04/09/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 04/09/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. So it's reshuffle


day. The first major reshuffle since the coalition government was


formed. It's the day the prime minister's meant to stamp his


authority on his administration. Although so far, most of the top


Cabinet posts remain unchanged. What we do know is that the Justice


Secretary Ken Clarke is leaving his job. But he'll remain in the


Cabinet in an advisory role. And the Health Secretary, Andrew


Lansley becomes leader of the House of Commons. It's not been a great


day so far for women. Baroness Warsi, Caroline Spellman and Cheryl


Gillan, all set to lose their jobs. Although Teresa Villiers comes into


cabinet as Northern Ireland Secretary. We'll bring you all the


action as it unfolds. The Commons Public Accounts


Committee says extraordinary chaos at the UK Border Agency has allowed


tens of thousands of bogus students to enter Britain. We'll be taking a


look at the committee's work. And bring out the paint. Top up on


the wallpaper. We'll be asking, is it time for a parliamentry


All that in the next hour. And with us for the whole programme today is


Margaret Hodge. She's a Labour MP and chairs the powerful Westminster


committee responsible for overseeing government spending.


Welcome to the Daily Politics. Thank you. Now before we get on to


today's reshuffle, just a quick word about a little incident at the


Paralympic Games last night. Take a look at this. Ladies and gentlemen,


we now have the victory ceremony The medals tonight will be


presented by the Right Honourable George Osborne MP. Chancellor of


Margaret Hodge, taking off your political hat, or moment, not a


great feeling for any minister to be booed like that in a big


celebratory event. It's absolutely horrible for him personally but, on


the other hand, he is chance of the Exchequer and has to take


responsibility for what people feel about that living standards at this


point in time. He accept is going to be unpopular. He knows he's the


most unpopular Minister and, as Chancellor, unless Belgrade


economic times, you're never going to be popular, are you? You can't


be that unpopular. Maybe he's a bit out of touch with what ordinary


people are feeling in their day-to- day lives, as well. We have a


double dip reception -- recession. People worried about their jobs,


unable to get a home, move home, things are not good. George Osborne


is not prepared to change policy. We will talk about the reshuffle,


but it's no change of policy. He's not going anywhere and the top


people are not, and it feels as if, actually, policy which is not


succeeding is not going to be challenged. Let me just read this I


read last night which made me smile. The person writing it said while


George Osborne was being booed, at the stadium, Gordon Brown was being


cheered, but I wonder which way those people voted in 2010. Maybe


they regretted and hopefully they will vote in a different way in


2015. It may say more about Gordon Brown and George Osborne. We have


to wait. I'm pleased Gordon Brown got it yesterday because there is a


tendency to rubbish a lot of the stuffy did. Were you surprised?


People have not talked enough in relation to him, he really the bid,


with the 2008 crisis, I think he showed international leadership.


will leave the party politics there for a moment. Let's move on to


things sartorial. Now it's time for our daily quiz. As you'll remember


from yesterday's programme, seven suits belonging to Margaret


Thatcher have been put up for auction at Christie's. But how much


did they go for? At the end of the show Margaret will give us the


correct answer. Don't worry, you have got plenty of time to think


about it. It's the day when government ministers and aspiring


backbench MPs sit nervously by the phone waiting to learn their fate.


The first major reshuffle since the coalition government came into


office. So what do we know so far? At the top of government, most of


the ministers in the most senior roles are staying put. George


Osborne stays as Chancellor of the Exchequer and David Cameron's


right-hand man. William Hague will still be Foreign Secretary. And


Theresa May keeps her job as Home Secretary. And, of course, the Lib


Dem leader Nick Clegg stays as Deputy Prime Minister. Also staying


where they are, Michael Gove at Education. And Iain Duncan Smith at


the Department for Work and Pensions in charge of welfare


reform. Ken Clarke is on the move leaving his job as Justice


Secretary to take on a new role acting as a government wise head


based in the Cabinet Office. He is replaced by Chris Grayling. Andrew


Mitchell quits International Development to become the new


Government Chief Whip, replacing Patrick McLoughlin. Caroline


Spelman is leaving her job as Environment Secretary. And Sayeeda


Warsi loses her job as Co-Chair of the Conservative Party despite


pleading to stay at the weekend. Andrew Lansley is demoted from


Health Secretary to Leader of the House of Commons. He is replaced by


Jeremy Hunt who moves from Culture, Media and Sport. And Justine


Greening is set to leave her job as Transport Secretary, raising


questions about a possible u-turn on Heathrow expansion. On the Lib


Dem side of the coalition, Sarah Teather is replaced as an education


minister by David Laws, who had to leave Cabinet in 2010 after


breaking expenses rules. This is what the Deputy Prime Minister,


Nick Clegg, had to say a little earlier.


It is the Government's priority to deliver policies to boost jobs and


growth in the British economy. That is what this reshuffle will be all


about. That was Nick Clegg responding to the reshuffle earlier


today. And here's Ken Clarke leaving his home a short while ago,


talking about his move from Justice Secretary to a new job as a wise


head advising the government. agree with David when I arrived I


would do it for a couple of years. That's what we stuck to. I'm


surprised he's asked me to stay in the Cabinet doing a different role,


economy, the National Security Council, but I never thought I


would be back in the Government at my age. You have to step down the


heavy roles before you suddenly realise you can't hack it.


