:00:37. > :00:40.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:40. > :00:44.In an attempt to seize back the political initiative, the Prime
:00:44. > :00:47.Minister gets tough on crime. After all, what else would you do? In a
:00:47. > :00:49.speech this lunchtime, the PM's expected to call for tougher
:00:49. > :00:56.sentences for the worst criminals and rehabilitation and education
:00:56. > :01:00.for others to cut reoffending. Crisis at the BBC over the Jimmy
:01:00. > :01:10.Savile affair. The BBC's Director General appears before MPs tomorrow.
:01:10. > :01:10.
:01:10. > :01:18.We'll be talking to the man charged with grilling him.
:01:18. > :01:21.Should men and women share parental leave after having a baby? I do not
:01:21. > :01:25.promise... BOOING.
:01:25. > :01:32.And we'll be asking if Ed Milliband was secretly pleased to get this
:01:32. > :01:35.reaction to his speech at this All that in the next hour. And with
:01:35. > :01:39.us for the whole programme today is Justine Roberts from Mumsnet.
:01:39. > :01:42.Welcome. First this morning, let's talk about child benefit because
:01:43. > :01:45.the Government has been warned that it may have left it too late to
:01:45. > :01:48.implement the cut to child benefit. The Institute of Chartered
:01:48. > :01:50.Accountants for England and Wales said yesterday that most middle
:01:50. > :01:53.class families remained unaware of the changes, which will require
:01:53. > :02:03.about half a million people filling out complicated self assessment
:02:03. > :02:06.forms for the first time. Have you found that with your followers? Are
:02:06. > :02:10.they counting down the weeks to the time they will get a reduced child
:02:10. > :02:14.benefit or none at all? I think they are aware because it has been
:02:14. > :02:19.a big issue, but I don't think people know they have tefillin more
:02:19. > :02:24.forms or how to do that. A lot of people have never had to fill in
:02:24. > :02:31.that type of form before. They will be coming on line and asking what's
:02:31. > :02:37.next? I think there are people who might not realise that this is
:02:37. > :02:41.actually going to be done through the tax system by HMRC, it is not
:02:41. > :02:45.that the Inland Revenue as we used to know it is going to cut your
:02:45. > :02:50.child benefit... We each would be the natural assumption. You might
:02:50. > :02:55.still get it and then it will be clawed back. Yes. That sounds very
:02:55. > :03:00.complicated. It does and it is the last thing anyone needs, to have to
:03:00. > :03:04.battle with more forms from the HMRC, which is not the most user-
:03:04. > :03:09.friendly organisation anyway. It sounds like a nightmare for a lot
:03:09. > :03:14.of people. But in no side whether or not a policy is clever or fair,
:03:14. > :03:22.the very fact that you are increasing bureaucracy is the one
:03:22. > :03:27.thing that... Are there people still very upset about the changes
:03:27. > :03:30.themselves? In the end, you could get a couple earning under the
:03:31. > :03:36.threshold who will still get child benefit and one single earner who
:03:37. > :03:41.earns above it he will not. Exactly. I think they are fair -- cross
:03:41. > :03:45.about the unfairness. It is hard to argue that millionaires should get
:03:45. > :03:49.child benefit. A lot of people can understand why the Government would
:03:49. > :03:53.want to reduce it, but they have done it in an unfair way and people
:03:53. > :03:56.are cross about the effect it as one single learning households and
:03:56. > :04:00.lone parents relative to a neighbour where they have more
:04:00. > :04:04.income but they still receive the benefit. For 11 weeks to go until
:04:04. > :04:07.those changes take effect. Tomorrow morning, the BBC Director
:04:07. > :04:10.General, George Entwhistle, will appear in front of the Culture,
:04:10. > :04:14.Media and Sport Select Committee to answer MPs' questions on what the
:04:14. > :04:16.BBC knew about Jimmy Savile. Tonight, a special one-hour
:04:16. > :04:21.Panorama will look at how and why a Newsnight investigation into
:04:21. > :04:23.allegations against Jimmy Savile was dropped before broadcast. The
:04:23. > :04:32.programme includes interviews with the Newsnight journalists who
:04:32. > :04:36.worked on the original Savile investigation. Ever since the
:04:36. > :04:41.decision was taken at Tibshelf Alan Storey, I've not been happy with
:04:41. > :04:45.public statements made by the BBC. I think they are very misleading
:04:45. > :04:51.about the nature of the investigation we were doing. It was
:04:51. > :04:56.an abrupt change of tone from one- day excellent, let's prepare to get
:04:56. > :05:01.this thing on air, to hold on. was sure the story would come out
:05:01. > :05:06.one way or another and if it did, the BBC would be accused of a
:05:06. > :05:10.cover-up. I wrote an e-mail to Peter saying, the story is strong
:05:10. > :05:13.enough and the danger of not running it is substantial damage to
:05:13. > :05:17.BBC reputation. In the last hour, the Newsnight
:05:17. > :05:19.editor Peter Rippon has stood down from his role for the duration of
:05:19. > :05:22.the independent Pollard review into whether there were any failings in
:05:22. > :05:25.the BBC's management of the investigation. Let's get more on
:05:25. > :05:31.this with the media commentator Steve Hewlett, who's at New
:05:31. > :05:37.Broadcasting House. Has Peter Rippon done the right thing?
:05:37. > :05:41.don't think... There was no other option. The blog he wrote a couple
:05:41. > :05:47.of weeks ago outlining the reasons for his decision to stop the
:05:47. > :05:52.Newsnight programme, remember the essential course of events is that
:05:52. > :05:55.Jimmy Savile dies at the end of October, a busy one announces
:05:55. > :05:59.tribute programmes for its Christmas schedule, up pops
:05:59. > :06:06.Newsnight with a suggestion that Savell may have been a paedophile.
:06:06. > :06:10.The Newsnight programme then gets cancelled. People say hang on, is
:06:10. > :06:16.there any danger that one bit of the BBC Cross infect another? If it
:06:16. > :06:21.were true, that the BBC corporate interests overrode its journalism,
:06:21. > :06:25.that would be a disaster. That is the reason there is this concern.
:06:25. > :06:30.Peter Ripon was under pressure to explain why he dropped the
:06:30. > :06:33.programme. His explanation is at best a partial and the BBC have now
:06:33. > :06:39.acknowledged it is incomplete and incorrect in important respects and
:06:39. > :06:46.as a result there is no question he had to stand aside. It now seems
:06:46. > :06:51.that some of the details of the reasons, not all of them, for
:06:51. > :06:53.dropping the investigation are now said to be inaccurate. How does
:06:53. > :07:00.that change things ahead of George Entwhistle's appearance before the
:07:00. > :07:04.committee? It makes the BBC seemed more of a muddle. We have people
:07:04. > :07:12.rich using themselves from these decisions. The Director General is
:07:12. > :07:17.no longer Director General for this, Tim Davey. The whole thing appears
:07:17. > :07:21.Mugly chaotic. Secondly, the Director General, the director of
:07:21. > :07:26.editorial policy and the chairman of the BBC Trust have been on the
:07:26. > :07:29.airwaves and said that this was never any inquiry into Jimmy Savile
:07:29. > :07:33.per se, it was an inquiry into a police investigation and the
:07:33. > :07:40.subsequent decision by the CPS not to proceed. The journalists said
:07:40. > :07:45.that was ridiculous. Our story was, was Jimmy Savile a paedophile?
