09/11/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. After the Prime

Minister's uncomfortable moment on the This Morning sofa, that will

teach him, is he right to warn of a witch-hunt or is this the start of

a backlash against claims of abuse? The former Tory grandee who was

named was linked with the abuse at this children's home in north Wales,

he publicly denies the allegations. We will have the latest. And a new

archbishop, a former oil executive who went to Eton, of course, but

where does Justin Welby stand and gay marriage, women bishops and

those ungodly bankers? We will look at the politics of the posh primate

in Lambeth. Cut the backlog of cases at the Border Agency mean an

amnesty for some illegal immigrants? We will talk to the

chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, he says it might. And we

report from Corby, scene of the latest by-election following the

So a veritable pot-pourri over the next 60 minutes, whatever that

means, all coming up in public service broadcasting at its finest!

With us for the duration, George Parker of the Financial Times and

Carla Buzasi, editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post, a website, the

Huffington Post! The Financial Times is becoming a website. Let

start with the latest skirmish in the phoney war over press

regulation, the publication of the Leveson report is expected by the

end of the month. This morning over 40 Conservative MPs and peers wrote

to the Guardian of all papers to express their support for some sort

of independent regulation of the press. Now, it is not clear exactly

what they favour, but they are explicit that self-regulation as

exists now is no longer an option. And that is a position which

contrasts with many other Conservatives in their party. This

report is going to split the Tories, isn't it? Yeah, I think it is, and

we are seeing the first manifestation of that with his

letter to the Guardian, because the signs are that David Cameron is

torn on this, he might favour a slightly stronger regulation, but

the press is breathing down his neck, the Daily Mail group, saying

that any sort of statutory underpinning of this independent

regulatory system amounts to the licensing of journalists. My

newspaper is among those which thinks that is a slippery slope.

The Financial Times is against... I got told off by a lawyer for

calling it statutory regulation, but any kind of state underpinning

of the regulation. You can see why this debate has arisen, because if

you have an independent regulator and some people they do not want to

abide by its rulings, particularly in the case of the Express group,

do you need to have some sort of state backing to ensure that people

signed up to the new code? And yet Labour has committed itself to

Leveson's recommendations before they even know what they are. But

if Labour is in favour, I expect a lot of Lib Dems will want to go

down that road, too. That puts the Conservatives more in the spotlight.

I think they are in the spotlight, but Cameron has got himself into

this. I do not think he ever realised how long it would take,

how foolish certain senior members would end up looking through it,

and at the end of it we are effectively still in the same mess

that we were when we started. Nothing clear is coming out of it.

Hopefully when you finally publishers, he will have something

to recommend, but I do not think it is clear how it is going to go.

Cameron is between a rock and a hard place, isn't he? I get the

impression listening to him that he would rather avoid statutory

regulation is the can, and he has not got any friends in the Tory

press, but he knows that the press does not like it, the Guardian does

not like it, the Financial Times, two left-of-centre paper will stop

we do not like it! It is not going to happen if the Huffington Post UK

does not like it! But the public opinion does not like the press at

the moment, they did not like what they heard that Leveson, and he

will be under pressure from Labour, the Lib Dems, public opinion in

general, Hugh Grant and other famous folk to do something about

it. I think anything which smacks of the press being in the last-

chance saloon again, giving them one last chance, will not wash with

the public. The public wants something that guarantees them

redress. We have drunk at the last- chance saloon and directed other

way out! I think that is the problem. We saw an interesting

debate in the Commons this week when Nick Clegg said it had to

progress with cross-party support, because the Labour Party are in

favour of some kind of statutory basis for this, the Liberal

Democrats are, quite a few members of the Conservative Party. That is

a majority. What an online news and opinion provider like the

Huffington Post, would that be covered by Leveson? Oh I appeared

in front of Leveson, and it was probably about... Did you know what

it was? We are a member of the PCC, we are the only 100% digital media

organisation... New volunteer. did, and it was important to us,

because I and my team believe that the code of practice is sensible,

but also... You know, we want to be seen as trustworthy, and this was a

statement to that effect. I think he will see digital publications,

not all of them, the want to be seen alongside a... Part of the

mainstream. Absolutely. My sources say by the end of November. Yes,

the same thing, by the end of November. Then there will be a big

row, then there would be the ordnance datum -- the Autumn

Statement, then it will die over Christmas, then it will come back.

I think the political story will run and run.

A Conservative peer, Lord McAlpine, was a major fundraiser for Margaret

Thatcher in the 1980s. Indeed, he regarded himself as her bag man.

His memoirs are called Once a Jolly bagman. He has vehemently denied

the abuse of children at a care home in north Wales in the 1970s.