Clark, jolly as ever. And our Political Editor, Nick Robinson is


in Downing Street. Let's pick up on what you have revealed, which is


Iain Duncan Smith, attempts to move him from his post at the Department


of Work and pensions. Reshuffles never survive the first contact


with the enemy, rather like walls. In truth, the enemy is often


ministers that the Prime Minister is trying to shift. The Prime


Minister asked Iain Duncan Smith to become the new Secretary of State


for justice, replacing Ken Clarke, the reason I believe is the


Treasury have long had deep anxieties that Iain Duncan Smith


resists the cuts they want to make. Remember the Chancellor announced


�10 billion of welfare cuts as an ambition, and might not be able to


control the spending on his promised new Universal Credit which


comes in in a while. Iain Duncan Smith was offered a job last night


by the Prime Minister but this morning he said no, and we have


Chris Grayling as the new just a secretary which has more


consequence for the Treasury. He is a hardliner. When you Shadow Home


Secretary, a job he was dropped from, he produced the sorts of


speeches that Tory party conference is loved. Promising to lock up more


people, and you know what that means. More money from the Treasury.


The Treasury are concerned about cost. What does it say, though, it


Iain Duncan Smith was able to turn down the Prime Minister's offer?


What does it say about the strength of the leadership? It says Iain


Duncan Smith knows he can trade on the fact he is extremely popular


with in his own party, as a leader who went through the top is Times,


and he has a lot of support within those groups who lobby for the


poorest in society. And he was willing to cash those chips in, but,


as you suggest, it also says David Cameron is either not strong enough


or didn't want to use his strength to say, off you go. You either move


or leave. We have not had the whole picture yet. It has been quite so


low. There are waiting for Iain Duncan Smith and others perhaps to


decide whether they were going to take up job offers, but moving


Jeremy Hunt to health is a key move. In terms of Andrew Lansley been


demoted, is that a sense of failure to put out the message about the


health reforms and also because Jeremy Hunt couldn't stay because


of the Levison report? We don't know the answer to the first bit of


that until we hear the first pronouncement of the bits no doubt


at all Andrew Lansley was seen as a woefully bad public communicator.


Someone who lost the confidence of doctors and nurses and other health


professionals. What we don't know is whether Jeremy Hunt has been


appointed to remedy that or changed the policy. Clearly, what is


fascinating about this, many people will be shocked he has been


promoted, expecting he might suffer, lose his job altogether from within


the Cabinet from his performance. I believe the Prime Minister over the


weeks and months he had to look into what Jeremy Hunt had done,


came to the conclusion he had, in fact, acted honourably, defended


himself decently, and was a competent administrator. That is


why you get this puzzling shift from a junior job to a much more


important exposed job, health. you update us on any of the other


moves happening as we speak? just saw Maria Miller who was


appointed as Culture Secretary. Jeremy Hunt's old job for that


crucially, involved in deciding how the Government response to the


lovers and report in the next few weeks. Does it, in other words, as


the Prime Minister seems to suggest, say what ever the Lord Justice


lovers and recommends, it will not have statutory based press


She would have to do with the Olympic legacy as well. The big one


we are waiting for is the Conservative Party's new chairman.


It is likely to be grand chaps, who is in the building as we speak. If


he doesn't get the job, it will be a shock. One of the reasons for the


delay is not just that Iain Duncan Smith refused a move, but Baroness


Warsi suggested she should shift, and was not happy, and there were


tears last night in the Prime Minister's Office. Prime ministers


sit there and have a great white board inside Downing Street. Based


stick on it, yellow Post-it notes with names and faces of jobs but


what they don't stick on it is who is going to break down and cry. And


last night, someone did. It was the beginning of a difficult few hours.


You won't tell us what was? Before we move on... It was not Ken Clarke.


I can't imagine it with Ken Clarke who was eating is Tandoori last


night and doesn't seem to have a care in the world. What about


transport? That is crucial because of Heathrow. Again, a surprise move.


David Cameron, remember, warned people against what he described as


the annual reshuffle ritual and when he was trying to make point it


was mad to keep moving ministers when they barely had a chance to


bigger briefs, but one example he gave was transport ministers of he


said Tony Blair had dozens of them and he has now had three in two


years. The most extraordinary thing is just in Greening has been


sidelined for repeating the Prime Minister's own election pledge that


there would be no third runway at Heathrow -- Justine Greening.


Patrick McLoughlin, not a public face but a well-known face in


Westminster, the former chief whip, gets that job. He is a Midlands MP


so has never been asked his view of a third runway in the south-east.


He has no constituency interest there. He is a plain-speaking,


tough guy, a formal working mind up. Popular on the Tory backbenchers,


but now as something delicate to handle. Thank you for filling as in


on that and we will leave you with the thought of someone crying in


the Prime Minister's office. With us now is Tim Montgomerie, editor


of the Conservative Home website. And the co-editor of the website


Lib Dem Voice, Stephen Tall. And of course Margaret Hodge is still with


us as well. Can I just let you know, Sayeeda Warsi, the former chairman,


Minister of State in the foreign office. Are you surprised not that


she was of that something but that she accepted it? There was


speculation last night when it was revealed she was not going to be


continuing to be the party chairman. That she might walk on government.


