:55.two? Who are they? Who would you rather share a flat with? Why?
:53:55. > :54:01.is better looking. Who would you rather your daughter came home
:54:01. > :54:07.with? Ed Balls, I suppose. He would make the better boy friend, George
:54:07. > :54:11.Osborne or Ed Balls? Oh... For most of the morning, it was neck and
:54:11. > :54:14.neck but in the last few minutes, George Osborne has just snuck into
:54:14. > :54:20.the lead. The fact is, for most people, it was like choosing
:54:20. > :54:27.between a poke in the eye or a kick in the teeth.
:54:27. > :54:35.Adam's vocabulary has been much expanded. It is an educational life
:54:35. > :54:40.that the BBC. We have succeeded where he failed. Claire Perry, we
:54:40. > :54:45.are told, she has got a tattoo dedicated to George Osborne. Steady
:54:45. > :54:48.on. She won't tell us where it is. And we are not going to ask,
:54:48. > :54:54.because we are frightened of the answer. Why should we love Ed
:54:54. > :54:58.Balls? Here's a good bloke. Even the press lobby, they say they
:54:58. > :55:03.enjoy spending time with him. He is good to have a drink with. I agree
:55:03. > :55:09.with that. He is a good laugh, he cooks well. He has not cooked for
:55:09. > :55:15.me. I'll have a word, see if he can invite you round. He is good
:55:15. > :55:20.company? Yes. Why should we love George Osborne. Equally, he is a
:55:20. > :55:24.great guy. He runs a very good team, trying to make these incredibly
:55:24. > :55:28.tough decisions. Who wants to go into politics to be popular? It is
:55:28. > :55:31.a nightmare. People think I spent my entire life swearing and cursing
:55:31. > :55:35.because this is what they read in the papers. No, they just watch it
:55:35. > :55:40.on a Daily Politics. If you ask people about Labour's policy, half
:55:40. > :55:44.of them have not got a clue. All of this is based on images and sound
:55:44. > :55:50.bites and what the media says. When we tried to dig behind it, these
:55:50. > :55:56.public images have nothing to do with it. Can George Osborne cook?
:55:56. > :56:00.Yes, he can. And he hires women. hires women? As a stay at home
:56:01. > :56:07.housewife, he gave me my big break into politics. What is his best
:56:07. > :56:12.dish? I can't possibly tell you. Because you don't know. The fact is
:56:12. > :56:16.that neither is that popular. It maybe something about being
:56:16. > :56:21.Chancellor, or Shadow Chancellor, they are both jobs designed to make
:56:22. > :56:26.enemies, aren't they? Yes, it is a tough economic time, people are
:56:26. > :56:30.really struggling. I think they blame all politicians for the mess
:56:30. > :56:35.that they think the country is in. And we will have the fight about
:56:35. > :56:42.who is really to blame. My stop them blame you, to be fair. Could
:56:42. > :56:48.you leave him alone? -- most of them blame you, to be fair. It is a
:56:49. > :56:53.tough time. It is. In the House of Commons in particular, the culture
:56:53. > :56:59.is to knock spots off each other. That doesn't show people in a very
:56:59. > :57:02.positive light. They both have a problem, people who know them say
:57:02. > :57:09.they have a much better image privately than they do with the
:57:09. > :57:13.public, which I think is true of both of them. You judge people on
:57:13. > :57:17.the teams they get together, and George and Ed have loyal and good
:57:17. > :57:20.team around them. Ultimately, you judge people on who they get to
:57:20. > :57:27.work with over the years. And how they treat people around them. I
:57:27. > :57:37.think both of them to a regional -- do a reasonable -- both of them do
:57:37. > :57:37.
:57:38. > :57:43.They are obviously concerned about their public image, or Ed Balls is.
:57:43. > :57:50.What do they need to be to be more likeable to the public? Why do you
:57:50. > :57:54.have to be likeable? They want to be. I have met them both and I
:57:54. > :57:57.would quite happily, and have done, spent time with them both. The
:57:57. > :58:03.thing I think they have in common, I find they are both incredibly
:58:03. > :58:12.clever. You would back me up on that. Personally, I think clever is
:58:12. > :58:16.Go think they should spend too much time worrying about being likeable
:58:16. > :58:20.-- I don't think they should. They should be more serious. If they
:58:20. > :58:24.started talking about playing computer games, I don't think
:58:24. > :58:28.people will be that fast. If he was my son sitting there muttering, I
:58:28. > :58:33.would tell him to shut up and he would not get his Nintendo for a
:58:33. > :58:40.week. It is annoying, irritating, juvenile behaviour and the House of
:58:40. > :58:46.Commons could do with more of a serious approach. Right... Thank
:58:46. > :58:51.you for getting into the spirit of a non-partisan discussion. That is
:58:51. > :58:55.it for today, with a core of our guests. The One o'clock News is