His name had been bandied around, along with many other

unsubstantiated allegations, on what we call the into Web. Our

political correspondent Carole Walker can tell us more. This came

out after the breakfast TV shows, what does it tell us? Well, an

interesting and bold decision by Lord McAlpine to act to try to

clear his name after days are speculation which he himself

describes as a media frenzy. Now, this goes back to last Friday, when

the Newsnight programme ran allegations from a victim of child

abuse, Steve Messham, who says that he was abused in these care homes

in Wrexham by a senior Conservative dating back to the Conservative era.

Since then, there has been a huge amount of speculation linking Lord

McAlpine to that allegation, and today he says there is a media

frenzy, I have to expect that an editor will soon come under

pressure to misnaming me, and he has decided that he must publicly

tackle the slurs and set the record straight. Now, he says very

specifically that he had only ever been to Wrexham once, that was in

his role within the Conservative Party, he was accompanied by a

party agent. He said that he had never stayed in a hotel nearby, he

did not have a Rolls-Royce, where some of this is alleged to have

happened. He says specifically, I did not sexually abused any

resident of the children's home in Wrexham. He goes on, interestingly

enough, to express strong sympathy for people who have been victims of

abuse. He describes it as abhorrent. And it also says that he does not

accuse Steve Messham of any kind of malicious intent. He simply thinks

that if he believes Lord McAlpine was the man who abused him all the

years ago, I can only suggest he is mistaken and he has identified the

wrong person. So interestingly, such a senior figure from the past

has decided that the only way to confront these allegations is to

come out publicly, to try to clear his name, and the risk is of course

that his name and his picture are then going to be up there in the

newspapers, but he has clearly decided he cannot let the innuendo

continue. All right, thank you for bringing us up to date. His

statement comes after the story in the garden this morning which also

named Lord McAlpine, saying that they believed Newsnight had got the

wrong man, although they did not name him on Newsnight. But there

was another McAlpine who may have been in a frame, it all gets very

muddied and complicated, and those allegations of abuse in North Wales

followed the revelations about Jimmy Savile, and before that the

convictions for child remain in Rochdale. It seems that sexual

abuse, child abuse is everywhere when you turn on the news these

days, but is it really true? Is there a danger that the pursuit of

abuses is turning into a witch-hunt led by usually anonymous people on

the internet? Are innocent people being placed under suspicion, wild

accusations flying around cyberspace with very little

evidence ever produced to back them up? This is what David Cameron had

to say when he was on ITV's programme yesterday. This is one of

the problems, I have heard all sorts of names being bandied around,

and everyone sits around and speculates about people, and on a

second, some of whom are alive, some of whom are dead, and I think

it is very important that anyone has any information at any

paedophile, no matter how high up in the community, alive or dead, go

to the police. This is very important... A cursory glance at

the internet, it took me about three minutes last night to

continually find a list of the same names. I have those names there,

those are the names on a piece of paper. You know the names on the

piece of paper, will you be speaking to those people? This is

really important, right? There is a danger, if we are not careful, that

this could turn into a sort of witch hunt, particularly against

people Bouake. And I am worried about the sort of things you are

doing right now, giving me a list of names who have taken off the

internet. We are joined now by David Aaronovitch of the Times, who

yesterday wrote a column about the dangers of a witch-hunt, and by

Holly Dustin, director of End Violence Against Women. Welcome to

both of you. David, you think there is the whiff of a witch-hunt around

this. I think there is a danger, there is a right way and a wrong

way to do this. The right way is what Keir Starmer did when he

looked at what was happening in Rochdale and said, we have to look

at police practice and review police practice in dealing with

allegations of abuse by vulnerable people. That was the correct way to

do it. Then the incorrect way, the worst way, and that is what we saw

from Phillips Schofield, and frankly I think we saw a Newsnight

the other night when they put up Steve Messham to make an allegation

which was referring to somebody whom the Guardian then said later,

name does not actually being responsible, which brings up the

question of how it was that he was misidentified in the first place

and what that Ms identification means. Then there are the claims

which have been made in Parliament and elsewhere that there is a

powerful network of paedophiles in the political sphere who wait to be

uncovered, and for which there appears to be no evidence

whatsoever. I can tell you that my Twitter Fiat is full of people who

believe there is and that failures of past enquiries mean that

anything is possible. -- Twitter feed. People look at the Olympics

go feel and say, yes, he knows something, he is an official

journalist. -- Philip Schofield. I think it was outrageous, the kind

of self-righteous way in which he presented a completely useless and

ridiculous list to the Prime Minister in that way, as if to say,

look at me! It took me at least three minutes to get the list!