I am glad she is staying than the Government, if not the Cabinet,


because she is a considerable talent. Perhaps not suited to the


job of party chairman. What about the issue of women? David Cameron


has admitted he wanted to have a better connection with women voters.


Moving a key people like Sayeeda Warsi and Justin Greene and out of


Cabinet, not a clever move if you want to send a message to women --


Justine Greening. I think we will see two women join the Cabinet,


Teresa Villiers and Maria Miller. I think we'll see talented women,


2010 intake appointed to the first round. But not in the Cabinet.


Maria Miller and Teresa Villiers. We lose Caroline Spelman and Cheryl


Gillan. I think, overall, across government, I think the number of


the mill ministers will be increased and that's important


because the most long-term implication of this reshuffle will


be the people that David Cameron picks from the new intake, the


front people for the Tory party in the future. Perhaps even leaders.


We were a good indication he David Cameron identified as those people


later today. We will that appease I think overall it is a good


reshuffle for what you call the right, I would call the mainstream


of the Conservative Party. Chris Grayling and Theresa Villiers are


both of the mainstream, they have got new jobs, a big promotion for


Owen Paterson. There is more balance in the Cabinet than there


was. Parts of the party fell slightly excluded, and I think that


has been addressed by the reshuffle, it is good news. From the Liberal


Democrat perspective, what does it do for coalition relations?


five Lib Dem ministers will stay in place, most of it seems to have


involved the Conservative Party. We will be sorry to see Ken Clarke


move from the Justice Department. I think if Lib Dems had a choice


between Ken Clarke and Chris Grayling, we would definitely


choose Ken Clarke. His emphasis on approaching the Justice Department


brief with a clear focus on evidence-based policy has been


refreshing from a Conservative minister, and we will wait to see


whether it happens with Chris Grayling as well. What about David


Laws coming back in as number two to Michael Gove? Is that what


Liberal Democrats wanted to see? Rather than in having a more


central role on the economy, doing the sort of thing Ken Clarke will


be doing? David Laws has been doing this behind the scenes anyway. In


one sense, there will not be much change of his influence, in


particular with Nick Clegg. What is interesting is putting together two


quite ideologically similar numbers, Michael Gove and David Laws as the


top two in education. They both agree on issues like free schools


and academies, controversial within the Lib Dems, not in the


Conservative Party. What do Lib Dems think of Michael Gove? They


are split. Some champion the idea of schools' freedom. More within


the Lib Dems are worried about the fact of what is happening in the


education system, the over concentration on the elite top


ability kids and less of a focus on those kids from disadvantaged


backgrounds. Your response, Margaret Hodge, a more balanced


Cabinet, more balanced government? The Lib Dems staying put, Vince


Cable staying in his important role, David Laws coming back in. That


will be popular with Liberal Democrats. I have to make a general


point, I do not know if Tim would disagree, but this is not age


change of policy. In the community, people, do they really know Patrick


McLoughlin is? Isn't that the case with all reshuffles? It is always


about shuttling the people. Sometimes it is about a real shift


in policy. If you look, the economy is the key issue for us, and there


has been no shift in policy there, and we need growth, people are


worried about recession. Can I say something about women? It is not


good enough to say it is only one less. Every year ought to be more


women being promoted. I agree that there are a lot of talented new


women in the Conservatives since the 2010 election, but I think it


is not a good step to see a reduction in the number of women in


Cabinet at this time. Let's pickup on the economy, the key plank of


policy will remain the same. Are you happy about that? In your mind,


was there ever a point when David Cameron thought he would move


George Osborne? No, not at all. be fair, it is difficult to move


chancellors. As Tony Blair found out with Gordon Brown! Unlike


Margaret Hodge's government, we have a Prime Minister and


Chancellor to get on incredibly well, there is no tension at the


heart of government. Some people think that if you move George


Osborne, there would be a different policy on deficit reduction of


growth. That was never going to happen, it is a policy that all the


top players in government have signed up to. A lot of the people


frustrated with the lack of a growth agenda, George Osborne is an


ally of the right on most of these years. On tax cutting. Tax-cutting,


energy policy. If he cannot deliver the things that David Davis once,


nobody else will be able to. But to pick up on, was it a symbol at the


Paralympics, the unpopularity, people feel because there is no


growth and there is a double-dip recession, would a big move, not


George Osborne but some sort of change being signalled would mean


the reshuffle was greater than just a moving of the deck chairs. That


is maybe what some people would want, but let's be clear, because


of the terrible mess that the Labour Party left this country end,


we are having to take incredibly difficult decisions as a coalition


government. These are the biggest cuts, bigger than anything Margaret


Thatcher ever managed, and of course George Osborne gets the


blame for that. In a couple of years' time, if the economy starts


to grow, what will be the choice at the election? A choice between two


parties who have taken tough decisions and a party which created


the mess and opposed the difficult decisions. I cannot let him get


away with that! I mean, clearly there is an issue about the deficit,


but to say a double-dip recession, the negative growth we are in at


the moment is not the result of this government's's policy over two


is into this government, I just think it is wrong. And there is an


alternative economic strategy... Moving George Osborne. It might


have meant, hang on. They came in and said they were going to reverse


austerity in France. They have not been able to. Labour is the only


party in Europe that is in cloud cuckoo land, ignoring the realities.