:07:45. > :07:50.Female trail that Panorama has got demonstrates that in spades. -- the
:07:50. > :07:54.Demel trail. It also demonstrates that Peter Ripon on 25th November
:07:54. > :07:58.said fantastic, full speed ahead, and a few days later says stop, we
:07:58. > :08:04.must concentrate on the CPS decision. It looks like a handbrake
:08:04. > :08:10.turn. What that represents is another question. Is that the
:08:10. > :08:14.problem at the moment? Fears an awful lot of speculation. Peter
:08:14. > :08:18.Ripon has made his dishes and to set aside, but we haven't had any
:08:18. > :08:22.results of the review, we haven't heard from George Entwhistle.
:08:22. > :08:28.Shouldn't we just break and wait until we know for sure what went
:08:28. > :08:32.on? Yes and no. There are two questions. One is what actually
:08:32. > :08:36.happened, and we will have to wait for the review to find that out.
:08:37. > :08:41.The other is what the BBC has said. What is so common, the BBC have
:08:41. > :08:45.made a rod for their own backs by issuing statements which are
:08:45. > :08:51.partial or borderline misleading and they have taken their lead from
:08:51. > :08:56.Peter Ripon's blog. It is important for the BBC to establish
:08:56. > :09:01.credibility. The first thing George Entwistle will have to convince the
:09:01. > :09:09.MPs of is that he has some grip of the situation. At the moment it
:09:09. > :09:11.looks mildly chaotic. If thank you. With us now is the chair of the
:09:11. > :09:14.Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, John Whitingdale, the
:09:14. > :09:17.former Culture Secretary, Ben Bradshaw, who also used to work for
:09:17. > :09:20.the BBC, and the former editor of the Today programme, Kevin Marsh.
:09:20. > :09:25.John Whittingdale, is that what you go to ask him, has he got a grip?
:09:25. > :09:29.That is certainly one of the questions. Steve is right, the
:09:29. > :09:33.handling of this by the BBC has been lamentable. They've made a bad
:09:33. > :09:39.situation even worse and the Director General is responsible. We
:09:39. > :09:43.would want to press him on that. What about his role? What are you
:09:43. > :09:48.going to press him on in terms of what he knew ahead of the tributes
:09:48. > :09:51.being played in his former role at this news that investigation?
:09:51. > :09:55.of the things that Panorama has uncovered is a conversation took
:09:55. > :09:58.place between Helen Boaden and George Entwistle where Helen said
:09:58. > :10:02.hold on a minute with regard to these tributes, you might need to
:10:02. > :10:07.re schedule because Newsnight uttering an investigation. This was
:10:07. > :10:09.a conversation that lasted less than 10 seconds. It seems
:10:09. > :10:14.extraordinary that given George Entwhistle was told that, he didn't
:10:14. > :10:17.want to know more. Do you not think George Entwistle will not be able
:10:17. > :10:22.to be as frank as he might have been because of the review that is
:10:22. > :10:25.now being carried out by Nick Pollard? I don't know that that
:10:25. > :10:29.review is looking into that question. It is looking into why
:10:29. > :10:32.Newsnight was dropped. I'm not aware that it is looking at whether
:10:32. > :10:37.or not George Entwistle knew about it, whether Mark Thompson knew
:10:37. > :10:41.about it, Helen Boaden. Bradshaw, let's pick up on the
:10:41. > :10:45.conversation, do you think there was adequate due diligence, that
:10:45. > :10:49.briefest of conversations between Helen Boaden and George Entwistle?
:10:49. > :10:53.We don't know, but to be fair to George Entwhistle, when he says he
:10:53. > :10:58.wanted to maintain a Berlin Wall between his responsibilities and
:10:58. > :11:02.the news but if the BBC, that is credible. What is incredible is why
:11:02. > :11:05.it has taken three weeks for the BBC to realise that Peter Ripon's
:11:05. > :11:10.account of the dropping of the Newsnight programme was inaccurate
:11:10. > :11:16.and incomplete. That astonishes me. Why was nobody talking to the
:11:16. > :11:22.journalists? Why was nobody asking the reporter and the investigative
:11:22. > :11:26.producer for their side of the story? George Entwhistle and at BBC
:11:26. > :11:31.have repeated his position which we now know to have been wrong.
:11:31. > :11:35.did it take so long? Do you agree that it took too long? I don't know
:11:35. > :11:42.what conversations went on about this investigation. Presumably the
:11:42. > :11:47.Pollard inquiry will find that out. I do believe that Peter Ripon gave
:11:47. > :11:52.an account that he thought was truthful of the reason for him
:11:52. > :11:56.dropping... We now know that some of that data was inaccurate.
:11:57. > :12:01.have to be very careful. E-mails can be taken out of context. Once
:12:01. > :12:05.you take them out of context and apply hindsight, they can mean
:12:05. > :12:08.something different. I don't know how much of this Peter Ripon was
:12:08. > :12:15.aware of at the time. I don't know how much his investigative team
:12:15. > :12:18.were telling him. We have to wait for the inquiry to look at not only
:12:18. > :12:24.the case for the prosecution, which is what we will see on Panorama,
:12:24. > :12:31.but also the case for the defence. With all respect to the BBC
:12:31. > :12:34.management, they've made their position clear. They seem to be
:12:34. > :12:37.either wrong in some cases or misleading because of what we are
:12:37. > :12:41.now hearing from journalists on the programme. I don't think anything
:12:41. > :12:47.was done in bad faith. I think people thought this was the account
:12:47. > :12:52.of the investigation, they believed in it. The Director General turns
:12:52. > :12:56.to the head of news and ask what happened. It is inevitable that the
:12:56. > :13:00.account will be consistent. Now that these details have come out,
:13:00. > :13:05.those details have to change. Peter Ripon right to step aside?
:13:05. > :13:10.the light of this, of course he was. We have to wait for the inquiry, to
:13:10. > :13:14.look at both sides of this question. Did he make the wrong editorial
:13:14. > :13:18.decision in terms of dropping that investigation? I don't know the
:13:18. > :13:23.detail, but no editor of news eyedrops an investigation unless
:13:23. > :13:29.they has -- have severe doubts about the evidence. You shouldn't
:13:29. > :13:34.go ahead with an investigation, particularly one making serious
:13:34. > :13:39.allegations, unless you have a watertight case, would you agree?