There is clearly a problem with the way that the media is dealing with

these issues, and what we saw yesterday was not acceptable.

not just the media, might with their feet is full of the same

things. It is the same with social media, we are burying our head in

the sands. You only have to look at the sentencing for the people who

named the rape victim in the Ched Evans case to know that there is a

big issue with social media. But look, we have got a situation where

we have got an unprecedented number of women, mainly, and some men

coming forward to say they were abused in the past, they were

silenced, dismissed, not listened to, finally having the courage to

come forward because of what we are seeing in the media. But I think,

you know, talking about a witch- hunts, talking about people making

up allegations is the wrong message to be sending. We need to be saying,

we believe you, there is support out there, we need to be going

through due process and the courts system if that is what people want

to be doing. But you are right to raise a concern, but the concern is

about the media, not people making up abuse, because there is no

evidence that there are higher numbers of false allegations in

relation to rape cases, for example, than other crimes. Let me bring

David in to reply to that. entirely agree that there have been

a lot of people out there and continue to be people who are not

believed and not heard. I cannot think it is true, unfortunately,

that there are no false allegations, and probably no more so than in

other spheres, but this is where people are zeroing in so hard that

those false allegations gained a kind of attraction that they do not

in other spheres of life. I honestly believe that, we could

privately go through some of the allegations that have been made and

I could convince you that there was a very big problem with some of the

allegations that have been made and I have looked at the evidence and

so has the government, because they want to give anonymity. They found

there was no evidence to make that policy change. We know only about

or one in 10 they put victims report to the police because they

feel they will be not believed and so on. I just wonder, experts on

sexual violence, primarily perpetrated by men against women

and some boys, this is very common, it is in every community, in homes

and towns and cities. Which makes it all the harder to find out.

not as their historic problem. I wonder whether the scale of what

we're looking at is whether this is where the backlash is coming from.

Why do some men choose to abuse? Rape? I would like you to write a

column about that. I have written. Do you believe the claims,

substance to the claims, that there is some kind of high powered

paedophile ring at the heart of Westminster? I haven't looked in

detail at those claims. There are certainly some men who sexually

abuse in networks, some men who abuse on their own. You don't think

there is evidence to justify an investigation into a Westminster

network? I think we need to join up all these inquiries and look at the

scale of sexual violence and abuse in this country. And how we support

victims. It's a real problem with joining up the inquiries. A judge

lead judicial inquiry, we would be here for 25 years. Also the victims

would be dead. We already have a problem with historic abuse and

deciding what has happened with that because stories change and

develop and so on and most claims are not malicious. Each time we

have had a reiteration of a major child abuse scare, and so on, which

is good it comes forward, unfortunately, we've had a malign

element which has gone off on a tangent. We had it during the

satanic ritual abuse claims and so on which led to the situation in

Nottingham. Why can't we go from taking these things seriously

without having to go to the witch hunt element which becomes a

problem. If you have an over arching inquiry, what chance to

mind was the Sunday bloody Sunday inquiry. It cost �250 million. It

took over 12 years to report. problem is, it's very easy to say,

this was a problem at the BBC Light Entertainment department in the

1970s and Eighties, which frankly it was not. I don't think anybody

said that. It's happening now. It's very common. 60,000 women in this

country are raped each year. No one is denying that. Least of all David.

I think his point is, because of the cacophony of sound coming out

with accusations being made almost every day, the chances of really

getting to the truth are becoming more difficult. There is a real

issue with how the media reports with this issue and with libel and

social media and those issues. is the mainstream media done wrong?

The we look at what happened yesterday with Phillip Schofield.

You think that was wrong? That's not helpful. The danger here is,

there are clearly major child abuse accusations both historic and

current to answer. But they are now being wrapped in a smoke of every

morning, fresh accusations without evidence. There is also a danger

the internet is bad and everything about the internet is bad. You

might expect that to come from me. And the print media and additional

media is good. This was a mainstream television programme of.

We have got to be very careful. Rumours fly around the internet all

the time of the also at the heart of this is something very, very

serious and people need to be brought to account whether they

work at Westminster or look after children in care. I think this is

the start, isn't it? The fact of the matter is, as these inquiries

unfold, we will learn a lot about what's going on of. It's still

going on today. In the Seventies and Eighties, it wasn't just a few

people are turning a blind eye to it but a large part of society.

turned a blind eye to it in Rochdale. Girls were going to

school clearly vulnerable, smelling of alcohol, and clearly showing

signs of abuse and vulnerability and they were written off as being

consenting to be involved in prostitution. I think this is where

I'm concerned about what chance for so I don't think we should close

the door to a conversation that needs to happen. I think the witch

hunt closes the door and that's why I think we have got to satisfy a

proper standards of evidence and complaint because, if we don't,

people will get the idea that none of this is true. And then you have

the problem You are talking about. Where does the story go from here?