We are going to do more of this in just a moment, but Nick Clegg had


to endure a rather stormy ride in the Commons yesterday as he


confirmed that the government had dropped its plans to reform the


House of Lords. The DPM also confirmed that his party would not


support the bill to redraw the constituency boundaries, which


would have benefited the Conservatives at the next election.


Mr Clegg began by explaining he had decided to drop Lords reform


because the Commons could not agree on a timetable for the bill.


It is now clear that we will not be able to secure the Commons majority


needed to pass the programme motion that the company's the bill.


Without that motion, the bill effectively becomes impossible to


deliver. We share his disappointment at a lack of


progress on reform of the House of Lords. It can't be right to... It


can't be right that in the 21st century we have an unelected


chamber making decisions on the law of the land. I join with him in


thanking the joint committee of both Houses. Despite the cross-


party talks, the white paper and the draft bill, they did remain


issues to be resolved, not least the powers of the new second


chamber, the electoral process and a referendum, but we should have


been able to make progress, and we share his disappointment on the


stalling of reform. It is unfinished business, and we should


return to it. She gets 10 out of 10 for spectacular insincerity! For


the Labour Party... The Labour Party... The Labour Party used to


campaign against privilege and patronage. The Labour Party used to


say it was the party of the people! What did they do when they had the


opportunity? They voted for the idea of reform but not for the


means to deliver it. I think my right honourable friend should


comfort himself, he gave it his best shot with all of his sincerity,


and we respect him for that. But may I draw my right honourable


friend's attention to the fact that the constituencies bill remains in


force, and that all the boundaries Commission remain under a duty to


bring forward proposals for a house of 600 members. Can he instruct


them to stop? He does not have that power, so is he therefore not


simply going to obstruct a constitutional process for his own


party political advantage? I have made it clear that since I


reasonably believe that the constitutional reform package was


exactly that, a package, and that since this is the first time that


either of the coalition parties was unable to deliver on a major


coalition agreement commitments, it is therefore right to rebalance


things and not to proceed with an unbalanced package. Every cloud and


a silver lining! The House of Lords survives, and when the Liberal


Democrats dump him as leader, he will qualify for a peerage! Will he


take it?! I knew what was going to be a nice one! No, I will not. I


think... Personally I do not think... Let me explain, let me


explain. I do not think I would be very welcome in the current House


of Lords, given my somewhat undiplomatic descriptions of the


illegitimacy of the house. Secondly, I personally will not take up a


place in an unreformed House of Lords. Call me old fashioned, it


sticks in her throat. I have campaigned all my life, my party


has campaigned for decades now for the simple idea of democracy, and


Nick Clegg the House of Commons yesterday. Still with me are Tim


Montgomery of Conservative Home and Stephen Tall of the Lib Dem Voice.


Let's update viewers on the latest moves, Justine Greening may have


gone from transport but has been given international development,


the new Secretary of State for International Development,


replacing Andrew Mitchell. David Jones is the new Welsh Secretary


will stop Owen Paterson is replaced by Theresa Villiers as Northern


Ireland secretary and becomes Secretary of State for DEFRA. The


big news is that Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, has become the


new Tory chairman. Your response. Well, the two most important


appointments that David Cameron will make today is the chief whip


that was announced last night, Andrew Mitchell, and Grant Shapps,


party chairman. Policy is not going to change, I think we have agreed


that, but this Government needs more disciplined, the Conservative


Party is incredibly rebellious at the moment. It is about the party.


And it needs more hope for the future. The Chief Whip is bringing


discipline, we hope! Really? He is popular and widely respected, his


nickname is Thrasher. It is true that the whips Office has not been


the central institution that it was in the past in Tory government. By


the end of the day, I think we will see by the nature of the junior


whip appointments the brightest and best Conservatives are no longer


going straight into frontbench departments, they are going into


the whips office, which is considerably strengthened. Added to


that, a party chairman has the confidence of most of the


parliamentary party, liked by the grassroots, good on TV, we will see


the sort of faith in the future, hope for the future. Just generally,


I think one of the problems with a reshuffle, and I lived through many,


is that it disappoints many more people than it pleases. That is


true, yeah. What has surprised me about the Conservative government


is the extent of rebellions this early on in the light of the


Conservative government. After today, you are going to get many


more disappointed people, people who have been sacked, people who


did not come in. On the whole, every reshuffle, you may have 20


people who are happy in a very large bunch of people. I think the


idea that this is done to help party discipline when you have


already got a culture of rebellion is hope over reality. I do not


think we can view this coalition reshuffle through an ordinary prism


of reshuffles. Not only is the process different, Nick Clegg is


responsible for the Conservative side of things... Sorry, he wishes!


That makes it different, the whole mechanics of how you reshuffle,


once we set the Domino's rolling, who does move into ridge position.


