Conference Special Daily Politics

Conference Special

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Conference Special. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. In the words of


Monty Python, he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy! Or is he?


Boris Johnson has hit Birmingham. The City has not seen anything like


it since Ken Dodd played the Hippodrome in 1965! We will be


speaking to the man himself, Boris, not Ken Dodd!


The attention has apparently not been good for his ego but we


thought we would add to the further anyway. He has got everything, he


keeps the crowds, he makes us all happy.


We will be talking to this man about how he will keep the health


service healthy. He is not from the FA, he is the Health Secretary,


Jeremy Hunt. And burglars beware - householders


in England and Wales will soon be able to defend their home and


family without fear of prosecution. As Nick Robinson said, we have gone


from hug a hoodie to bash a burglar in under two years.


All that is coming up in the next hour, with us for the duration the


former Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth.


Let's talk about the economy, Michael Forsyth takes a big


interest. It dominated conference yesterday, until Boris Johnson


arrived! A report from the International


Monetary Fund, the IMF, did not make happy reading for the


Chancellor this morning. Its latest World economic Outlook, the IMF


says it expects UK economic output to shrink by 0.4% this year, and


that will be followed, it says, by a rise of just over 1% in 2013.


That is also a downgrade. This is what the Prime Minister said.


Obviously these are difficult times for the economy, and what the IMF


report is doing is coming into line with other forecasters who have


already said growth will disappoint right across Europe this year. We


know that. But the IMF also say we should not abandon our plans of


making reductions in government spending and also, regrettably in


some cases, putting up some taxes to get on top of our debt and


deficit. We do not new palm be, what we are doing is making sure


that every part of plan A is firing on all Senate -- cylinders.


The Prime Minister. Contrary to some reports, the IMF


does not say to the government you have to change the plan now, but it


says if growth continues to be as bad as it is now, you will have to


change? That is embarrassing? have not read the report, but


usually they are pretty hedged about, I am not surprised there are


nuances. I think we have got fixated with reducing the deficit,


of course we have to, but the way to reduce the deficit is to get


growth going again. I think what was lacking in a speech from the


Chancellor was any indication other than the scheme for equity and


small businesses, any indication of how he will get smaller and medium-


sized businesses running ahead. That is the only way forward.


does not, in a sense, have strategy for growth? It feels a bit like Mr


Micawber, he hope something will turn up when the numbers come out.


I think we have to be more radical, looking at tax reductions and


finding ways to finance them. Instead of putting off the spending


cuts, we should perhaps look at other ways of making reductions in


public expenditure, it seems to me. On overseas aid where there is a


37% increase planned, even if they still wanted to go ahead, why not


defer that rather than cutting people's benefits? Similarly, if


the Government believes that we should reward people in work and


not those on benefit, what were they doing increasing benefits by


5.5% when what we should be saying is that benefits will be increased


in line with the growth and wealth of the country, and that means that


we will not be able to do RPI. It does not seem as if there is any


appetite in the Treasury, or in 10 Downing Street, for a radical


supply of reforms? The traditional Tory recipe would be to say, look,


let's make the taxes flatter, let's cut them and get rid of all the


complications, all the loopholes - which, by the way, is what the tax


avoiders use. It is so easy to be a tax avoided because the tax code is


now so complicated. But I see none... I agree with you, and when


we were in opposition and I did the Tax Reform Commission, he said to


me, I want a simpler, flatter, fairer system. But he has


complicated the system and has not done, as you have described, he has


not taken the action necessary to broaden and lower the tax base.


There was a very good passage in his speech when he defended the 45%


reduction, arguing it would mean more money and less pressure on


poorer people. The same argument could have been done for lowering


it to 40%, and the same argument applies to those being pushed into


paying 40% tax, the middle earners. The result will be you will get


less revenue and that will make the deficit worse.


He made the tax code more complicated yesterday by announcing


that if you are prepared to give up employment rights, or most of them,


and you are a new work in a company, you can get shares in the new


company and will not pay capital gains on them. What did you make of


that? I couldn't work out what problem he was trying to us all. If


the problem is that people want to take on workers but they are not


sure, particularly young workers, whether they will perform and


whether it will be very expensive to fire them because they will


threaten to go to a tribunal, with enormous legal costs, I don't see


how do having a scheme of giving them shares in the business to give


up their employment rights will be in the interest of employer or


employee. They end up in shares with a company that they can't deal


with... They can't sell... incentive apparently is you will


not have to pay capital gains tax, but everyone has a �10,000 capital


gains tax allowance before they have to pay any, so that does not


see much of an incentive. I just wonder what problem he is trying to


solve. Other than I have to say something to the Tory party


conference? I forgot that. People can get up to �50,000 in shares,


but for many companies it would be a lot lower. You might get �10,000


worth of shares, any capital gain you get is tax free, but even if


the value of the shares doubled you would not have paid tax anyway?


if you are starting a business the last thing you want to do is give


away equity, because if the business grows, that is their way


in which she will race money. If you have given it to a load of


people you have subsequently hat -- sacked and who hate you, you have a


big problem. I don't think this is addressing the issue, the cost of


taking people on and if it does not work reaching an agreement with


them to leave. Similarly, it seems the big problem we have and the


economy at the moment his confidence, and taking away


employment security from people is not a way of increasing confidence.


