:00:40. > :00:42.Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Another arrest in
:00:42. > :00:46.the Andrew Mitchell case with what was Plebgate now turning into
:00:46. > :00:50.Plodgate. What will this row do to relations between a Conservative-
:00:50. > :00:54.led government and the Police? The government introduces a bill to cap
:00:54. > :00:59.benefit increases to 1%. A sensible and fair economy or an attack on
:00:59. > :01:03.the poor? A technical education as highly regarded as the best
:01:03. > :01:08.academic institutions? We ask if University technical colleges are
:01:08. > :01:18.the answer. And, 'tis the season to be jolly! What do MPs' Christmas
:01:18. > :01:20.
:01:20. > :01:24.All that in the next hour. With us for the duration Conservative peer,
:01:24. > :01:28.Ken Baker. He used to be Education Secretary. And Home Secretary too.
:01:28. > :01:31.We'll be serving up a feast of politics for him to get his teeth
:01:31. > :01:37.into. Let's start with the ongoing controversy surrounding the role of
:01:37. > :01:40.the police in the resignation of former Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell.
:01:40. > :01:43.It's emerged over the last few days that a man purporting to be member
:01:43. > :01:46.of the public who emailed their eyewitness account of the incident
:01:46. > :01:49.at the Downing Street gates was actually a serving police officer
:01:49. > :01:53.who did not in fact witness the events. A police officer was
:01:54. > :02:00.arrested at the weekend. And this morning, a second man who does not
:02:00. > :02:03.work for the police was arrested. The Police Federation, the union
:02:03. > :02:08.that represents rank and file officers, made a lot of running on
:02:08. > :02:13.this story back October. We could hardly keep them off the air waves
:02:13. > :02:20.them. But have refused our repeated requests for an interview. But we
:02:20. > :02:26.do have with us a former Home Secretary. I said at the start,
:02:26. > :02:31.this Pleb-gate is now turning into Plod-gate. It is clear certain
:02:31. > :02:36.police and the Police Federation are moving into the frame? This is
:02:36. > :02:40.a very serious crisis. The police have had a bad year. Hillsborough,
:02:40. > :02:44.therefore supplied evidence. In Rotherham, we didn't follow up on a
:02:44. > :02:50.young girls being turned into prostitutes and in the Leverson
:02:51. > :02:54.Inquiry,. And now it there is Plod- gate for that this is serious
:02:54. > :02:58.because if the public don't trust the police, you have a serious
:02:58. > :03:05.problem in society. Now we have a serving police officer making up
:03:05. > :03:08.complete fiction in an e-mail in which the Prime Minister almost
:03:08. > :03:12.fired Andrew Mitchell. He did believe him and has been proved to
:03:12. > :03:18.be right so far, so it's a big problem for the police and the
:03:18. > :03:21.Police Federation. They politicise the police. The police must be
:03:21. > :03:27.above politics in our country but the Police Federation decided to
:03:27. > :03:31.become a lobbying, extremely aggressively, determined to get a
:03:31. > :03:36.Cabinet minister. Because they were very opposed to what the Home
:03:36. > :03:41.Secretary was doing, looking into their pay, pensions. Therefore,
:03:41. > :03:46.they became political agencies. I'm not in the least bit surprised
:03:46. > :03:51.they're not take your calls to come on. They are in real trouble.
:03:51. > :03:55.police officer who was barely literate when you read the e-mail.
:03:55. > :04:02.He doesn't know the difference between digest it and disgusted.
:04:02. > :04:10.The one thing the police must not do is falsify evidence. They do.
:04:10. > :04:14.They did in the case of Mendez, the man who was shot, the case of the
:04:14. > :04:21.man who was struck down at the G20 demonstrations. They falsified
:04:21. > :04:25.evidence there. And now, at least, an investigation is to be done into
:04:25. > :04:31.whether evidence in that the log, and we know from this e-mail has
:04:31. > :04:35.been falsified, too. The question therefore comes To my mind, can the
:04:35. > :04:41.Metropolitan Police be trusted to investigate itself? At this stage,
:04:41. > :04:43.we have to do it and the commissioner has to do it. I gather
:04:43. > :04:47.there are 30 police officers investigating this so it's a
:04:47. > :04:53.thorough inquiry. He has got to find out and report very quickly on
:04:53. > :04:58.this, because this could run away, the situation. What has happened in
:04:58. > :05:05.the last two months in this country, this been a concerted attack by the
:05:05. > :05:11.Police Federation to destroy a Tory Cabinet minister, Alastair McAlpine.