This atmosphere will build and build and build because they have

been several suggestions of different people, who won not the

person and people agree. -- who are not the person. Not named. As long

as that continues, this story will have the social meaning elsewhere.

After something has been said enough, on the internet, there

comes up point when people say, it's out there. There is no

stopping it in that sense. We have to begin to come down a bit.

think what we need to do is encourage victims to come forward

and survivors and say, you will be supported and not dismissed and you

will be believed. You can't do that until you know they are victims.

There is due process a but most of it turns out actually that they

don't report to the police, said they won support services, we'd

Up yes, to the right people. Don't go inside your story to a newspaper.

Don't tell everybody. There was a horrific video uploaded to YouTube

about her father abusing her, and it is tragic watching this poor

girl, tears streaming down her face, but they need to know places they

can go to speak to, rather than broadcasting it everywhere. We will

return to this but, for the moment, thank you. Now, the waiting is over,

the internal wrangling concluded and the white smoke has appeared

from the chimney. Oh, wait a minute, I've got my churches mixed up. For

it is not a Pope that we proclaim this morning, but a new Archbishop

of Canterbury. His name is Justin Welby and he's an ex-oil executive

who has only been a bishop for a year. Cannot be right? He has

probably read the Financial Times. Let's hear from the man himself. He

was quick to address one of the most controversial issues in his

newly elevated in box. Same-sex marriages and his opposition to

them. What the Church does here deeply affects the already greatly

suffering churches in places like Nigeria. I support the House of

Bishops statement in the summer in answer to the Government's

consultation on same-sex marriage. But I also know I need to listen

very attentively to the LG Beattie community, and examine my own

thinking carefully. I am always adverse to the language of

exclusion, when what we are called to his two lava in the same way as

Jesus Christ loves us. In the church, we need to create safe

spaces for these issues to be discussed in honesty and in love.

We are joined by the Second Church Estates Commissioner. Who was the

first? Andrew Smith. You're playing second fiddle to a journalist?

That's the way it works. And Giles Fraser former Canon at St Paul's

and now a vicar in South London. He's now a vicar. What kind of man

is the new bishop? It's good news for the Church. I think he is a

people person. I think he will be a good leader, clear leadership. I

think one saw that there, he will listen but also lead, and I think

he will be keen to ensure the Church of England becomes a

national voice. A church for the nation and it has a presence.

can it be a church for the nation that hardly anybody goes to it?

That is what he will want to do. I think Justin Welby in the next 20

years will want to ensure that the Church becomes a Church of growth.

Not just obsessed by sex. I think the Church of England in the last

couple of years, for some time, has been obsessed by it sex and its own

internal issues. And there's two jobs for him to do, to hold the

Church together, but the other much more important is to forget about

the Church and to speak out to people in the nation and trying to

recommend the Christian faith in an intelligent, sensible way.

think this other man who can do it? I do, at I to disagree with him on

a number of things but I'm happy to put it aside. Why was he chose

then? I think he was chosen because he impressed the committee by his

commitment to wanting to reinvigorate the church and reach

out. Does it work that this committee puts just a couple of

names up? The Prime Minister makes the final choice. What has got to

be clear, a boring issue, when Gordon Brown was prime minister,

without consulting anyone, he decided he didn't want number 10 to

have any further involvement in the appointment of Archbishop of

Canterbury's. Because there was a Scotsman. Absolutely. He got rid of

this. This will be the first time an archbishop has been chosen by

the Church, which is a good thing. The process is, done by the

establishment in smoke-filled rooms. In terms of democracy, it's more

like China than the USA. But, nonetheless, actually, it's the one

key process but it has produced the right manner. What do you think

about his career as an oil executive? He hasn't be

institutionalised by the Church and that's a good thing. He has got a

hinterland. He spoke to me about the occupying and thought they were

substantially right about the criticisms of what is happening of

modern capitalism. He is excoriating on problems of wealth

and poverty and the huge gap between the rich and poor. I think

the fact he can also speak the language of finance and is not

embarrassed about that, is very important. He's done very well on

the Banking Commission. Excoriating on the gap between rich and poor.

That must cheer you up. Yes, the Church has to speak as it sees.

It's important. Actually, what it's really doing, if one has an

Archbishop of Canterbury who speaks his mind, the government can

respond to that and I'm sure it will collate. How long before it

falls out with the prime minister? But is no indication of friction. A

good proportion of the Conservative Party is falling out with a prime

minister at the moment. He has to speak truth to power and sometimes

it will not be palatable. The job of the Church through the century

is to be part of power. It's part of the established Church of

England. A you're absolutely right. How can it speak truth to itself?