Wasn't it at one of the things in the report? A suggestion? I read in


the newspaper to date that he said it was one of his ideas, but I have


not seen it. Ruth Davidson is currently Leader


of your party in Scotland. She said yesterday it is staggering a public


sector spending makes up 50% of Scottish GDP. But only 12% are net


contributors, so the average Scottish household consumes over


�14,000 more in public services than it pays in taxes. These


figures may be true, but was that her Mitt Romney moment? Deadliest


governor Ron the only insulted 47% of Americans -- at least governor


Mitt Romney only in some third. think it could have been phrased


better. She is right that there is a high dependency on public money


in Scotland, but the way forward is to encourage more small businesses


and enterprise. I think to accuse people on the public sector pay


roll of being dependent on the stage, we are talking about doctors,


nurses and so one, they spend money and pay VAT, I think it is an


unfortunate way of presenting it. Mitt Romney said he had expressed


himself inelegantly, we will file that under eye for inelegant.


she is saying that public expenditure is unsustainable in


Scotland, that is a good thing. This was very public, I don't think


she could get away with it! Let's cross to the Conference and speak


to the political editor of brats the magazine and the editor of the


Spectator. The speech from George Osborne was sombre and serious,


there was a muted response, was it the right speech for the moment?


think he had to make a feel bad speech for two reasons, obviously


you knew the IMF reports was coming and it would have looked odd to fly


over Birmingham scattering �10 notes from a helicopter. But he is


preparing for a year ahead which will be focused on a spending


review, cutting billions from public spending, I think he is


seeking positive agreement and warning people what is coming.


Surprisingly, he resisted the temptation to say that things are


tough but we will make them better. He was seeming to say that there is


not much we can do, we will make things worse for some other be able.


Fraser Nelson, how did that sentiment go down with the


grassroots Tories? Lots of them would have liked to have heard a


progress message, and George Osborne's main announcement of the


rather peculiar employee share capital gains thing has lots of


flaws which Michael just detailed, it did not have them skipping down


the aisles in delight. George Osborne has no good news. If he had


a serious announcement he would say that until December. He has a Pre-


Budget Report. Normally everyone likes to light up the Conference


with a big gismo but it is currently bear. Often people will


feel they are heading for defeat because there has not been a


recovery and there has not been a recovery because George Osborne


could have done better with the growth strategy. There are no


prospects. I suppose you could credit him with honesty? But it has


been lit up by the arrival of the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.


There is a media mania around him, is that all it is or is he an does


he pose a threat? I don't think it is just whipped up by the media. I


think Boris is the perfect contemporary politician in some


ways, a politician for a time when we hate politicians. He taps into


the electoral bone that Nick Clegg did last time, we do not regard him


as one of them, he gets away with things other politicians do not.


Who else could get away with making jokes about the Soho sex industry


and calling Michael Gove AJA cloth?! He has a sense of humour


which is incredibly disarming and diffuses hostility. He is a massive


consumer of oxygen at the conference, but I think we all know


what happened to Cleggmania. What does it do to David -- to David


Cameron and his standing? We have a strange dynamic, Cameron and Boris


both admit the tension between them, Boris said the other day it is


somehow good for the Conservatives because it stops people talking


about Ed Miliband. It is a morale- booster, at least. You should see


their faces in the hall, the audience reaction is more telling


than Boris's speech, they are smiling as they queue, smiling as


they listen, smiling as they are on their way out. Somebody has to give


them a morale-booster. It is like a Shakespearean tragedy when you


bring in a comic figure halfway through to cheer the audience, that


is Boris's role. Cameron needs that to make the Conference a success. I


don't think anyone could look at this beach and say he was sticking


a knife into Cameron. It was good, it did what it had two and David


Cameron after smiling like everyone else. It must have lifted all the


spirits. What about the response to Ed Miliband? Have they answered the


One nation slogan, an attempt by Ed Miliband to move onto the centre


ground or to move the centre to the left? Both parties now say they are


formally on the centre line and you cannot move for mentions of one


nation here. They don't agree about where the centre ground is, Labour


thinks it has shifted left and the Tories think it is to the right.


What we saw from Boris was a response in terms of... Are not


going on endlessly but talking about the bread and butter issues


which most of the people are interested in. Thank you both.


It is David Cameron's birthday! # Happy birthday to you!