The biggest point that makes a difference is who fills which


department matters less within a coalition, because the coalition


agreement is overarching, and policies have to be jointly agreed.


And what is more important as we were listening to that debate is


talking about boundary changes. In the end, is that going to be a more


defining moment of the Liberal Democrats if they do not back


legislation for boundary changes? Yeah, I think it will be. What


happened in the summer was that both parties took a look into the


void. The Conservatives had proposed house of Lords reform in


the manifesto and agreed to it in the coalition, and they said no,


and Nick Clegg did the same for boundary changes. They both looked


into the abyss of what happens if the coalition splits up, saw it was


a frightening prospect for both parties and have drawn back. Over


in the Houses of Parliament, the central lobby has been awash with


rumours. Carol Walker is there. thank you, Jo. MPs are all parties


are digest in the details of that reshuffle, and in particular in the


last few minutes that news that Grant Shapps will be the new


Conservative Party chairman. I enjoyed by Mark Pritchard path the


Conservative Party and Andrew George from the Lib Dems, thank you


for joining me. If I can start with you, Mark, we were hearing a


discussion about what this would do to conserve the party discipline


and morale, a new party chairman in Grant Shapps, a new chief whip in


Andrew Mitchell. How do you think Grant Shapps is a great


communicator. Despite the obvious talents of Baroness Warsi, I feel


we need a chairman and acted to the House of Commons. It will be


interesting to see whether that is delay co-chairman role, but I think


it will simply be an opportunity for Grant Shapps to get out into


the country and communicate our message and I think he will be very


good at that. I'm also absolutely delighted that Andrew Mitchell is


now the Chief Whip. Patrick McLoughlin stays as transport


secretary. Very well respected across the House but Andrew


Mitchell is a very shrewd politician, very underestimated.


Better to be underestimated ban over estimated, as Churchill said.


I think he will be bringing some and the party and I have a huge


amount of respect for Andrew Mitchell. We haven't had too many


of the Lib Dem it moves, suggestions David Laws may come


back in a junior role, may be taking Sarah Teather's job. What


will this do to the balance and the relationship between the coalition


partners? Mathematically, things will remain the same. The


announcement so far is private and internal matters for the


Conservative Party. Whilst I understand that there is a sense of


obligation on the part of any Prime Minister who wants to appear to


pass the virility test and repaid to shake up his Cabinet and so on,


and David Cameron made clear he would do that this summer, I think


whilst it's interesting, it's also brutal to people like Caroline


Spelman, or I think is done a very good job in DEFRA. People have been


talking about the underlying problems of government. The economy.


George Osborne is stain and Vince Cable is staying but Patrick


McLoughlin, transport, it leaves scope for a wider look at the


aviation issue. Do you think we will see significant changes when


it comes to that whole agenda? will have to wait and see but I


don't think a third runway at Heathrow is a silver bullet for


helping the economy. But I do think it will come. I always felt it was


the case. I think there will be a wider strategic review of how we


use the airports such as Birmingham and Bristol. Your party is opposed


strongly to it. We were opposed to it and the last general election so


it will be interesting discussion in the Cabinet. Nothing has been


said about it, but there has been a lot of shadow-boxing on the issue.


Obviously, we can read a certain amount into the move of Justine


Greening to international development. She will need to be


aware lot and no doubt there will be a lot of movement back home.


you think that shows the Prime Minister is aware that yesterday


more to keep his party on board. People say the policies matter but


people do matter. We need to deliver on policies bought up Ken


Clarke, delighted to see him remaining with the Cabinet. He is


the biggest, heaviest hitter in government. We need him. He is the


provocation of experience and I'm glad he's there. OK, thank you.


That's it for now. Thank you very much. If there's one thing MPs love,


it's pointing out the mistakes of others. And those lucky enough to


sit on select committees have the power to haul officials, ministers


and pretty much anyone else they like over the coals. Sometimes


though, those MPs are themselves criticised for failing to land a


punch on their intended targets. There is one exception however. The


Public Accounts Committee regularly names and shames departments it


believes are guilty of wasting public money. But fun to watch as


it might be, is duffing up senior civil servants the best way to


protect taxpayers' cash? David The mighty opposites of state run


by an army of civil servants. Not much frightens the people who work


here except a small band of MPs. The Public Accounts Committee.


are spending a lot of money and it doesn't look, I can't understand


what you're spending it on. Sometimes journalists have been


known to describe committees as powerful and influential and, to be


honest, they are neither of the above. The Public Accounts


Committee however is the real deal. Working the the National Audit


Office its job is to scrutinise how much our money government


dependence are spending and whether spending it wisely and trust me,


they do not hold back., have a minutes' time out? No, I don't see


why sure the minutes' time out at all. We have the power to make you


give evidence under oath and we are doing so. Key the most powerful


committee since it was created by the Gladstone in the middle of the


19th century because it's the only one which has sufficient


information to do the job properly. The National Audit Office creates


weapons, and hands the MP and beat Public Accounts Committee bullets.