:13:39. > :13:43.But if you have an investigation by two very experienced and reputable
:13:43. > :13:47.journalists, who now claim it was almost ready for transmission,
:13:47. > :13:51.about a former BBC personality against whom the most grave
:13:51. > :13:54.accusations are being made, any editor worth his salt goes the
:13:54. > :13:58.extra mile to make sure that programme gets on air and if they
:13:58. > :14:03.can't in the current form, they say get more evidence. You would
:14:03. > :14:07.support that, Kevin Marsh? If you had even has into -- scintilla of
:14:07. > :14:12.an allegation or claim, in this sort of investigation, you don't
:14:12. > :14:17.say you've hit a brick wall, you carry on. A you want your team to
:14:17. > :14:21.go back and look at new evidence. What appears to have happened was
:14:21. > :14:26.that when Peter Ripon said I'm interested in this CPS line that
:14:26. > :14:33.the investigation was dropped, can we stand this up? The team came
:14:33. > :14:36.back and said no. That was when his enthusiasm faded. But the CPS are
:14:36. > :14:41.never going to say publicly that the reason they didn't prosecute is
:14:41. > :14:45.because somebody is too old. That was just an excuse according to the
:14:45. > :14:50.reporter. They felt they were being set a bar that was impossible to
:14:50. > :14:54.jump over. One of the supporting victims, who was very brave to go
:14:54. > :14:58.on air at all, said she had a letter from Surrey police, the team
:14:58. > :15:05.asked her for this letter, the letter wasn't produced. In any
:15:05. > :15:09.editor's mind, that will ring alarm bells. The why was the
:15:09. > :15:13.investigation killed? There was a wealth of evidence and even more is
:15:13. > :15:17.emerging. Because the investigation was dropped without the team being
:15:17. > :15:21.told to dig further and uncover more, that leaves the suspicion
:15:21. > :15:26.that there must have been another reason. I hope that is not the case,
:15:26. > :15:31.I'm prepared to Accept Peter Rippon was not lend on, but because the
:15:31. > :15:36.explanation looks so thin... Panorama can uncover no evidence of
:15:36. > :15:38.that. There's another complication. Newsnight comes off there for
:15:38. > :15:42.Christmas and therefore the investigation would have had to be
:15:42. > :15:47.picked up after Christmas. There's another aspect. I was very often
:15:47. > :15:51.running an investigative team and I would say I don't think this stacks
:15:51. > :15:55.up, and they would offer the material they had to another
:15:55. > :15:59.programme. If this investigative team was so convinced about the
:15:59. > :16:02.material, and Peter was so convinced he could not run it, I am
:16:02. > :16:12.puzzled as to why that material wasn't passed somewhere else.
:16:12. > :16:16.
:16:16. > :16:20.$:STARTFEED. You but the team, the reporter Liz McKean said about what
:16:20. > :16:24.she thought was going on that Peter Rippon said, "If the bosses aren't
:16:24. > :16:30.happy, he can't go to the wall on this one." That's her saying what
:16:30. > :16:35.she she thought. That's not what Peter Rippon said. The allegation
:16:35. > :16:37.is that somehow there might have been pressure put on or it might
:16:37. > :16:41.not have fitted with what the BBC wanted to do.
:16:41. > :16:46.If the allegation is that Peter Rippon was overr over cautious, he
:16:46. > :16:55.would plead guilty. BBC editors are cautious. They demand a high
:16:55. > :16:59.standard of proof. Think we can we can overinterpret this, you take a
:16:59. > :17:05.conversation out of context and you can make it mean something
:17:05. > :17:09.different. Are you can have Are you confident
:17:09. > :17:17.that Peter Rippon wasn't lent on? Every BBC editor I know. If one
:17:17. > :17:22.said, "You can't run this because it would embarrass us it." They
:17:22. > :17:27.would get it on tomorrow. I have worked for some editors who
:17:27. > :17:32.don't need to be lent on because they think they know what the boss
:17:32. > :17:37.class what. It is a plausible explanation and a catastrophic
:17:37. > :17:44.misjudgement. John Simpson, one of the BBC's
:17:44. > :17:54.correspondents says it is the BBC's biggest crisis in 50 years. Is that
:17:54. > :17:56.
:17:56. > :18:02.an exaggeration? There was one crisis that led to the resignation
:18:02. > :18:06.of the Director General and the chairman.
:18:06. > :18:11.This is feeding those people who want to make that claim. That's why
:18:11. > :18:17.it is important that we deal with this quickly and establish that
:18:17. > :18:21.there was no improper interference. There is an issue in terms of trust
:18:21. > :18:25.and integrity. The essence of being an editor and running an
:18:25. > :18:30.organisation like this is we have to have people's trust? As a BBC
:18:30. > :18:37.editor, it is there over your shoulder all the time. You know you
:18:37. > :18:40.are carrying a heavy burden. I agree with John Whittingdale, it is
:18:40. > :18:45.about child abuse and about celebrity and about the BBC and
:18:45. > :18:48.about institutions, this has the potential to be even more damaging
:18:48. > :18:53.certainly than Hutton which was about politics. This touches on
:18:53. > :18:59.what people care about. Justine, do you care about it?
:18:59. > :19:03.and it is good that we are having wit I think deal's inquiry and --
:19:03. > :19:06.Whittingdale's inquiry. This come as a result of Panorama and
:19:06. > :19:12.Panorama being a BBC organisation and the journalists within it
:19:12. > :19:16.speaking up and speaking out clearly. So, you know, it is not
:19:16. > :19:22.all bad, but we need answers and we need to regain the trust.
:19:22. > :19:26.The handling may not have been up to the mark, but can the BBC regain
:19:26. > :19:29.it's... The fact that they have admitted after three weeks the
:19:29. > :19:33.original statement was wrong and they have suspended Peter Rippon is
:19:33. > :19:38.a start. They need to act quickly and clearly. Get to the facts. Get
:19:38. > :19:42.them out there and apologise for the original decision. This doesn't
:19:42. > :19:46.need to be another Hutton. But they need to act quickly and decisively
:19:46. > :19:49.to make sure it is not. Are you going to get, do you think,
:19:49. > :19:55.clear answers tomorrow that could in a way sort out what has
:19:55. > :19:58.happened? No, we won't because George will say, "Look, I have
:19:58. > :20:03.established an independent inquiry.". You said that you are
:20:03. > :20:06.you are asking about two different things? There are other areas where
:20:06. > :20:11.George does need to provide reassurance. We will be pressing
:20:11. > :20:14.him on those matters and when we see the result of the Pollard
:20:14. > :20:17.Inquiry, if we remain of the view there are questions to answer, we
:20:17. > :20:21.will have back the Director-General and possibly others as well.
:20:21. > :20:24.Ben, do you think George Entwistle should be worried about his
:20:24. > :20:29.position? I don't know because we don't know the facts. What I do
:20:29. > :20:34.know of colleagues and friends at the BBC is that he is a very
:20:34. > :20:38.descent man. He was a brilliant editor at Newsnight in Newsnight's
:20:38. > :20:44.heyday and I thought he was an excellent appointment for Director-
:20:45. > :20:50.General, but he needs to acquickly and -- act quickly and decisively
:20:50. > :20:53.over this. Should 16 and 17-year-olds vote? A
:20:53. > :20:59.cross-bench of peers think that is the Government should be looking at
:20:59. > :21:04.the matter and are introducing a Private Members' Bill today. Lord
:21:04. > :21:08.Adonis joins us now. Why should they be given the vote? As you know,
:21:08. > :21:13.the Scots have decided that 16 and 17-year-olds will have a vote in
:21:13. > :21:16.the referendum that will take place on Scottish independence in two
:21:16. > :21:21.years time. If it is good enough for 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland
:21:21. > :21:24.to have a vote on the future of their nation, then there is every
:21:24. > :21:29.reason why they should have the vote in local and Parliamentary
:21:29. > :21:33.elections too. This is starting to become internationally normal.
:21:33. > :21:36.Brazil, Austria, within Great Britain, the Isle of Man as well as
:21:36. > :21:40.Scotland give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. 16 and 17-year-olds
:21:40. > :21:43.play a a responsible part in our society. It is right they should
:21:43. > :21:47.play a part in determining who governs them.
:21:47. > :21:51.Have you always thought this? I don't know. Is this something you
:21:51. > :21:56.have come to recently or the decision in Scotland made you think
:21:56. > :21:59.this is the way to go or are you a new convert? I supported votes for
:21:59. > :22:02.16 and 17-year-old for a long time. Indeed, the book I published this
:22:02. > :22:06.year, I proposed it. I didn't see that.