So we have prepared a birthday quiz. The question for the day is what


has Samantha Cameron promised the Is it a game for his iPad, a curry


dinner, a night out with Herman van Rompuy, that is what I have always


wanted, or a Boris Johnson voodoo I think I know the answer!


Now, it is not about him. He doesn't want to be Prime Minister


and all the attention is bad for his ego. Who am I talking about? No,


not not Simon Cowell, you numpties, Boris Johnson, of course. Do the


Tory faithful really want BoJo as their next leader. Only one man,


our Adam, has the balls to find out. There is no indication David


Cameron is going anywhere, if the Tories did need a new leader who


would they turn to Boris or anyone but Boris? Probably Boris.


Why? Because he has a great personality and people like him.


Great. Our first Boris fan. It has got to be Boris. He is very


popular. Fair enough. He did do that thing


about Hillsborough, the article about Hillsborough. It would have


to be anyone, but. Boris Boris's past is coming back


to haunt him. He is not a statesman, he is a


fabulous person for the party, but I can't see him being a statesman.


He has got everything. He has got honesty. He makes us all happy. Yes,


Boris. Thank you very much.


The vodka party is on Tuesday evening.


That old ambassador's trick. I must practise... I must practise


my Boris more. He is not actually Russian, is he Turkish? Yes, he is


Turkish actually. You have got similar hair to him.


Are you part of the family? I could I am a fan, but it is not anyone,


but Boris. Future leader? Someone else.


I would vote for Grant. If it were between Boris and anyone else,


Boris or anyone but Boris, I would back Boris. Boris or anyone but.


She doesn't like Boris. I love Well, I just popped into the


exhibition hall because I hear somebody has stolen our idea. Look


at this! Oh well, back to the less exciting


balls. Who do you have as a future leader, but Boris or anyone but?


All I can say is that Boris is a wonderful man to work for and I


enjoy what I do for him enormously. Well, Boris, you have got a fair


few detractors, but the majority of people are happy to have you as the


future leader of the party if anything should happen to David


Cameron! I think you are cheeky and


troublesome and just appealing to people's nature by doing this. It


is very entertaining, but I bet you haven't had one MP put anything in


there. You would be surprised. That's the


best review I have ever had. should be very flattered.


"Cheek Y and troublesome" some of us live for reviews like that.


Boris has been speaking to the conference this morning. Let's get


a flavour. You showed that we can overcome a


Labour lead and win even in places which Ed and the two Eds are so


cocky as to think they own. If we can win in the middle of a


recession and wipe out a 17 point Labour lead then I know that David


Cameron will win in 2015 when the economy...


APPLAUSE Where is Dave? There. There you are,


Dave. I know that Dave will win in 2015 when the economy has turned


around and we are already seeing signs of progress. When people are


benefiting from jobs and growth and the firm leadership you have shown,


the tough decisions you have taken. Happy birthday by the way. Happy


birthday by the way. APPLAUSE


I was pleased to see that you have called me a blond haired mop in the


pages - well a mop is what I am. Well, if I am a mop, Dave, you are


a broom, a broom that's that's cleaning up the mess left by the


Labour Government. I con I congratulate you and your


colleagues and your colleagues George Osborne, the dustpan and


Michael Gove the jay cloth and William Hague the sponge. But it is


the function of Conservative Governments to be the household


instruments to clear things up after the Labour binge has got out


of control. Well, it is only fitting that the


Brillo pad should interview the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.


I thought we would be helpful and allow you to to clear up a few


things. Let me begin. Go on. Do you rule outstanding for


Parliament before the end of your term as London mayor in 2016?


As I've said many times since the election and many times before the


election, the job of mayor is an engrossing one. It is the most


wonderful job in British politics and London has elected me for four


years to deliver jobs and growth, to do everything I can to get the


city growing again and growing strongly and keep fighting crime


and deliver my manifesto. I had a nine point plan I'm going to


deliver. It is going to take four years, plus we have got to get the


benefits from the Olympic investment.


So do you rule outstanding for Parliament?


Yes. It goes without saying that it is not possible to do, you know, I


have got to sell the people of London.


If any Tory constituency approached you to be their candidate before


2016, the answer from you would be a categorical no? I think your


chances Andrew, which have always been excellent in my view of being


approached by a Tory constituency as their potential saviour are


better than mine. OK. It is not going to happen.


But... The you were chairman of the Scottish young Conservatives.


No, you were wrong, but you have been wrong several times on that.


Coming back to my question... always makes me cross... Can I just


be clear if a Tory constituency approaches you between now and 2016,


to stand to be their candidate, your answer is a categorical no?


is and I've said that before and I have got a wonderful job to do and


I want to do it. When you seize to be London mayor


in 2016, will you run again for Parliament? Well, by that stage it


is really very difficult to say what I will be doing and what I


want. So three or four years time, that's a long time in politics.