That's what it's supposed to do. You can remember rows. What about

the non-conformist churches, the Methodists? If Britain go up to

date more than the 19th century, I was usually inspired, came into the

church because the people like the Bishop of Durham on the miners'

strike, face in the City, which didn't annoy Mrs Thatcher, and

Rowan Williams has done that over the war, the finance, in ways that

haven't endeared him. They were all left wing. You have somebody now

centre right. No, I don't think so. You think it's part of the right?

The you can't pigeonhole him. because of the school he went to,

whatever. The I'm not saying it's because of the school you went to

put some of the things he said. is anti-gay marriage but there's

nobody who could get his job at the moment who is pro-gay marriage. The

Church would implode. Really? It's still that toxic. Yes, I'm in

favour of it. I wish we had an archbishop who argued for it but we

will not have that. If you bracket that one out, because it's an

impossibility, Justin Welby is not a right-wing person in the way you

have described. Those terms don't break down. Let me bring in our

other guests for that do we do this too much prominence? Nobody chose

the Archbishop of Canterbury I know. It is on our front page today.

is because he was a banker, they look after their own! We take a

certain interest in his views, and he has an interesting position, a

member of the House of Lords, sitting on a committee advising the

government of legislating on the banking industry, the most senior

cleric in a land as well. I think he will be an interesting figure in

the public debate. Rowan Williams did not get as involved in the

financial crisis and the aftermath as he could have done, and I think

this archbishop is going to be a strong voice in the story of

responsible capitalism. He is very much on the Ed Miliband agenda.

financial, banking issues. Responsibility in the boardroom,

but he made a good speech a month ago about the socially useless

activity of bankers in the run-up to the crash. This is a big story

for the Huffington Post? usually, we have covered it, but I

agree that there is a bit of a media storm around it, a political

storm because Downing Street announced it, and actually I found

it ridiculous that Downing Street in the 21st century, they are the

ones deciding who it is. You have to decide where the church gets...

The population at large will not be talking about this in the way that

we are, but one final point, we are talking about how he is pro women

bishops, I was talking about a female Archbishop of Canterbury in

future, that is what we should be talking about. Hopefully the week

after next we would get the women's bishop measure through the General

Synod, and if that happens, in due course there will be no reason why

one should not have a woman archbishop. You would be in favour

of that? If you have women bishops, the logic is you will have a woman

archbishop. I think it is a bigger story than we are making out, not a

lesser story. There are 16,000 parishes in this country, other

things are important in the Westminster village, but in the

country this is rather important, the Church of England. It is still

something that stitches together communities the length and breadth

of this country in places that other organisations do not function,

so it is very important. Is it not true that more people go to the

mosque on Friday that the Church of England on Sunday? I don't know the

answer to that question. I think he will find the answer is yes, so

where is the position for the Mahler in the British constitution?

They clearly represent more church or mosque-go in people. The Church

of England has been part of the fabric of this country for hundreds

of years. I think it is a radical thing. The thing is, it does not

work on left and right, it just does not work on the traditional

patterns that you assume. Earlier this year, the Muslim, Jewish and

other faith communities met with the Queen at Lambeth, part of the

Jubilee celebrations, and they all acknowledge that one of the reasons

they felt comfortable about freedom of religion in this country was

because of the role of the established church, and that was, I

thought, quite clever. Just before we go, how difficult is it to the

parliament's Second Church Estates Commissioner? Look, let me tell you,

Andrew, the most challenging thing for me in recent weeks is to find

that I made as a Conservative backbencher a speech in support of

the government, and that became so unusual that it made the 7:10am on

the Today programme. Now you on the 12:30pm slot on the Daily Politics!

The important thing for the Conservative Party is working out

how to win the next election, being Second Church Estates Commissioner

is a doddle in comparison. Just as well, because I see it is unpaid!

You get a bloody good memorial I knew him when he was a student! I

will be there! He will not have a say! Thank you all.