Beautifully fashioned bullets to fire at the heads of those there


are interrogating. Does the Public Accounts Committee changed the way


departments behave or is the humiliation of civil servant little


more than good political television? How do just by that


cost? Where are those figures? Again, I will find it for you.


had a criticism, it would be this. They don't often enough pick on


examples of good public expenditure. And good procurement and say, look,


it can be done, treat this as exemplary and replicated. They


could do much more of that and that would be wonderful way of


increasing the chances of a virtuous department. Maybe, but


don't expect the committee to become pussycats any time soon.


are not talking about shrinking violence -- by let's we are talking


about people on six-figure salaries and they must be accountable -- of


Very scary. You may sound tough but the question is, has actually


changed anything? I am determined that it should. It hasn't done so


far. It has, actually. If by take one example. When we look at the


whole way in which the HMRC dealt with major companies, and the


Goldman Sachs affair, you may remember that, actually, we have


got a change in the way that HMRC approaches those sorts of issues.


We have got to make sure people authorise those deals are different


from the people who make them. And we have got a better accountability


structure in place, so we have changed that. One of the things I


have changed is that, when we make recommendations. In the past they


went into the library. Now we come back to them six months later, and


if the Departments have not implemented the recommendations, we


bring the senior officials back in front of us again. There is a


follow-up. You mentioned the HMRC. Was that a justifiable behaviour by


your committee to make the lawyer testify on oath giving evidence


about this? Was that too heavy- handed? We were incredibly


frustrated because he was failing to answer questions directly.


Something we have a problem with with politicians. Indeed. But our


job is to hold the officials to account for the money they had


spent. Tax payers money. Was it theatre? Yes, it was, but actually,


on the whole, was the exercise in relation to the way the department


deals with big companies effectively, I think it was a


success story. How much money do you think the taxpayer has been


saved as a result of some of the things you have done? I would hate


to put a figure on it. I think our existence itself helps. People know


they have got to, just by themselves in front of us. The fact


we are monitoring helps because people know that we are going to


come back to them. I think the waste, honestly, is horrible. There


was one afternoon early on when we were looking up defence procurement.


Literally, in at 2.5 others we uncovered �80 billion worth of


money drawn up. You are saving millions of pounds. Billions.


much as that. Let's move on to this report about foreign students.


Under license being withdrawn from London Metropolitan University. Do


you think that is fair? The points system was brought in by Labour


originally. Are you saying it has failed? I'm not being partisan on


this issue, and that's one of the joys of the job, that you can look


at how effective governance is. And I think there is an essential


attention which has been an resolved by both the Labour


government and Conservative government. On the one hand, we


want to attract the best students, we want their intellectual


capabilities and their money. On the other hand, the Government


wants to demonstrate it is tough on immigration controls or so I think


that tension has come out in the way he handled it. Whose fault is


it opera but many foreign students able to come here and work, not


study? It's partly a policy fault, but also there was a real


administrative fault. The UK board Agency has simply failed to


implement the policy effectively. Something a little different.


Over-run by mice, contaminated with asbestos, a leaking roof and


crumbling walls. No, not the Daily Politics set, but according to MPs,


our very own Houses of Parliament. So, is a costly refurbishment on


the cards? Will MPs and Lords have to move out so the builders can


move in? And what might a spruced up, 21st century parliament look


like? Giles Dilnot investigates. Ah, the mother of all Parliaments.


Looked at like this. It's a stone status symbol. Democracies.


Architectural shock and awe. However it's apparently it's in


shocking state. Nobody is actually saying the thing is going to fall


down tomorrow but the problem is, it's a little bit like the Tube. In


is getting old. The bits you can't see, they're not that great. And


the other thing is, it is full of rodents. So many jokes, so little


time. This thousands of my sport that it's not by mistake there is a


cat at Number Ten, either. There's not enough female toilets. And


thanks to Robin Cook, there is just one cafe for the public. It is time


it was modernised for modern-day usage. Now the House of Commons


Commission has said the building is structurally sound. But is


preparing a report on what needs to be made good, and the list is long


and expensive. There's some reports the bill's in the billions? And


borrowing from a Tory electoral mantra, they just can't go on like


this. And of course, when you've got the builders in, you want the


resident's out. Be it you managed to drag them kicking and screaming


for five years from this place, they still have got to have


something to do whatever it is they do. Where on earth would you put


them? We've just had a successful Olympics. Just down the road, in


Hackney, beer is the media centre, which, although we hope will create


jobs in the long term, in the short term it could be a place were


Parliament goes. Instead of Westminster, we get East Minster at


the media centre. Seven minutes from St Pancras, right next to City


Airport. If you need to come and Westminster, 20 minutes on the Tube.


I will be the three options to get the work done. You could go back to


having a summer recess of three months, to do the work in three


months and come out. Then let us come back for two weeks. If that's


not palatable, get the commissioners to start rearranging


the parliamentary conference season so we sit here off the blocks, so


work can carry through. Or move the House of Lords to Cambridge, and


then stick a House of Commons in the House of Lords. And then bring


us all back. Oh yes! Perhaps it's not surprising it's quietly got run


down. If you only rely on the tradition of sending Beefeaters to


the basement for a look around once every Queen's speech, what did you


expect? And the Conservative MP, Jacob


Rees-Mogg is here. And Charlie Mullins, Founder of Pimlico


Plumbers and Roofers is also here. First of all how bad is it? If you


were describing this in estate agent terms, how bad -- but is it?