What I I want to do and Ken Clarke for all his sort of slightly


intestimony pratt language made a good point about things that are


needed in in London. People want to see crime being brought down. They


want to see jobs and growth and that's what I want to do.


OK. You say you are, these are your words, "Healthy competition with Mr


Cameron." What are you competing with him about?


I thought those were his words, but anyway, I think the point is the


difference is not important. What matters is the public don't feel


that I am just going to sit on my hands if there is something


important that London needs to get done or some important interest of


the city that I need to get across even if it means that the plaster


comes off the ceiling in Downing Street or elsewhere across


Whitehall. There are controversial proposals that we have seen for


mansion taxes from the Lib Dems, extra wealth taxes which would


affect London and Londoners. We have got a real problem now with


aviation capacity. I want to push ahead with solving that problem in


particular. There will be arguments inevitably for any Mayor of Any


great city is going to have with the Government in charge and I


wouldn't wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't put those points across


as forcefully as I can. The best thing for - the point I always make


here, is the best thing for the UK economy as a whole is to invest in


London. Build more homes in London. Invest in London Transport and you


will drive the rest of the UK economy.


Do you support an in/out referendum on Europe now?


I see no particular reason to have an in/out referendum now. What I


certainly think you cannot do is go forward to amendments to the EU


fundamental constitution to the, to create a fiscal union as it is


loosely called using the Brussels institution, the commission, the


Luxembourg court, the Parliament, using those institutions which are


held in common without putting that reform to the people of this


country. We cannot go ahead in my view to a political fiscal union in


Europe without that being remitted for proper public debate and a


proper vote in this country. That's what I support.


So what should the choice be? Should it be, "Here is a new


settlement we have negotiated with Europe? You can have that are you


can leave Europe?" What would the choice be? Well, what I would like


to see - it depends what, where we are at. What I would certainly


advocate is a no vote to further moves to fiscal integration, Andrew


because I don't think... understand that. I don't think


those are sensible and you will appreciate that point. I think if


if following that, following that it may very well be that people say,


"Well, what is the British relationship with the EU?" Where do


we really stand? At that stage I certainly think that it would be a


good thing to have a systematic repatriation of some powers and


there is no earthly reason why that cannot be done. There are all sorts


of variable ge om tee that abouts been set-up over the years within


the wider European area. There is no reason why Britain shouldn't


benefit from a new relationship. Do you support a cut in the top


rate of tax to 40% now? Well, I think it is politically


very difficult to deliver now and I understand the objection that are


raised by everybody and I can see that it would not be easy at a time


when people are suffering, when you are trying to cut welfare bills and


cut welfare schemes and all the rest of it. That is absolutely


plain. But would you still like to do it?


Let me, what you can't do endlessly is allow Britain to be competing


with one hand tied behind our back compared to other tax jurisdictions


which are extremely challenging for us at the moment. They are going


ahead with all sorts of things that we are not able to go ahead with


and I don't want to see us charging more in tax than all our main


rivals. Why should we pay more tax in Britain than in France, than in


Germany, Switzerland, I think even in Italy? We are starting to get to


a situation where we tax uncompetitive and that really needs


to be addressed and it is a difficult argument. I accept that


people won't like to hear, but it has got to be made. Again, that's


the kind of point that you have got to make as Mayor of London that


isn't necessarily welcome in Number Ten.


Do you agree with the ring-fencing of the big London banks to separate


retail from investment banking? Well, there are, what I'm generally


opposed to are measures that are taken, unilaterally and you would


have to look at the detail of whatever Vickers is suggesting. I


am opposed to measures that disadvantage UK financial services.


Is that what ring-fencing does? have we have being going through a


long period of bashing financial services. Two million people work


in business and financial services around this country. It is a huge,


huge proportion of the economy and we can't endlessly keep bashing it


for political reasons. I would be wary of measures that shoot


ourselves in the foot and aren't replicated across-the-board.


Do you agree as a good Tory that even as defence spending is being


axed, spending on foreign aid should be rising by billions?


You know, I don't, I am not responsible for either of these


budgets, but what I would say... Well, you are not responsible for


the 40% tax? London is a city of huge range of people's


nationalities, 300 languages spoken in our city, many of them, of


course, have contact... What's the answer to the question?