:22:06. > :22:11.There is no reason why you should have read T but the fact that the
:22:11. > :22:14.Scots are going to do this in two years time, gives it added urgency
:22:14. > :22:17.and there will be a sense of grievance on the part of 16 and 17-
:22:17. > :22:23.year-olds elsewhere in the country that Scots are allowed to vote and
:22:23. > :22:27.they're not. Can I make porn another important? -- important
:22:27. > :22:32.point? Too few of them vote and take an interest in politics. My
:22:32. > :22:38.view is the way that you get them engaged in politics is to give them
:22:38. > :22:42.real political responsibility while at school and college. We have
:22:42. > :22:48.citizenship education in our schools, but it is not regarded as
:22:48. > :22:51.real. The politicians don't take it seriously and they don't visit the
:22:51. > :22:56.sixth-formers because they don't have votes. If you gave the six
:22:56. > :22:59.formers a vote and had a polling station in every school and every
:22:59. > :23:04.further education college, this would really make politics a
:23:04. > :23:09.serious business. You said engaging... That and that
:23:09. > :23:13.would help engage them more. Don't the polls indicate that 18 to 24-
:23:13. > :23:18.year-olds who have the vote don't exercise it in vast numbers anyway?
:23:18. > :23:24.Well, nearly half of them vote. We have a a problem about people
:23:24. > :23:29.voting at large. The answer is to embed citizenship education at the
:23:29. > :23:32.core of what pupils do so mock elections which have been a
:23:32. > :23:37.practise in our schools lead to real election for the sixth-formers
:23:37. > :23:40.and those at college. If that were the case, citizenship education
:23:40. > :23:43.would be treated with more seriousness than at the moment and
:23:43. > :23:48.the politicians would take it seriously by visiting schools and
:23:48. > :23:54.and engaging with the young people because they would have votes.
:23:54. > :23:59.We will be calling you up to visit schools. I am happy to that.
:23:59. > :24:03.Do you think that 16 is too young? They have made this exception for
:24:03. > :24:07.the Scottish referendum. It maybe difficult to try and withdraw it
:24:07. > :24:11.from other elections, but are 16- year-olds ready to exercise that
:24:11. > :24:15.big responsibility? Well, I think rationally it is hard to argue
:24:15. > :24:18.against 16-year-olds getting the vote. There is a lot of users on
:24:18. > :24:24.our website say they can get married and have children and have
:24:24. > :24:30.a flat. Not letting them vote seems odd. My concern is I can see a
:24:30. > :24:35.stage where there are 16-year-old policy designed to get the 16-year-
:24:35. > :24:42.old vote and we will have easier exams and cheap video games and all
:24:42. > :24:46.the rest of it! That would be awful to have attention focused on things
:24:46. > :24:54.which are narrowly defined for a small group of people, but I can
:24:54. > :24:57.see it coming, but actually my head says and the users on on mumsnet
:24:57. > :25:00.says it is madness because we give them responsibility in other areas
:25:00. > :25:03.and by 16 and 17 you have grown up now.
:25:04. > :25:08.Thank you very much. Should men and women share the
:25:08. > :25:11.leave that they take off work after the birth of their baby? The
:25:11. > :25:14.Government has consulted on the idea of sharing parental leave, but
:25:14. > :25:24.it is yet to outline its plans, but some businesses are concerned that
:25:24. > :25:28.
:25:28. > :25:35.such a move could lead to more red Play time at Mandy's house. She is
:25:35. > :25:41.a mum of four who works part-time for a website that offers women at
:25:41. > :25:46.women advice. She is in favour of more flexible rules that could see
:25:46. > :25:51.dads taking more time off. In my last pregnancy, it would have been
:25:51. > :25:56.brilliant because I didn't get much paternity pay because I was only
:25:56. > :25:59.doing a part-time job and I am the main breadwinner in the family so I
:25:59. > :26:04.had to take that time off and when I could have could have been
:26:04. > :26:10.earning. If my partner had taken the time off, I could have earned,
:26:10. > :26:16.I could have kept my wages coming Women get 39 weeks of paid
:26:16. > :26:21.maternity leave and men get two weeks paid leave. The coalition
:26:21. > :26:25.Government is committed to a form of leave where men and women could
:26:25. > :26:28.share the leave. That was one of the pledges made in the the
:26:28. > :26:33.coalition agreement and the Government carried out a
:26:33. > :26:38.consultation that outlined plans to give women 18 weeks paid leave. It
:26:38. > :26:42.suggested that both parents should share a further 30 weeks of leave,
:26:42. > :26:46.17 of which would be paid. It said that each parent should be entitled
:26:46. > :26:49.to four weeks of parental leave and pay in the first year of their
:26:49. > :26:56.child's life. The Government is expected to set out its plans for
:26:56. > :27:01.parental leave soon and the left leaning think-tank IPRR says they
:27:01. > :27:10.are moving in the right direction. It is the right way to be going.
:27:10. > :27:14.Our Research has shown a parental leave agenda doesn't need to cost
:27:14. > :27:16.more. They could allow better choices for mums and dads in the
:27:16. > :27:21.way they want to bring up their children.
:27:21. > :27:26.What about the impact on small businesses? This accountancy firm
:27:26. > :27:29.employs eight people. One of whom is soon to go on maternity leave.
:27:29. > :27:32.The boss says you can plan for that, but the prospect of parents taking
:27:32. > :27:38.their parental leave in chunks would be a problem.
:27:38. > :27:42.As a services business each person is critical to the business. So we
:27:42. > :27:47.are planning well in advance for the next person about to go for
:27:47. > :27:50.maternity leave and that's fine if we know they are going to be going
:27:50. > :27:58.approximately eight or nine months. If they were going three months off,
:27:58. > :28:01.three months on, it does get more complicated to work out the komp.
:28:01. > :28:06.-- cover. Could the plans be business
:28:06. > :28:11.friendly and family-friendly at the same time?
:28:12. > :28:15.Can we really afford the changes? All the evidence shows actually
:28:15. > :28:20.that offering flexibility to your workforce increases productivity.
:28:20. > :28:26.It increases retention rates. It increases employee well wellbeing.
:28:26. > :28:29.I think certainly you know, we shouldn't just dismiss it as a cost
:28:29. > :28:35.to business. I think flexible working is something that business
:28:35. > :28:37.needs to embrace. I take the point from your film that for a small
:28:37. > :28:44.business there maybe an issue around exceptions because it is
:28:44. > :28:48.hard. Mumsnet is a small business and we employ a lot of women of
:28:48. > :28:52.child bearing age. It is a test for business and I think there is
:28:52. > :28:55.something around you know planning, and small businesses finding that
:28:55. > :29:00.hard, but big business should embrace it.
:29:00. > :29:04.And big business by and large does or certainly has made steps to do
:29:04. > :29:10.so, hasn't it? We have been working closely with a lot of big business.
:29:10. > :29:14.We have a family-friendly programme and they have been doing some
:29:14. > :29:17.innovative things. O2 have a working interest rate which they
:29:17. > :29:22.share between parents that are allowed to share the hours between
:29:22. > :29:26.them. They have one contract. Brilliant idea. But they are doing
:29:26. > :29:29.it for a reason. It works. But if it works in the way that you
:29:29. > :29:32.have said that it increases productivity and helps a business,
:29:32. > :29:35.why has the Institute of Directors called for the reforms to be
:29:35. > :29:39.stopped and the scrapping of flexible working?
:29:39. > :29:44.It is a really good question. I wish they were here to answer it.
:29:44. > :29:49.wish they were too. Look, it suits some industries better than others.