Fantastic. I don't see what the fuss is about. What do you need the


parliament building for, the chamber. The chamber is magnificent.


People have seen the odd mouse but I would not make a fuss about it.


Does that bother you? Jacob has an office on the same for as me but


there are five pockets, and they have been there for about six


months. Looking up with water. Clearly, somebody has got to sort


it out. Maybe you could come and do it for us because it's driving us


mad and you have to go over electric cables for that quite


dangerous as you go to the loo. You will have seen them, Jacob. There's


stuff which needs to be done. We should fix it. Old buildings always


a problem but I don't bigot that bad. You wouldn't advise a


refurbishment? A little bit of If it were one's own house, one


would do a bit of patching and mending. You might have to rewire


in your own house. We do not have the money, we must not waste money


on politicians' comfort. The issue of cost, in the end, is what Jacob


proposes going to cost the taxpayer more if it is just a bit of patch


and mend every year or so, rather than a complete refit? What would


be cheaper? Obviously, it is going to be cheaper if they are hatching


at the moment, but I think we are missing the point. 3 billion would


be a good investment. We should move them all out, get new premises,


keep them in the new premises, which would make this a much more


modern parliament that we have, they would be more effective. Make


it a tourist attraction. I think that is the way we should go.


you do it for under 3 billion? be honest, I know the place is


running with rats, and I think there is a vermin problem also!


they different kind! What I am saying, it is a great opportunity,


and I believe the government could get a lot of youngsters working in


there. Coming back to the cost, how much would you Charles for a new


roof? -- charge. We are guessing here, it would be millions, you


cannot even get something like that. The problem we have got, with its


stake to 3 billion? We all know that is the starting point. Would


you be prepared to move out? certainly not. Rather than having a


three-month recess, which is just a suggestion, wouldn't it be better


to move out? Technically, the Queen can summon parliament where she


wants. By convention, it is at her palace in Westminster, and that has


been followed since the late 17th century. It would be awful to move


out of this historic area that rips us with our history and where


legislation has been made for such a long time, to go to the East End


or heaven knows where else. Listen, the East End is a good blaze! I


feel a bit more ambivalent. would move out. I think it is a


wonderful building, and I have some sympathy with the idea of turning


it into an historic building, but I love working there. There are


things we could do for modern politics, rather than this


confrontational arrangement, two sides of the chamber, a circular


chamber where people are more collaborative. Combative is not a


bad thing, Jacob. I think confrontational politics, as in the


course, is very effective, because you smash ideas together to see the


good ones survive. Consensus politics leads to an awful lot of


five and no one being clearly in charge. Collaboration might lead to


better ideas. Are you waiting for a call from the Prime Minister?


should he be calling me? And not sitting on the edge of my seat, I


would not be here, you made me switch add my telephone! Thank you


both very much. Do not think if we had a modern parliament it would


attract a different breed of people into it? You get the last word!


Let's returned to the main political story of the day, the


unfolding reshuffle. Ken Clarke is leaving his job as Justice


Secretary to take on a new roving role in the Cabinet Office,


advising on economic policy. He is replaced by Chris Carillion. --


Chris Grayling. Andrew Mitchell becomes the new government chief


whip. He is replaced by Justine Greening at international


development. At Transport, Patrick McLoughlin takes over. Caroline


Spelman is replaced by Owen Paterson as Environment Secretary.


He moves from Northern Ireland Secretary. Sayeeda Warsi loses her


job as co-chair of the Conservative Party, despite publicly say she


wanted to stay. She will still attend Cabinet. The new chairman is


Grant Shapps. Andrew Lansley is moved from Health Secretary to


leader of the House of Commons. He is replaced by Jeremy Hunt from


Culture, Media and Sport, where Maria Miller enters the Cabinet for


the first time. On the Liberal Democrat side of the coalition,


Sarah Teather is replaced as Education Minister pied David Laws,


who had to leave Cabinet in 2010 after breaking expenses rules. All


in all, a pretty busy morning, and this is a taste of how some of the


people reacted to their new jobs. It is a lovely day for a stroll


along Whitehall. Are you going to meet the Prime Minister? It is a


beautiful day. I had an agreement with David, we have stuck to it,


and I am pleasantly surprised he has asked me to stay on in Cabinet


at a different role, some on economy, some on national security.


Jeremy Hunt, have you got the Health Secretary job? What is your


task going to be with the health service? It is the biggest


privilege of my life, I am incredibly honoured and very much


looking forward to getting on with the job. Delighted, cannot wait to


get started. Is it a big challenge, Northern Ireland? Absolutely.