With people around the world and I do think that it is important that


we do what we can to give people in the developing world access to


hygiene, sanitation. I understand that. Should we be


adding billions to foreign aid when defence is being cut. I will ask


again, should we be adding billions to foreign aid when defence is


On defence spending, you could argue the toss on each individual


line. I'm asking for the principle. I'm in the convinced it should be


sacrosanct and you need to spend money on this or that but on


overseas aid, I think you are making a poll emical comparison. On


overseas aid, I think there is an argument. You should look at how


the money is spent. I don't want to see money being taken from poor


people in rich countries and Given to rich people in poor countries.


wanted a yes or no. It was a complicated question, if I may say


so. I thought it was simple. Maybe foreign aid wasn't top of the


ageneral d at Eton. Should David Cameron have sacked Andrew


Mitchell? I say! Say it again. Should David Cameron have sacked


Andrew Mitchell? I think that was a matter for the Prime Minister.


know that, but what is your view? Between him and Mr Mitchell. He has


plainly apologised and cleared the matter up. Frankly, that story went


on for quite long enough. Should very been fired? If one of your top


people have done it, would you have fired them? Well, you know, I don't


propose, with the best will in the world to get dragged back into a


story that I have already commented on extensively. I have said before,


I don't think it is right to insult police officers. I think people


should be arrested for it. understand that. That wasn't what I


was asking. It is a free country. didn't have the opportunity to


interrogate Mr Mitchell myself. That was something the Prime


Minister did. It is a free country, if you don't want to answer the


question, you don't have to. Let me move on. What has been the toughest


decision you have taken as London Mayor? There have been several


difficult decisions, but I suppose I would single out the decision to


ask the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police service to


think about what else he could do and to give others the chance for a


new leadership at the Met. There are all sorts of difficult


decisions you have to take. doesn't sound that tough, does it?


I think, as my owe pon sent never tired of pointing out during the


election campaign -- opponent, I have been owe bliedged to take


tough decisions on the cost of transport -- have been obliged.


asked for the toughest. There you go. Thank you for that. When you


are at the centre of the media circus as you are and have been in


Birmingham, who is it that whispers in your ear, momento mori? Memento.


We never knew how the Latins pronounced it. Who puts in your ear


that you are plainly mortal? Look, there are plenty of people to make


that point. Who? I go back to what I have been saying. Abundant people


in this very conference. Who? you know, all these people standing


around me. I think most don't know Latin. Let me move on. For the


aindividualance of doubt - -- aindividualance of doubt - after


you have been Prime Minister of Britain, do you rule out being the


President of the United States? -- avoidance of doubtment Andrew this


is getting beyond satire. You don't rule it out? No, but you are asking


me... You could be, you were born an American. My chances of becoming


Prime Minister are as I always say - about as good as me being


reincarnated as ang olive. My chances of being the President of


the United States after being Prime Minister, I think, you know, no


better than yours, let me put it that way and probably considerably


worse. Constitutionly I couldn't run as President since unlike you I


wasn't born in the United States. You could get a green card. Stop


filly bustering again. The most important question of the day -


what have you bought David Cameron for his birthday? Well, I think the


most important thing that any of us here can do is just to point out


that this is the right Government for this country... No, what have


you bought him? They are going in the right direction. What have you


bought him, Boris? What have I... I think I hope you will - I don't


know whether you had a chance to watch what I had to say, I was able


it wish him a happy birthday and a hope for many years in office to


come. I haven't yet lashed out on a present that's bus like you...


you telling the people of Britain, Mr Mayor, that you have not bought


the Prime Minister a birthday present? Is austerity so bad?


Andrew, I will if you will. I'm not allowed. Wait. I tell you what, I


did give him a present, it popped fortuitously into my head. I was


able to give him a preb. I will send you won as well, Johnson's


Life of London available in all good bookshops, a fantastic read


which I'm sure you will enjoy. Now out in paperback. Excellent. I have


always regarded you as a modern Bosswell with a funny accent. Thank


you very much. We will now work out how many questions you answered.


They were very difficult. That's what I got paid for. The last time


I looked you got paid to answer them. Whether you did is another


question I did my best. It is always interesting to interview the


mayor, isn't it? How many did he answer? I thought he did pretty


well, actually. You obviously spent the entire morning thinking of all


the beastly questions you could ask him. The point is... The point is


that he comes across as completely authentic, which is why he is so


popular in the conference. He doesn't hedge about. He answered


your questions as well as he could. Well if he has got ambitions beyond


being Mayor of London, will he not have to - he will have to learn to


do more interviews like that, which I know we had a bit of fun at the


end, but the stem of the interview was on serious issues, and he will


have to learn to answer them seriously as well. And I think he -


I thought he did that brilliantly. He was amusing and then when we


came to the serious questions like Europe and so on, he gave you a


very clear idea of what was required. Really, what did he say?


He said that... He didn't want in and out. He didn't want in and out


referendum. But if there was going to be a federal Europe that the


British people had the right to have a say on whether they wanted


to be part of that and that the Government had to look to bring


some powers back from Brussels. British people won't be asked if


they are going to be part of a federal Europe. The Government will


try to do a new deal which will be different from a federal Europe. So


what will the question then be: we have a new deal, we have a new


arrangement, a more arm's length arrangement with a federal Europe,


so we could have that or we could leave, isn't that the question? Or


could we have that and be a full federal union, what is the answer?