:29:49. > :29:53.But with modern technology and with the fact that our users tell us
:29:53. > :29:57.that three-quarters of them say they are less likely to be employed
:29:57. > :30:01.after they have children, more than that say they won't get promoted,
:30:02. > :30:07.you wonder where there are fewer women in the workforce and there is
:30:07. > :30:11.a glass ceiling. Diversity is not great. Not having diversity in the
:30:11. > :30:13.workplace is a bad thing. I think, you know, people need to get a bit
:30:14. > :30:18.more modern. The Institute of Directors need to look at the
:30:18. > :30:24.bigger picture. Sometimes you just measure the cost of things as
:30:24. > :30:25.opposed to the long-term effect. How much of the statutory pa
:30:26. > :30:35.paternity leave do you think fathers should be permitted to
:30:36. > :30:37.
:30:37. > :30:40.$:/STARTFEED. On the one hand we are telling women they need to
:30:40. > :30:46.breast field for longer and longer, and on the other we are saying go
:30:47. > :30:52.back to work. The truth is, what is good about this policy, it allows
:30:52. > :30:57.each individual some flexibility. It will take a while before women
:30:57. > :31:02.and men of on an equal footing, but at the moment you have total gender
:31:02. > :31:08.discrimination. Employers are reluctant to employ women have a
:31:08. > :31:13.certain age because they think they will go and have babies. We talk a
:31:13. > :31:17.look at about family friendly policies, we need employer friendly
:31:17. > :31:23.policies and flexibility is the key one. The more you open it to all
:31:23. > :31:27.employees, the less discrimination you get. My argument, and the
:31:27. > :31:31.argument of hours, is in the long run it is to is good for business.
:31:31. > :31:34.Thank you. Will this week in politics be as
:31:34. > :31:38.eventful as the last? Let's take a look at the week ahead. Today, MPs
:31:38. > :31:41.debate the Hilsborough disaster. Labour is set to call for powers to
:31:41. > :31:43.force police officers to give evidence to an inquiry into the
:31:43. > :31:47.alleged police cover-up Tuesday promises to be an uncomfortable day
:31:47. > :31:49.for the BBC's Director General, George Entwistle. He's before the
:31:49. > :31:53.Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee over the Jimmy Savile
:31:53. > :31:55.affair. Wednesday promises to be something of a blast from the past,
:31:55. > :32:01.as the granddaughter of famous suffragist Sylvia Pankhurst leads a
:32:01. > :32:04.march on Parliament calling for political action on gender equality.
:32:04. > :32:07.While for Chancellor George Osborne, Thursday can't come soon enough.
:32:07. > :32:10.The latest GDP figures are due to be published, which most economists
:32:10. > :32:16.and commentators expect to reveal that the economy returned to growth
:32:16. > :32:24.in the third quarter. Let's talk now to Rosa Prince, who writes for
:32:24. > :32:28.the Telegraph, and Rafael Behr from the New Statesman. We've had the
:32:28. > :32:33.news for the editor of Newsnight, Peter Rippon, will step aside while
:32:33. > :32:38.the review is carried out. Where do you think this leaves the BBC?
:32:38. > :32:42.all sorts of trouble. It has been a terrible day for the BBC and
:32:42. > :32:46.tomorrow will be worse when George Entwistle comes to Parliament and
:32:46. > :32:51.gets one of those ferocious mornings MPs like to dish out a
:32:51. > :32:56.public figures. A lot of MPs on the conservative side are not keen on
:32:56. > :33:03.the BBC and they will relish this opportunity. It seems strange that
:33:03. > :33:08.tonight we will have Panorama on at the same time as Newsnight itself.
:33:08. > :33:13.It is crisis mode and MPs will enjoy themselves. Do you think it
:33:14. > :33:18.is a crisis, would you agree? crisis for the BBC, a definite
:33:18. > :33:23.crisis for Newsnight. Some hysterical things have been said.
:33:23. > :33:27.If you compare this situation to the situation immediately after the
:33:27. > :33:32.heart an inquiry where senior executives at the BBC were at war
:33:32. > :33:35.with the Government... We need to get to the bottom of precisely why
:33:35. > :33:39.Newsnight pulled this investigation into Jimmy Savile. The charge at
:33:39. > :33:43.the root of this, as I understand it, is that someone somewhere in
:33:43. > :33:49.the BBC decided that the BBC reputation was more important than
:33:49. > :33:54.getting to the bottom of whether a big TV personality abused children
:33:54. > :33:59.over a long period of time. That is a very serious allegation. If you
:33:59. > :34:04.can clear that up, everybody can move on. As long as that is not
:34:04. > :34:08.clear, the crisis will keep going. Her let's talk about GDP. It is
:34:08. > :34:12.being labelled as turn around Thursday and George Osborne needs
:34:12. > :34:16.it to be Thursday -- 10 around Thursday. This was the missing
:34:16. > :34:20.piece of the jigsaw for George Osborne. Ever since the coalition
:34:21. > :34:26.came to power, we've heard ministers putting their trust in
:34:26. > :34:30.the economy. The austerity drive, of the cuts programme, the basis of
:34:30. > :34:34.the plan for winning another term in office is that they are the
:34:34. > :34:38.people that will put Britain back on track by cutting the deficit.
:34:39. > :34:43.You need growth to do that and that has been stubbornly hard to find.
:34:43. > :34:47.If George Osborne gets his Gabby Day on Thursday and the figures are
:34:47. > :34:51.good, fat helps to solve that problem. The trouble vent his you
:34:51. > :34:55.begin to test that premise on whether it is the economy stupid
:34:55. > :35:00.and whether that is the only thing that counts. There's a lot going on
:35:00. > :35:06.for the Government that people are finding uncomfortable. For the on
:35:06. > :35:11.the shambles reputation, and Jim Mitchell resigning, David Cameron's
:35:11. > :35:14.announcement on energy that was quickly denied. Is the public are
:35:14. > :35:20.only interested in the economy and growth? That will be the question
:35:20. > :35:25.going forward. Is it the economy stupid? Will there but all of those
:35:25. > :35:29.other issues outlined by Rosa to one side and they will be able to
:35:29. > :35:33.say, we've got inflation coming down, unemployment is coming down,
:35:33. > :35:38.and we finally got great? economy is the biggest issue and it
:35:38. > :35:43.is the thing that will decide the next election. We can get hung up
:35:43. > :35:47.on the headline GDP figure. On Thursday we will have a number. If
:35:47. > :35:54.it is slightly higher than forecasted, the Conservatives can
:35:54. > :35:58.say behold, it is working. Stick with us, don't go back to Labour.
:35:58. > :36:07.If it is disappointing, Labour can turn around and say we told you so,
:36:07. > :36:11.the economy was growing, the coalition has made it worse. The
:36:11. > :36:16.parties can hang whatever messages they had before on to this figure.
:36:16. > :36:19.Parts of the country have been in recession since before 2008 and
:36:19. > :36:28.parts of the country that never felt the recession that much and
:36:28. > :36:31.are probably growing OK. Fiddling around politically in the margins
:36:31. > :36:35.is great knockabout Westminster politics, it will not tell us that
:36:35. > :36:40.much about the economy. What will it do about allegations and
:36:40. > :36:44.criticisms from within the Tories about incompetence and
:36:44. > :36:49.mismanagement at Number Ten? It is slightly more than fiddling around.
:36:49. > :36:53.I get the message, a percentage point here and there doesn't make
:36:53. > :36:57.much of a difference to people and how they feel about their own
:36:57. > :37:01.circumstances, but if George Osborne can keep saying we have
:37:01. > :37:08.sorted out the economy, there is growth, and David Cameron can say
:37:08. > :37:11.that at PMQ is, that goes a long way. Is it entirely the answer? No.