In six days' time the good people of Corby will be asked to brave the

winter weather and a vote for a new MP because... Excuse to me, please

wait, these Church Commissioners, honestly! The by-election is

happening because Louise Mensch, remember, she won and 2010, she

decided to stand down in order to spend more time with her family in

the United States, that is what she said. There is a slim Conservative

majority of under 2000, not a lot for a by-election, and Labour have

high hopes of overturning that, they are clear favourites to win

and win well. If they do, it will be their first by-election gain

from the Tories for more than 15 years, so a lot at stake, as David

Corby, a constituency of two halves, a gritty post-industrial town

meeting cosy countryside village, which is why, if you want to know

which way the political wind is blowing, you come to this corner of

East Northamptonshire. Generally speaking, running Corby is a good

idea if you want to be the government. It was Labour in 1997

at Taurean 2010, so the by-election is being seen as a political

weather vane, which is just like -- just what Michael Gove could do

without wit right now. Louise Mensch is sitting down to spend

more time without -- Louise Mensch is stepping down to spend more time

with her husband in America, not a popular decision universally. The

Conservative candidate and her friends in high places still

believe they can hold on. I will see you in a week's time when you

are elected! We need to be collecting the next MP, not

worrying about the last one. People want aspiration and hope, new jobs,

good education, and that is what I am hearing on the doorsteps, and

they know I would use my business background to encourage investment,

encourage investment like the link road that we have agreed to invest

in, encourage investment like the new jobs down at skew Bridge, and

that is why I am convinced that the pollsters are wrong. Maybe, but

others think the Louise Mensch factor has not really help. There

is a definite and happiness that she has turned down. The Tories

might not say it to you, but privately they are quite annoyed by

that. I think the Labour Party will make capital on the back of it, and

I think that they see it as a great opportunity to take back a seat

that they think is traditionally there's any way. They do, but the

Labour candidate is not taking anything for granted. You could see

he is road-testing Ed Miliband's One nation mantra on the leafy

lanes of Northamptonshire. What would you have to do to lose this

election? It is really important that anybody talking about his

election comes to see how diverse this constituency is, that we are

trying to make sure that it will work for the whole of Corby and

East Northamptonshire, chocolate- box villages, Corby town itself, we

are fighting for every vote, and we up asking people to show their

trust in One nation Labour. Spare a thought for the Lib Dems. The

pundits think they can be knocked into 4th place by UKIP, but the

candidate says that actually it is all still up for grabs. I think

they are wrong, because on the doorstep people are saying they

have not made up their minds, and they are conservative and Labour

voters that are saying to us, I really do not know who to vote for,

and we have really enjoyed that because it gives us the opportunity

to talk with them, to find out what the issues are and hopefully to

convert them to our cause. As for UKIP, Margot Parker is working hard

to convince the voters they are more than a single-issue party.

are knocking on doors, Labour people are saying, we are

definitely going for UKIP. Conservatives, I have just spoken

to two people, they will definitely vote for us. We are stepping up to

the plate and listening to what they Hussain, and they are agreeing

with us, so we have a good manifesto based on local issues. --

what they are saying. How Corby votes will not tell us definitively

he will win the next general election, but it might give us a

clue, and that is why for all the parties these lanes and walkways

really matter. You can find the full list of

candidates standing in Corby on the BBC News website. George, everybody

in your part of the words is assuming that Labour will win this,

correct? That is correct, and by quite a big margin. Does that have

significance? We have seen by- elections coming and going.

circumstances of this one are quite strange, as David was just saying.

That is one reason why people hate a by-election for which they see no

need. I spoke to MPs will have been campaigning there, and there is a

real animosity towards Louise Mensch, who is standing down. So

strange circumstances, but if Labour did not win, it would be

extraordinary. It is a weather vane seat, the Midlands, a key

battleground, it is important for Ed Miliband, a stepping stone, but

no more than that. It is always good to win if you are the

opposition. I was looking at polling yesterday, how far ahead

are the Tories, but when they were asking whether that would have an

impact on how they would vote in a general election, yes, people are

saying they would vote Labour, but not for Miliband if they were

picking a prime minister. I think there is still some concern there.

Next Thursday, is it? It is, the same night as the elections for

police commissioners, will be more of a nationwide test. By which you

mean England. Of course, sorry The backlog of unresolved cases at

the Border Agency means some immigrants may enjoy an amnesty as

their cases are written-off. The Immigration Minister was not

available to come onto the Daily Politics, but he has been

responding elsewhere on the BBC this morning. We are not going to

do an amnesty. Where we see no evidence that people are in the

country from inherited cases, we will put their files on one side,

but if those people come to light again, we will take action against

them. Where we have evidence they are in the country, we will first

of all contact them and try to persuade them to leave voluntarily.

If that fails, we will take steps to enforce their removal from the

country, that is what the public expects, and that is what we are

going to do, and we expect to have gone through those cases and know

which of the two categories people are in by the end of this year.

That is the line from the minister, not the line of the man we were

hoping to speak to, Keith Vaz of the Home Affairs Select Committee,

but he is stuck in a traffic jam on the M1 apparently. There has been a

bad accident on the M1, and that has held him up. To prepare to see

him, I was looking at the figures, there are currently 20 have eyes

and asylum cases going through. -- 25,500 asylum cases going through.