Well I agree with that. I agree with that. I think you have to have


a renegotiation. It is that or it is out. I think if you are


negotiating, the people on the other side need to know that's the


alternative. That's not where the Government is. I got a strong


impression he is not in favour of the Government policy of ring-


fencing the retail operation of the banks from the investment or what


the politicians sneer at, the casino element. I think that's one


of his strengths. Did you get that impression Yes. I think he said he


doesn't want to let the City of London be disadvantaged compared to


other competitors. I think it is brave of him to say that and I


think it is because he says things like that, that they like him. I


call it the Blair system, it went through the system, when politics


are what people want it hear and people say that. He doesn't do that.


He does it in an amusing and an easy manner. During the elections


for the GLC a youngster said to me - are you going to vote for Boris


Johnson. I said "Of course I am he is a Conservative." He said, "Oh my


God is he a Conservative as well, that's marvellous." Could you see


him as Prime Minister? Yes, I could. So you could see him as the next


leader of your party Well if we lost the election, it is a


possibility. Do you believe him when he says he won't run for


Parliament before his term as mayor ends? I think he was right to say


that three years is a very long time away. It doesn't the most


categorical reply I had. It was the only reply he could give you, if he


had any sense at all. All right. Thank you to that. Are you Are you


looking forward to your book? will see if it is that or another


broken promise from the mayor. Later this afternoon the Justice


Secretary, Chris Grayling, will announce that home owners in


England and Wales, who attack burglars will not face arrest or


prosecution unless they use grossly disproportionate violence. I


managed to speak to Mr Grayling earlier and began by asking the law


needed to be changed? We keep getting this debate each time an


incident happens.Er if tune ately they are not that common but they


do happen from time to time. Each time they happen we have this


debate about the law all over again. The current test is, is your


behaviour reasonable? I want to raise the bar, in recognition of


the fact that people do hit out in high pressure situation and that


the law needs to, I think, treat people who are in that position, as


the victims of crime, not the perpetrators of crime. What happens


all too often is they are arrested and put in the police cell and


there is a lengthy debate about whether they should be charged or


not. I think from moment one people should act that unless they act in


way that's grossly disproportionate, the law should be on their side.


You say they are prosecuted and put in jails. What are the numbers? How


many people have been prosecuted and put in jail for using


disproportionate force? Over the years, thankfully, these cases are


rare. You do get people going to trial, and getting sent to jail and


then released because the courts decided they should not have been


put in jail. But I think the spopbt that people who face an intruder in


their homes are victims not perpetrators of crime. There is a


debate about prosecuting them, they may be brought before the courts


and acquitted but the point is to raise the bar so that the natural


assumption in the Criminal Justice System is that the law is on their


side, unless they act in a way that's grossly disproportionate.


For example if the burglar is out cold in the kitchen floor and you


get a knife and carry on stabbing them, that would be grossly


disproportionate. Short of that I want people to feel confident they


have trite protect themselves in their homes. But the law according


to Lord Chief Justice and Ken Clarke would, cover for that. The


Lord Chief Justice said "You can phrase it in different way bus the


reality is that the householder is entitled to use reasonable force to


get rid of the burglar." Even if you set the bar higher, that will


still be the same? I have talk to the Lord Chief Justice about this.


I'm grate to him for the comments made. A strong signal coming from


the judges is a big help. He says you don't need to change the law.


What he said actually is that the householders' rights should be


clear and strong. He said it is. I'm raising the bar, so there is no


question about this any more. said yourself the numbers are very


small about householders being prosecuted and sent to jail, it is


not a big problem you have said that yourself. The Lord Chief


Justice has made it clear that he is happy with the law as it stands.


This is just about good headlines. The Lord Chief Justice didn't say


he was happy about the law as it stands. What he said, is what they


need as judges, is to send a strong message. That's right and proper.


I'm saying, as a politician, is that I think we need to set the bar


higher than it is at the moment, so there isn't a debate about whether


someone's action were reasonable in the situation, and so they are not


in a danger of being put in a police cell rather than being


treated adds witnesses and victims to the crime I'm saying only in an


event where the actions are grossly disproportionate, should there


really be a debate about whether it was disproportionate or not.


September 2008 there were two brothers who were convicted for


chasing after an intruder and beating him with a cricket bat.


Would you count than as "disproportionate force, but


wouldn't be prosecuted under your suggestions?" Look, I'm not going


to get into applying this principle to individual past cases. This is a


past case. Why not? I don't think it would be sense I will. I'm


looking to the future and saying we have had over the years numerous


cases where there has been a significant debate about what is


permissible and what is not under the law. Would that have been


permisable, Chris Grayling? I'm not going to apply - because I didn't


sit through that particular case, I don't know the exact circumstances.