:37:11. > :37:16.Last week David Cameron tried that during clashes with Ed Miliband
:37:16. > :37:19.about Andrew Mitchell. He kept saying, aren't you going to ask me
:37:19. > :37:24.some serious questions, it didn't really work because Andrew Mitchell
:37:24. > :37:29.still had to resign. It is important, but will it be the
:37:29. > :37:35.panacea for all ills? I'm not sure. What about seizing the initiative
:37:35. > :37:39.with the crime and justice speech today? Will that help regain power
:37:39. > :37:44.for David Cameron? He is sounding tough on crime and that is a
:37:45. > :37:49.popular message. The place for the Tories have gone into now, which is
:37:49. > :37:54.a big problem in the wake of the Mitchell resignation, is whatever
:37:54. > :37:57.they now say, it is seen as an attempt to regain the initiative,
:37:57. > :38:01.to relaunch the Government's programme, and people are less
:38:01. > :38:05.interested in the message than the ralph -- wider brand apparatus over
:38:05. > :38:11.what is going wrong end the Government. People will look at the
:38:11. > :38:15.Prime Minister saying I want to be tough on crime and say, of course
:38:15. > :38:18.politicians would say that, but what is really going on? You get
:38:18. > :38:22.into this position where it becomes difficult for Number Ten to get
:38:22. > :38:25.through with the message they want because everybody else has decided
:38:26. > :38:29.the political narrative is something else. You are very
:38:29. > :38:32.difficult to please! Thank you. And joining us now for the rest of
:38:32. > :38:34.the programme, three MPs. From Labour, Tom Greatrex. From the
:38:34. > :38:42.Conservative Party, Jane Ellison. And from the Liberal Democrats,
:38:42. > :38:46.Simon Wright. Welcome. Let's pick up on growth. Simon, do you agree
:38:46. > :38:51.that the future of the Government hangs on these GDP figures?
:38:51. > :38:55.hoping for a positive story. course! You can take nothing for
:38:55. > :39:01.granted. The last quarter's figures were disappointing, but politically
:39:02. > :39:06.it is important. In his it critical? -- a visit critical?
:39:06. > :39:10.need to show that the plant is going to deliver the growth we all
:39:10. > :39:14.want. We've had some positive figures in the last week's on
:39:14. > :39:20.things like unemployment. Record figures over unemployment.
:39:20. > :39:23.Inflation down. Inflation is now half what it was a year ago. I hope
:39:23. > :39:27.that following falls in unemployment and inflation, we were
:39:27. > :39:33.now see an increase in growth. must be praying for no growth.
:39:33. > :39:39.we want to see the economy growing. It is having a detrimental effect
:39:39. > :39:42.on people. The issue with this quarter, 18 months' worth of TV
:39:42. > :39:47.rights, ticket sales for the Olympics, captured in that one
:39:47. > :39:51.quarter. It is about the sustained picture in terms of growth. Simon
:39:51. > :39:55.is right to talk about further quarters. One quarter of growth is
:39:55. > :39:59.a blip and will not be good for the economy. If the economy starts
:40:00. > :40:03.growing again, what happens to Labour's argument about austerity
:40:03. > :40:07.measures having killed of growth? It will be shot to pieces. Her they
:40:08. > :40:15.have killed off growth. What does Labour say on Thursday if there's
:40:15. > :40:21.growth? Even if it is 1%, we're only going back to where we were a
:40:21. > :40:24.year ago. We've still got, despite the welcome changes, a record high
:40:24. > :40:29.long-term unemployment, a lot of people in my constituency have not
:40:29. > :40:33.been able to get a job. Some deep- seated economic problems. Lots of
:40:33. > :40:37.those are the fault of the Government. Even if you get 1%
:40:37. > :40:43.growth on Thursday, it is worth than the position they inherited.
:40:43. > :40:48.We used will be calling for money to be spent to boost the economy?
:40:48. > :40:52.It is important that we try to build growth, not just relying on
:40:52. > :40:55.one quarter. That means particularly around some of the
:40:55. > :41:00.investment in infrastructure that needs to happen. Not a lot is
:41:00. > :41:03.happening. After the Andrew Mitchell affair, the energy policy,
:41:03. > :41:07.no economic growth would fuel those critics within the Tory party who
:41:07. > :41:14.are questioning whether Cameron and Osborne are up to the job? We've
:41:14. > :41:18.had a difficult few weeks, but the economy is central. More
:41:18. > :41:23.importantly than that, by the time of the next election, we have to
:41:23. > :41:27.show we have taken Ashes -- taken action on some of the big issues.
:41:27. > :41:31.It is not just about one quarter, it is about whether all of the
:41:31. > :41:35.things we are doing on welfare and apprenticeships, all of those
:41:35. > :41:39.things are feeding in to a more robust economy. Do you think for
:41:39. > :41:45.Number Ten operation is competent at the moment? I can't pass comment,
:41:45. > :41:51.I'm not close enough to the seat of power. You're a Tory MP. The prime
:41:51. > :41:55.minister is competent, that is the key thing. The Prime Minister at
:41:55. > :41:58.the party conference know at the big issues. But not Number Ten?
:41:58. > :42:05.Prime Minister laid out very clearly what we need to do as a
:42:05. > :42:08.country. I am 100% behind him. you agree it is mishandling at the
:42:08. > :42:11.Number Ten operation that is stopping the message getting out?
:42:11. > :42:19.think the people of Britain want to see us dealing with the really big
:42:19. > :42:22.issues. All of our constituents at are experiencing difficulty. I'm
:42:22. > :42:26.not going to get drawn into the whole Westminster village
:42:26. > :42:32.discussion about the operation. There are bigger issues for the
:42:32. > :42:36.electorate. It is not the media, it is Tory party members, whether it
:42:36. > :42:40.be senior figures like Norman Tebbit or backbench MPs. One or two
:42:40. > :42:44.figures have been critical but a lot happened. Can you endorse the
:42:44. > :42:49.Number Ten operation for us? It is running the Prime Minister's office.
:42:50. > :42:54.The only thing that matters in Number Ten is the prime minister.
:42:54. > :42:58.David Cameron's deputy chief of staff said on American chat show
:42:58. > :43:02.programme that he spends most of his day doing crisis management, is
:43:02. > :43:06.that what you expect from the senior management team running the
:43:06. > :43:10.Government? To it is not what anyone would expect and not
:43:10. > :43:14.something I've seen happening. Clearly there might have been some
:43:14. > :43:20.problems. Did they handle the Mitchell affect directly? I think
:43:20. > :43:22.Andrew Mitchell was right to resign. It was very clear that after the
:43:22. > :43:26.few weeks that issue had continued to pick up steam that it wasn't
:43:26. > :43:32.going to go away and there was the right decision for him to take.
:43:32. > :43:36.Moving forward, we have to focus on the economy, on improving the
:43:36. > :43:40.outcomes in the education system, bringing down crime. We've had
:43:40. > :43:44.positive crime figures. There's plenty of big issues that we can
:43:44. > :43:48.get stuck into and we are delivering on.
:43:48. > :43:52.To be or not to be tough on crime, that is the question this morning
:43:52. > :43:55.as the Prime Minister lays out his vision on law and order in a speech
:43:55. > :43:57.this morning. Before the election, David Cameron described himself as
:43:57. > :44:00.a liberal Conservative and was derided for wanting to hug hoodies.