But there are 74,000 made up of individuals with whom officials are

no longer in touch, in other words they have lost them. Then there is

the migration refusal pool, that is people who are recorded as having

no permission to be in the UK but they do not know where they are, in

other words they have lost them! The whole thing is a complete

Horlicks. Yes, it is, and you need an effective system which gives bad

guys out, controls the numbers effectively and everyone knows

where they are. And keeping the doors open for people who bring

wealth and jobs and prosperity to this country. It sounds so simple,

doesn't it? We know the system is not working and the Border Agency

is a complete mess, we saw that at Heathrow before the summer, and

this is further evidence. Every government tries to come to grips

with this. The number is something like the population of Iceland.

think that came to the committee, more than 300,000 cases need to be

dealt with, needed to be dealt with at the end of June, and that is

equivalent to the population of Iceland. The Sun newspaper

helpfully points out that meant the country and not the supermarket!

am glad that is cleared up for us! When you look at this, they lost

74,000, they have lost 174,000, whatever the minister says, your

antennae picked up. They are going to give an amnesty. Surely we now

have to have a sensible debate about the amnesty. Boris Johnson

was talking about is a few years ago, it is not necessary a right or

left issue, no-one can work out to do, so why can't we have a sensible

debate to work out if there are people contributing to this country,

or that really needs to stay here, we cannot send them back to war-

torn countries, then let's talk about it sensibly. If you do not in

a blanket amnesty, which would be incredibly unpopular, if you start

to say as has been happening in America we are going to give an

amnesty to kids who have been born here and are now working or being

educated, they are Americans, you could do that here, but if you have

a controlled archive that you have lost, 74,000, and a refusal pool of

174,000, you cannot do that, you do This is a huge problem for the

government. They will have to give amnesties to the people who are

here and that is a terrible hole in their policy. Republicans can't

work out what their policy is in the USA, and that had an impact in

the presidential elections to the Tories need to work it out. We're

talking here, not just about asylum-seekers, but, let's move on.

Now, a report out today suggests the number of complaints made about

the Health Service are increasing. Not good news for the Health

Secretary Jeremy Hunt. He is new in the job. So what's been the

problem? The NHS received over 150,000 complaints between 2011 and

2012. Of those just over 16,000 patients or family members were

dissatisfied with how the NHS tried to resolve the issue and so were

referred to the Health Service Ombudsman. That's up 8% on last

year. Complaints include a man whose skin cancer was misdiagnosed

by his GP practice on six different occasions but who was unable to get

the practice to acknowledge their failings when he complained.

Another who was accused by a surgeon of being a baby when he

expressed his anxiety about having a general anaesthetic. And a

bereaved daughter who was told death is rarely an ideal situation

for anyone and that, truth be told, your mother probably said her

goodbyes long before the final moments. Julie Mellor, the new

ombudsman has said there needed to be a clear shift in attitude and

practice among some GPs. We had seen an increase in the number of

cases where the NHS has not acknowledged a mistake was made, an

increase in the number of cases where they have not explained what

actually happened, and an increase in in the sincere, inadequate

apologies, and that matters because it damages confidence in the NHS,

which provides fantastic ear to thousands of people every day -- in

sincere. -- fantastic care. Well, to discuss this I'm joined by the

Health Services Minister, Dr Daniel Poulter. And by Katherine Murphy of

the Patients Association. Is the NHS in general good at dealing with

people and complaints? I think the staff is a very much a defensive

culture when it comes to handling complaints. Patients call the

Patients Association helpline and tell us they feel it disillusioned

with the system, it's very complicated, it's a very long, very

bureaucratic, and the NHS rely very much on a written outcome of the

complaint which obviously is a barrier to a lot of people. How can

you improve that? The quality of care for the majority people is

very good and many people, most patients are satisfied. We do get

things wrong in the NHS sometimes. I know things go wrong and we don't

always get things right. The first thing to do is for professionals in

the NHS and managers to always acknowledge when things have gone

wrong and to make a sincere apology. Does that happen? Sometimes they're

quite slow to acknowledge something has gone badly wrong. I think, as

it currently exists, the complaints process is very lengthy for people.

It's too long, bureaucratic. And very often, when patients raised

concerns, they don't know where in the process their concern is. What

we try and encourage staff to do is, when a patient and a relative of

race is a concern, while it they are still in hospital, please

address the concern because the vast majority of patients want to

see an improvement, they want staff to see it as a learning opportunity,

an opportunity to have a conversation, not an end to a

conversation. Why are complaints rising? The government recognises

that we need to, we need to be quicker. We have made a commitment

to make sure all complaints are acknowledged within three days

because it's completely unacceptable when people have to

wait months to have an acknowledgement that something has

gone wrong. We're going to consult a how we can make that a reality,

to improve those few cases where things go badly wrong. Overall, in

terms of the report to address your question there, complaints to the

ombudsman directly, they are a relatively a new body, 2009, and it

only recently there has been or strict duty put in place for any

hospital, GP's surgery, engaged in a complaints procedure, now has a

duty not to flag up there is an ombudsman there, if at the end of

the complaints procedure, the patient is not happy with how it is

handled. Already, the NHS are making sure where there are

complaints, they are dealt with properly. Overall complaints going

up by 8% but if you break it down, 50% rise in in incidents with the

NHS did not acknowledge mistakes in care and a 42% rise in complaints

with inadequate remedy such as apologies being offered. Why?

completely unacceptable. Sometimes what happens, we do live in an

increasingly litigious age and is a lot more propensity for people to

sue. Some hospitals reaction to that is to say, if we acknowledge

something went wrong, we could be sued, but that's not the case. We

have to understand it's about looking after people properly and

recognising things have gone wrong and being open and honest about it.