It wouldn't be right for me to say db this is exactly how the law


would have applied in that case. -- thiss exactly how the law would


have applied. I'm setting a bar which says to the police and


prosecuting authorities, that the default should be that you are on


the side of the householder, that the householder isn't charged,


doesn't come before the courts, unless they use grossly


disproportional force in response He couldn't tell me how the law


would be applied. I think each case has to be looked on its merits by


the court and they have got to look at the circumstances and I'm


looking forward to seeing the drafting for the legislation he


proposes because I think it is very difficult to write down in


legislation something which will cover the range of cases of which


you gave examples. But he is following the sentiments of the


country that people feel they should be able to act reasonably in


their own homes, but the examples you gave of chasing somebody down


the street with a baseball bat that is clearly not a reasonable way to


behave. Under the law as he is suggesting


that would be allowed. You would be allowed if you felt that was


disproportionate, but not grossly disproportionate? The would have to


say it would be disproportionate. What he is trying to do is send a


signal so the judges will give guidance to the courts and that's


sensible, but whether you can actually write it down in


legislation, I think the principles are clear and have been clear for


sometime now. Do you think it is headline


grabbing? It certainly gets headlines.


But not a lot more than that. The argument here is really the Lord


Chief Justice is saying it won't change from what the law is now.


Each case will be looked at individually, whatever Chris


Grayling says and wherever he wants to set bar, it will not change


anything? But I think if people are arrested because they acted


reasonably in their own homes and put in the cells, that is


unreasonable behaviour, but that's a matter for guidance rather than


legislation. Thank you. The Government has planned to


reform the NHS in England proved controversial and politically


difficult and claimed the scalp of Andrew Lansley. Junt has been a--


Jeremy Hunt has been addressing conference and we will speak to him


shortly. This is what he had to say. So let me start by saying about


Andrew Lansley's reforms. They are brave. They are right and they will


make our NHS stronger. Andrew is here.


APPLAUSE The centralised structures make it


the fifth largest organisation in the world. Smaller than the Red


Army, but bigger than the Indian railways. Conference, we will never


meet the challenges we will face with over one million people trying


to meet 1,000 targets to satisfy one Secretary of State sitting


behind his desk in Whitehall. We know what happens when you do that,


don't we? We had the perfect case study under Labour. 48-hour GP


appointments targets, that made it harder, not easier, to see your GP.


Billions wasted on NHS IT contracts. To believe in the NHS is to believe


in its reform. Not my words, but those of Lord Darzi Labour Health


Minister under Andy Burnham. Now he is in opposition, Mr Burnham sings


a different tune. Let me try out a little quiz on you. Last week at


the Labour Conference, Andy Burnham complained about foundation trusts


setting their own employment conditions in the south-west. But


guess who was Health Minister when the Act enthis Rhining those power


got Royal Assent. Guess who was it? Andy Burnham. He went on to


criticise private sector involvement in the NHS, but who was


the Health Secretary who ensured that a private company would run a


district general hospital for the very first time? Who was it? Andy


Burnham. He railed against so- called cuts, but whilst we are


increasing the NHS Budget by over �12 million, who was the Health


Secretary who went into the last election saying it would be


irresponsible to increase the NHS budget. Who was? Andy Burnham. The


first rule of opposition, Andy Burnham, criticise what the new lot


do, not what you do yourself. Jeremy Hunt joins us from


Birmingham. Mr Hunt, a newly appointed minister said the


Government had screwed up the presentation of the NHS reforms.


What will you do differently? Well, I think I made it very clear.


Good afternoon, Andrew, by the way. I made it clear in that speech that


I am a very big supporter of Andrew Lansley's reforms. He will be seen


as the architect of the modern NHS and I am a big supporter of them,


but what we need to do, having had a debate about structures, is to


talk about how those structures can deliver, improved outcomes for


patients and what I was doing this morning was talking about some of


the things the improvements in the way we look after people with


dementia for example. The improvement in survival rates for


cancer and other diseases where we are below the European average and


those new structures will help help deliver improvements that people


can see on the ground. So we are moving into a different phase now


where we talk about what people can see changing in the service they


get from the NHS. But the Chief Executive of the


King's Fund told us in a year or two's time, the Health Service will


do very well indeed just to maintain its current standards of


patient care. So if we don't get your improvement, there will be no


improvement on the presentation? Well, we have got to do both. The


public want the NHS to deliver more and better, but they want it to


maintain its current standards, but the King's Fund are right, we have


the massive challenging of an ageing population as I mentioned in


my speech, there are more more pensioners than children. We have


two-thirds of the people who are getting consultant care in hospital


are over the age of 65. That's a big challenge for the system. The


reforms will help us, but we need do other things as well because we


are living longer. It is good news, but that brings with it, a host of


other really, really big challenges. But there are reports that one in


ten accident and emergency areas are closing and labour wards are


closing at that rate too. If that is happening, that is hardly going


to help your presentation, is it? That's a presentational disaster.