discuss those changes we are joined by the BBC political editor Nick


Robinson, he was still in Downing Street. Your thoughts at the end of


all those reshuffles. My first thought is this, that reshuffles by


ministers hope will give them massive political boost. David


Cameron was not helped on day one when he discovered that Iain Duncan


Smith would not move to Justice Secretary. He is not helped now. We


have just had a statement from the Tory pin-up and heart-throb Boris


Johnson, the blonde bombshell of British politics, who has condemned


the reshuffle already. He says it is simply mad to have moved someone


that he regards as a first-rate Transport Secretary. He described


it as a plot to bring about a third runway at Heathrow, and he goes on,


Jo, to say he will fight it all away. Just the sort of political


start to want after a reshuffle! That is some threat, because Boris


Johnson's political credibility rose over the summer. It could


cause some danger. It could indeed. Justine Greening had been saying


behind the scenes that if she were moved, she would be the First


Minister in history moved for echoing her party's policy and our


Prime Minister's pledge at a general election. Well, she has


been moved, she is a London MP, for Putney, she was very clearly


opposed to any third runway at Heathrow. The government clearly


wants to keep that option open, if not before 2015, after it, and she


has paid with their job, and the Prime Minister now gets, for his


efforts, a blooming great political row about it. There will be other


rows in other areas. It seems to me that Jeremy Hunt, the new Health


Secretary, will discover that every single pressure group within the


health service, nurses' representatives, doctors and


everyone else, will not say, Well um, Minister. What they will say is,


can you tear up these reforms, we do not like them! He will either do


that or not, but there will be a row either way. That is the


difficulty of making change. If you look at the other area, Chris


Grayling moving to justice, he was not meant to go there originally,


he is a Tory headliner, a populist who will want to please party


conference. -- hardliner. If he says, the Liberal Democrats will


cut up rough, the Treasury will say, where are we getting the money


from? Tim Montgomerie was saying that this was appeasing the Tory


party, and some of those on the right of the party. Has this


Cabinet reshuffle done that? Well, you ask him, far from being a


commentator, Tim Montgomerie is a player who has lobbied hard for a


right-wing conservative stance. If people like Tim believes it is


right to have the likes of Chris Grayling imposed, then it has done


some of that job. I would not have thought it has done enough, really,


to please those who were demanding a real change on the right of


British politics. Foremost because there's no change in economic


policy. Remember that the Government's central problem,


economic glee and politically, is that there is no growth at the


moment. By keeping the Chancellor, the Business Secretary, the Chief


Secretary, they have signalled that they want to do more but they do


not want to change economic policy either to please the right by


introducing more tax cuts, or the left. Joining us now is the


Conservative MP Peter Lilley, who has experienced numerous reshuffles


after being Secretary of State for social security in the 1990s and


held other posts, too. Let's pick up on the economy, has it been a


mistake not to have done more to indicate any change in economic


policy, bearing in mind the situation we are in? The principle


hold up his lack of the regulation of supply-side policies, which is


mainly a DETI function. -- D regulation. We have not heard about


any liberals moving position, have we? They have all stayed in


position, just David Laws coming back. I would have put David Laws


where Vince Cable is. They could go somewhere else, he is an able


person. You would like to see him bat, and that would have been a big


kick-start to the economy. It would have been. What about Heathrow,


Boris Johnson saying very quickly it is simply mad, but there will be


those who will welcome a change in transport if it does actually


signal that there is going to be a change in policy on airport


expansion. A lot of people in London, and Boris may have annoyed,


will think that London's future requires more airport capacity.


you think so? I do, and it is either got to be at Heathrow or his


island in the Thames Estuary or expand Stansted or Gatwick. But we


need more capacity, no doubt about that, business is crying out for it.


Is that not the case? Many-layered MPs think there should be airport


expansion and another runway at Heathrow. -- Many Labor MPs. I do


not think Justine Greening would have disappeared -- disagreed with


that. It is a question of where you locate it. Justine Greening has


been in that job 10 months, and I'm afraid the Conservative government


is going to again turnover an election pledge to not build the


third runway at Heathrow. That must be the message we take. That is why


Boris Johnson accepts there must be more airport capacity. I am not


going to defend him, but it is a question of where it is. What about


the party? You know, we talked about Tim Montgomerie saying the


party will be pleased, they will be happier with the people that have


been put in many positions. Do you agree? I think on the whole they


will. Parts of the party will, some able people have moved forward,


Chris Grayling, the most notable, very able, and he could have


replaced Iain Duncan Smith, if he had accepted the justice job.


you think he should have done? is up to him, really. I would have


preferred it if he had, because I a thing he is more of a natural


person to do that job than Chris Grayling. -- I think. Chris


Grayling is not just a hardline right-wing, he is very imaginative.


I am right wing in almost everything except law and order,


and there I supported Ken Clarke's emphasis on rehabilitation. We want


to make sure that people who commit offences do not reoffend, rather


than having the pleasure of giving them luxury accommodation at


�50,000 per year. What about Ken Clarke's new roving role as an


economic adviser? Will that help communicate the message on the


economy? If I'm honest, and just in the privacy of his studio, I would


have thought it is quite risky, because Ken Clarke is not very well


house-trained, and he will say all sorts of things which will be taken


as critical of all different from what George Osborne is saying, and


that will lead to confusion. time, sorry, time just before we go


to find out the answer to our quiz, remember that? Seven suits


belonging to Margaret Thatcher were up for auction at Christie's


Margaret Hodge, what is the correct answer? I think it is 73,000.


are right, did you know? I think I read it somewhere! Thank you for


being our guest of the day. The One O'Clock News are starting on BBC


Download Subtitles