Admitting something has gone wrong, acknowledging some body has been

treated badly and had a bad experience, doesn't mean there's

going to be a big financial bill associated with it. The British are

very proud of the NHS, it provides health care to everybody.

Regardless of means and so on. It's a state health service but it is a

massive state bureaucracy, a massive monolithic state but, --

but I am off -- and it does not respond well to customer complaints.

The vast majority of patients and relatives are reluctant to complain.

I think we should have much more information to be given to every

patient going into hospital on how they make a complaint and where

they get the relevant information from. Information also on how to

support them up during the process. Have you complained to the NHS?

but because it's held in such high regard, I wonder whether a somehow

a culture has developed inside the NHS where is not enough self-

criticism. Anybody can hide behind the fact, as an institution, its

sober loved and trusted. I totally agree and, despite this, it's still

an institution the general public have love for. It's good that that

is still there. Are the cuts impacting? Is a bigger short cuts

are being taken, there is not enough time to sit and talk to

people and explain to them? We are seeing stories but NHS directors --

NHS Direct is to be closed. Is up to be closed? I'm not aware of that

at the moment. We are told a large number of the call centres are to

close. It certainly been reviewed at the moment and it's an ongoing

process but a not aware any decision has been made at the

moment. The unions seem to think it is. Unions are very often jump on

the consultation as something... a time when cuts are happening,

your Government's position is you have ring-fenced health spending,

but when cash is short, is that not likely to lead to more complaints?

There is no substitute for good care and the fact of the matter is,

it's about the relationship between a doctors and nurses and health

care professionals and their patients. That means acknowledging

things have gone wrong and learning from it in the future. The NHS is

getting �12.5 billion more from the government. It is good practice and

good health care to make sure we learn from mistakes and improve

care in the future. You're the only government minister we have one

this morning. What is your reaction to Lord McAlpine's statement?

was in the Guardian this morning? No, since then, make nuclear

vehemently that he believes he has nothing to do with this abuse story.

I think the main issue we discussed earlier on, Twitter, there are

libellous things can be said about people with no truth whatsoever in

a very spiteful way. When it comes down to it, we need to get away

from all that and stick with the facts. There are investigations

going on into allegations of abuse. Let them take place. And take it

from there. It's very irresponsible for people to using the internet

and a spiteful and ill-founded way. That's something we should learn

from for the future as well. Thank you for that. We'll keep an eye on

the complaint situation. Thank you for joining us. It's been a big

week in politics with a big story dominating. Yes, the trip to the

Jungle Beach is heavily in the week in 60 seconds. -- jungle features

heavily. The President defeats Mitt Romney in a close-run campaign to

retain the White House. Democrats rejoiced and Republicans were in

despair and many others couldn't believe how much money it cost.

Has gone to the jungle. Having evidently given up on the

government game, I'm an MP, let me in, she has had the whip withdrawn.

The the that the Prime Minister sparred with Harriet Harman and we

had a parliamentary miracle. the first time in my career, I

wholeheartedly agree with her. Letters for treasure this moment. -

- let as the treasure this moment. David Cameron met Angela Merkel and

commentators wondered whether she wants them to sit closer while he

explained he might have to leave early.

Coming up this week, we had the call the by-election. The elections

for police commissioners in England and Wales as well. The American

election, I had an argument in the studio last night with a historian

who said this was a watershed election. I'm not so sure. It isn't

a watershed election for the Democrats are but they are bought

the Republicans who on the wrong end of the American tomography.

They are in total disarray. Mitt Romney went too far to the right

and then tried to backtrack but not enough to get elected. Now the tea-

party are fighting. Goodness knows where we will go from here. It's

interesting talking to the but Westminster. Labour said this

election has not about the economy but a change in society. Both the

Tories and Labour are trying to drawing conclusions from their

position. Part of the problem is the Republicans have so little in

common with European conservative movements. I hope you enjoyed being

on the Daily Politics. And you will come back and see us on Friday.

That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. The One O'Clock News is

starting over on BBC One now. I'll be back on BBC One on Sunday with

the Sunday Politics. My guests will be the Secretary of State for