Well, there are parts of the country where local doctor groups


are saying that they want to run services differently because they


think they can get better outcomes for patients and we have a system


that we test whether those changes will improve patient choice,


whether there is good evidence to show they will improve mortality


rates, whether there has been proper consultation, whether it is


what local doctors want and then in certain cases if it is high-profile,


it will end up on my desk and I will take independent advice about


them. Those changes are parts of the system saying we want to do


things better. It is not about cuts. We are putting �12 billion more


into the NHS over this Parliament than the last Government did...


that in real terms or nominal terms? Well, in real terms NHS


spending is going up, but by a small amount.


Yes. This is the point the King's Fund


are making, the demand on the system is going up by 4% a year.


Yes. That's because of the factors that we were talking about. So in


order to stand still if you like we have to have productivity


improvements of 4% a year and I think these new structures and


reforms will help that, but I want to raise our standards, I think we


should be the best in Europe for dementia care. So the fact is that


your �12 billion of extra spending is a propaganda figure because it


doesn't take into account inflation. This year health spending will be


lucky to rise by 1% in real terms from �103.1 billion to �102.8


billion. Next year, how much will health spending rise as planned


next year in real terms? Well, what we have done... No, how much?


no, no, let me answer your question if I may. You suggested it was


propaganda. We have protected the NHS bug, Labour, Andy Burnham said


that that it would be irresponsible to increase the spending in the NHS.


We are increasing it, but effectively not by a huge amount,


we are protecting the NHS budget and that is when the rest of


Government spending overall, we are cutting spending by 19% across all


Government departments. That is a huge commitment that this


Government is making to the NHS because we know how much health


matters to every family in the country. Mr Hunt under your


Government's pro projections, health spending next year in real


terms will rise by �60 million. �60 million on a budget of �103 billion.


How much is that percentage wise? You are increasing the budget by


0.05%. It is peanuts. In the context where there are


public spending cuts in every other Government department, it is


incredibly significant that in real terms this Government made a big,


big choice to protect the NHS budget because we know how much it


matters and you know... You said you would increase it every year?


Well and we are increasing it by... By 0.5%. Well, I think


You never told us that. The point that we are we are making


is when we are having to make cuts when cuts across the world are


having to make cuts in public spending, the one area we have


taken a choice to protect is the NHS. That is because it matters to


the British people. It means that other Government departments had to


have deeper cuts and it is a choice that Labour wouldn't make. Indeed,


in Wales, whether Labour run the show, they didn't make that choice


and the NHS budget has been cut. If we're going to get the outcomes


that I was going to talk about this morning, we are going to improve


our survival rates from cancer, for example, from liver disease, from


respiratory diseases then we need to show that commitment in the NHS,


but we've done it because we think it is what people want.


Wheng -- when you were the Sports Minister, you trained as a linesman


and we have seen you doing that recently. Now that you are the


Health Minister, what are you going to train as? You are are you going


to try to be a brain surgeon? think that might ablittle bit


optimistic. I don't know what you think. I agree with you.


I will probably leave that one, but I am incredibly thrilled to to do


the job I am doing and I want to throw myself into the NHS which is


a fantastic system. I hope you come back. We had more


questions, but we are sadly coming up to one o'clock. I hope you will


come back and see us during the week or on a Sunday when when we


can go through the health figures carefully.


Did David Cameron do the right thing in promoting Jeremy Hunt to


Health Secretary? He is a good communicator and he will deal with


a difficult brief. The problem is that the demands in the Health


Service are going to outstrip the resources and yes, you can make it


more efficient, but we are going to have to look at other ways of


bringing income into the NHS and I am afraid, I mean I have free


prescriptions in Scotland. Why have I got free prescriptions? It is


unaffordable and I think he has got a tough, tough job ahead of him.


He was brought in to take the heat out of this issue after Andrew


Lansley, putting through the ri forms -- reforms. Will he be able


to do it? I thought he got off to a ropey start by starting an abortion


about the abortion limits because that irritate his colleagues in the


House of Commons. It over shadowed the preconference


coverage. The Government is not intending to do anything about this.


It was an unfortunate row. I think what he has to do, he has has to


spell out what the priorities are in the Health Service and take


people how it is as we have to on the economy. We have to level with


people. You can't have all these things and at the same time not


have any money. No. All right. Well, it is just


time to find out the answer to our quiz. What has Sam Cam promised


Dave for his birthday, a new iPad game, a curry, a night out with


with Herman Van Rompuy or voodoo doll? I think a curry.


Certainly not the night out with Herman Van Rompuy!


Thank you. Thank you for being with us today.


Thank you to our guests, the One O'Clock News is starting now on BBC


One, but remember today at conference tonight with James


Landale. That's after Newsnight. Tomorrow, we are on at 11am. It is


Download Subtitles