:44:00. > :44:05.And two years ago, Ken Clarke described rising prisoner numbers
:44:05. > :44:08.as pointless and very bad value for taxpayers' money. It was a far cry
:44:08. > :44:11.from a previous Conservative position that prison works. But
:44:11. > :44:15.today, tough is the new liberal, as the Prime Minister announces a
:44:15. > :44:21."tough but intelligent" approach. He says that the debate between
:44:21. > :44:23.being tough or acting soft is a sterile one. In keeping with recent
:44:23. > :44:26.announcements of more freedom for householder to use violence against
:44:26. > :44:31.burglars and longer sentences for handling firearms, Cameron has put
:44:31. > :44:34.a greater emphasis on retribution and punishment. At the same time,
:44:34. > :44:40.he is still pushing Ken Clarke's idea of a rehabilitation revolution,
:44:40. > :44:43.arguing people need opportunities and chances away from crime. So is
:44:43. > :44:52.this a change of direction and can you focus on retribution and
:44:53. > :44:55.rehabilitation at the same time? David Cameron has just been
:44:55. > :45:00.speaking at the Centre for Social Justice. A for many people, when it
:45:00. > :45:04.comes to crime, I'm the person associated with those three words,
:45:04. > :45:09.two of which begin with H and one of them is hoodie, although I never
:45:09. > :45:13.actually said it and I haven't said it again today. For others I'm a
:45:13. > :45:17.politician who has frequently argued for tough punishment. Do why
:45:17. > :45:22.take a tough line on crime or a touchy-feely one? In no other area
:45:22. > :45:25.of public debate to the issues get as polarised as this. On climate
:45:26. > :45:29.change, you don't have to be incomplete denial on the one hand
:45:29. > :45:34.or complaining to get every car off the road on the other. Life isn't
:45:34. > :45:38.that simple. Government policy isn't that simple either. Key with
:45:38. > :45:43.the crime debate, people seem to want it black or white. Lock them
:45:43. > :45:47.up or let them out, blamed the criminal or blame society, be tough
:45:47. > :45:51.or act soft. We are so busy going backwards and forwards that we
:45:51. > :45:55.never move the debate on. What I've been trying to do in opposition and
:45:55. > :46:05.now in government is to break out of the sterile debate and show a
:46:05. > :46:08.new way forward, tough but Jane, is this the end of a hug a
:46:08. > :46:11.hoody phrase? The Prime Minister said he didn't ever say that. It is
:46:11. > :46:15.an evolution of what we have been saying for seven years from
:46:15. > :46:18.opposition through into Government. It is a sterile debate to say it is
:46:18. > :46:22.one thing or the other. There are clearly, people who need to be put
:46:22. > :46:29.away for a long time to protect society and for all the reasons the
:46:29. > :46:33.Prime Minister spelt out, but to imagine there isn't a role for
:46:33. > :46:37.rehabilitation to think we are putting people in prison at great
:46:37. > :46:42.public expense to make sure when they come out they don't slip back
:46:42. > :46:45.into crime. No one would disagree with that.
:46:45. > :46:51.There maybe questions about whether this is a continuation of an
:46:51. > :46:55.existing policy, either prison works and that's your headline or
:46:55. > :47:00.rehabilitation works? The Prime Minister is saying prison should
:47:00. > :47:03.work better. You do get this kind of polarized view and some people
:47:03. > :47:07.have presented the Prime Minister as not being tough enough on
:47:07. > :47:13.serious criminals... You think he gave that impression of not being
:47:13. > :47:19.tough enough? No, I don't. The debate has got bogged down in that
:47:19. > :47:24.territory and parmance have been part -- Parliamentarians have been
:47:24. > :47:27.part of that. The idea that we can't help with drug use and all
:47:27. > :47:33.those things is crazy. You a I gree with Ken Clarke --
:47:33. > :47:40.agree with Ken Clarke who said, "Too often prison has proved an
:47:40. > :47:43.ineffective approach that failed to turn prisoners into law abiding
:47:43. > :47:49.citizens." Do you think Ken was right? Yes.
:47:49. > :47:53.You don't want to see rising prison numbers? It is what you do with
:47:53. > :47:55.people when they are inside. If David Cameron is saying there
:47:55. > :47:59.have got to be tougher sentences then there are going to be more
:47:59. > :48:03.people going to jail for a longer time. Are you comfortable with
:48:03. > :48:06.rising prison numbers? If prison numbers rise as a result of putting
:48:06. > :48:11.away serious crim criminals, that's fine.
:48:11. > :48:16.How are you going pay for it?. are trying to stop people coming
:48:16. > :48:21.back and that answers your question about payment. It is about stopping
:48:21. > :48:25.the same people coming back and back and back, that's how you get
:48:25. > :48:28.the cost cost down. If you want to send more people to
:48:28. > :48:34.prison, you will need more prisons? Snooze a Liberal Democrat I support
:48:34. > :48:39.the view that we need a revolution in rehabilitation... Do you support
:48:39. > :48:43.the prison works? Prison can can work which is what David Cameron is
:48:43. > :48:47.saying today. We cannot have the resolving door where offenders
:48:47. > :48:51.leave prison and come back in. Our re-offending rates are unacceptably
:48:51. > :48:57.high in this country. We need to focus on the evidence of what works.
:48:58. > :49:07.This means getting away from the the narrow debate about being tough
:49:08. > :49:12.
:49:12. > :49:16.or soft on crime. Initiatives such as the use of restorive jus justice.
:49:16. > :49:19.Julia Lyons warned that tougher sentencing will cost more in the
:49:20. > :49:26.short-term? Well, the only way crime will cost more in the long-
:49:26. > :49:31.term is if we don't... How do we pay for it in the short-term?
:49:31. > :49:34.thing we can do is focus on payment by results so so those providers
:49:34. > :49:39.have a clear idea of what they need to be achieving in order to get
:49:39. > :49:42.paid. That's how we are going to drive down re-offending rates.
:49:42. > :49:48.It puts Labour in a difficult position, painting you soft on
:49:48. > :49:52.crime? No, I don't think so. Today's speech was, there is
:49:52. > :49:56.nothing new in it actually. It is trying to get a third re-launch in
:49:56. > :49:59.the calendar year for David Cameron, but the concern I have with what
:49:59. > :50:02.Chris Grayling was saying this morning about the rolling out the
:50:02. > :50:07.Peterborough pilot, the payment by results is that we haven't got the
:50:07. > :50:15.results from that pilot yet and Chris Grayling has form on this
:50:15. > :50:19.because he rolled out the the scheme for peopling coming off
:50:19. > :50:24.Incapacity Benefit and that caused chaos so we have to make sure we
:50:24. > :50:28.get the details right. It is untested. The Commons justice
:50:28. > :50:34.Select Committee said payment by results were untested in the field
:50:34. > :50:38.of criminal justice. Pinning your hopes on that is premature? It is
:50:38. > :50:42.clearly a learning development. This is an exciting area of
:50:42. > :50:45.development where the Ministry of Justice has been putting in work
:50:45. > :50:50.and effort. We will make it work. We have to make it work because we
:50:50. > :50:57.have to bring down fending. You have to get the results of the
:50:57. > :51:02.pilot. If it is not working, you will create more problems for the
:51:02. > :51:05.few tufr. -- future.
:51:05. > :51:10.We are not without knowledge. One of the things I hope we have got
:51:11. > :51:15.space for in this initiative is to make sure that smaller, voluntary
:51:15. > :51:20.and innovative groups can find space to and not just the big
:51:20. > :51:25.providers. That would be something I'm looking for as we roll this out.
:51:25. > :51:31.Do you accept in the short-term it is going to push up costs and you
:51:31. > :51:34.will need at least some more prison space to hold these prisoners?
:51:34. > :51:41.don't think we know that either of these things are true.
:51:41. > :51:44.You have You have Juliet Lyons saying that and she is an expert?
:51:44. > :51:50.We don't know what is going to happen to prison numbers or the
:51:50. > :51:55.costs. Payment by results has the potential to deliver diminishing
:51:55. > :51:58.costs. It is an area that's evolving. I don't think you can
:51:58. > :52:02.jump from hearing the speech to saying it is the case that numbers
:52:02. > :52:05.are going to go up. Sentencing is down to judges.
:52:05. > :52:10.Why is the re-launch happening? don't think it is a re-launch...
:52:10. > :52:19.What's new? It is a long planned speech.
:52:19. > :52:23.There is nothing new in it? It has become an overly sterile debate and
:52:23. > :52:26.the pragmatic reality is between the two polarizeted pos --
:52:26. > :52:31.polarized positions. Do you believe that David Cameron
:52:31. > :52:35.is a liberal Conservative? This is one area in which he is
:52:35. > :52:40.demonstrating he can be a liberal Conservative. Supporting
:52:40. > :52:43.Rehabilitation is key to bringing down crime. I am pleased that he
:52:43. > :52:46.has incorporated that into this speech and he is moving beyond what
:52:46. > :52:49.is an old-fashioned rhetoric of the black and the white that he talked
:52:49. > :52:53.about, that you are soft or tough on crime and moving towards a
:52:53. > :52:57.debate on what works. This Bill is very effectively on the work that
:52:57. > :53:02.Ken Clarke was progressing within the Ministry of Justice.
:53:02. > :53:06.Do you agree with the rhetoric surrounding the bash a burglar?
:53:06. > :53:10.think that that policy was very clearly articulated... And you
:53:10. > :53:16.agree with it? It is right that people should not be punished for
:53:16. > :53:20.something that they are caught in the moment in and the heat of the
:53:20. > :53:23.moment and I think making that clear is vital which is what that
:53:23. > :53:32.discussion was about a few weeks ago.
:53:32. > :53:36.And nothing for you to to disagree on, Tom? It is about trying to send
:53:36. > :53:40.a message of being the tough person that will appeal to the base and
:53:40. > :53:47.keep some of Jane's colleagues on board after what was a traumatic
:53:47. > :53:52.for Jane's colleagues last week. Something Labour did successfully,
:53:52. > :53:57.being tough on crime works for the electorate? The issue around this
:53:57. > :54:01.pilot is that payment by results, if you got to get the detail pilot
:54:01. > :54:04.before you, there is a danger in rolling this out and the big
:54:04. > :54:09.companies cherry-picking the easy bits and you leave the real
:54:09. > :54:15.problems behind. If the pilots come back back, they
:54:15. > :54:21.come back and say this works, will Labour back it? Will you say "this
:54:21. > :54:26.is something we will support." That's yu -- that's why you need to
:54:26. > :54:30.get the results. When it comes back, we will evaluate. If it is working,
:54:30. > :54:38.it is something that should be considered. Its danger of -- the
:54:38. > :54:42.danger of rolling this out, Chris Grayling may rush this out, we have
:54:42. > :54:46.got to be careful we don't have unintend consequences and make a
:54:46. > :54:50.situation worse rather than better. Spare a thought for Ed Miliband who
:54:50. > :54:58.turned up a the anti-aurth march on -- anti-austerity march on Saturday
:54:58. > :55:02.and got booed. Take a look at this. Now, of course, now of course,
:55:02. > :55:10.there will still be hard choices and with borrowing rising, nots
:55:10. > :55:14.falling, I do not - I do not promise easy times. You know, you
:55:14. > :55:19.know it is right, it is right that we level with people. That there
:55:19. > :55:26.would still be hard choices. I have said whoever was in Government now,
:55:26. > :55:31.there would be some cuts, but this Government has shown the cutting
:55:31. > :55:35.too far and too fast, self deceiting austerity is not the the
:55:35. > :55:41.answer. It is not the answer to Britain's problems.
:55:41. > :55:50.Ed Miliband, it sounded like everyone was booing him. It might
:55:50. > :55:56.be a small vocal group which is what the SMP are good at.
:55:56. > :56:01.Jane thinks it is Ed Miliband's spindoctors booing for effect!
:56:01. > :56:06.That's taking the events of last week too far. Isn't there an
:56:06. > :56:11.important point that you can make a a controversial, unpopular speech
:56:11. > :56:16.to a friendly audience and get booed and the wider electorate
:56:16. > :56:20.think, "Ed Miliband is saying important. He is prepared to go
:56:20. > :56:24.against his supporters.". The point that Ed Miliband was making was the
:56:25. > :56:28.right one and I know from people who went on the sister march in
:56:28. > :56:30.Glasgow, there are people who aren't the usual suspects in terms
:56:30. > :56:33.of trade union activist who are concerned about issues and joined
:56:33. > :56:37.that march because they are concerned about what is happening.
:56:37. > :56:41.Does it help him being booed? People will see that reactionment
:56:41. > :56:46.people will hear what he says, and what he is saying is right. We have
:56:46. > :56:54.to be clear about what it is - the situation we are likely to inherit
:56:54. > :57:00.if we come into Government gen Government again in 2015.
:57:00. > :57:04.Isn't the real real that Labour would have cut. There would be been
:57:04. > :57:09.serious cuts and slashing of spending? The situation that we are
:57:09. > :57:19.likely to have in 2015 could be worse than the situation in 2010
:57:19. > :57:24.and we are one of only two G20 economies that that have been in a
:57:24. > :57:28.double dip recession. George Osborne got booed over the
:57:28. > :57:31.summer? Ed Miliband at a time when Britain is trying to attract saying
:57:31. > :57:35.we are open to business and trying to attract jobs and trying to
:57:35. > :57:40.restore confidence, he shared a platform with people calling for a
:57:40. > :57:44.general strike. He would have made cuts? Labour
:57:44. > :57:48.haven't voted for any. We haven't had any support whatsoever from the
:57:48. > :57:53.Opposition in two years of taking hard decisions.
:57:53. > :57:58.That's the receipt riblingt in reality -- rhetoric and they would
:57:58. > :58:01.have made cuts? Well, how can we believe it? His position is not
:58:01. > :58:08.credible sharing a platform with people calling for a general strike
:58:08. > :58:11.that would damage our country. What are the Liberal Democrats
:58:11. > :58:15.going to counter the support? Liberal Democrats are working hard
:58:15. > :58:18.to clear up the mess that Labour left behind.
:58:18. > :58:24.The grass-roots are going over to Labour? No, that's not the case. We
:58:24. > :58:28.are working hard in Government to try and sort out the mess that was
:58:28. > :58:32.inherited. The one thing that Ed Miliband could have said, that
:58:32. > :58:36.might have got got cheers is to apologise for his party's record. A
:58:36. > :58:40.record which he and Ed Balls were very much behind and advising
:58:40. > :58:45.Gordon Brown in the Treasury. So I think that the one thing that Ed
:58:45. > :58:49.Miliband needs to do is reflect on why people are booing him. Why they
:58:49. > :58:53.are disillusioned and it is because he says he wants cuts, but doesn't