:05:11. > :05:16.A lot of it based on false evidence. It was going for it. Yes, the
:05:16. > :05:19.moment, we can trust the commissioner to do this.
:05:19. > :05:24.commander, the head of the most important police force and the
:05:24. > :05:30.country, has said he's taken a strong public stance backing of the
:05:30. > :05:34.police who were at the gate that night, and whose log provided the
:05:34. > :05:39.supposedly damning evidence over which there are, as we did on this
:05:39. > :05:43.programme yesterday, real questions about what Mr Mitchell said.
:05:43. > :05:49.Incredibly real questions over what there was anybody on the other side
:05:49. > :05:54.of the gate. He has backed them to the hilt. Most people watching this
:05:54. > :06:00.will wonder how he can investigate something where his public position
:06:00. > :06:04.is so unsafe? He could find out who those two policemen had contact
:06:04. > :06:09.with through their mobile phones immediately after the event. Who
:06:09. > :06:14.did they speak to? The Police Federation? Is someone their
:06:15. > :06:19.guiding some of this? How did get to the newspapers? Obviously, it
:06:19. > :06:23.was sold to the Sun newspaper for nothing. There was a rumour
:06:23. > :06:28.whirling around last night, when the original story went to the Sun
:06:28. > :06:33.newspaper, it did not contain any of the words which, in the end,
:06:33. > :06:38.became so toxic. Let's see it that comes out in the inquiry because,
:06:38. > :06:43.if it did, it's very damning. It's a much bigger problem actually.
:06:43. > :06:46.You've got to re-establish trust in the police. If the country doesn't,
:06:46. > :06:51.then it's your close to lawlessness and anarchy. It's an essential
:06:51. > :06:54.thing. Chief constables across the country and the Home Secretary and
:06:54. > :06:58.everybody has got to restore confidence in the police. The
:06:58. > :07:03.police must show that themselves. Very interesting coming from a
:07:03. > :07:07.former Home Secretary. Now, how much should benefits rise by every
:07:07. > :07:11.year? Welfare benefits? By the rate of inflation or in line with
:07:12. > :07:14.earnings? Or by less than both? Well, at the Autumn Statement, the
:07:15. > :07:20.Chancellor announced a cap of 1% on increases in most benefits, which
:07:20. > :07:25.is less than both. Today the government introduces a bill to
:07:25. > :07:28.make that law. Here's Jo with more. Social security benefits and tax
:07:28. > :07:35.credits usually go up automatically every year by the rate of inflation,
:07:35. > :07:37.so next spring would have seen them But in his autumn statement earlier
:07:37. > :07:42.this month, George Osborne said that most payments would increase
:07:42. > :07:44.by the lower amount of 1% for the next three years. This real-terms
:07:44. > :07:46.cut will affect those receiving working-age benefits including the
:07:46. > :07:53.main elements of jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and
:07:53. > :07:57.elements of working tax credit. The Chancellor says it's necessary
:07:57. > :08:01.because benefits have risen more quickly than wages. And he says the
:08:01. > :08:10.move will help build a welfare system that is fair to the working
:08:11. > :08:13.the Treasury, reaching �3.1 billion in 2017-18. Labour will oppose the
:08:14. > :08:18.move, which they call a tax on strivers because it affects many
:08:18. > :08:21.people who work and receive benefits. It's not clear whether
:08:21. > :08:24.the public agree, with one poll today showing a substantial
:08:24. > :08:30.majority in favour, and the other showing the public more evenly
:08:30. > :08:36.split. But it's clear it will be one of the big political dividing
:08:36. > :08:39.With us now is Harriet Baldwin. A Parliamentary Private Secretary in
:08:39. > :08:49.the Department of Work and Pensions. And Labour's Shadow employment
:08:49. > :08:50.
:08:50. > :08:53.minister, Stephen Timms. Welcome to you both. The bill's a wording says
:08:54. > :08:57.it will make provisions relating to the out rating of certain social
:08:57. > :09:02.security benefits and tax credits. Should it not really be called
:09:02. > :09:06.George Osborne to welfare trap for the Labour Party? I think that
:09:06. > :09:11.would be a very good name for it because I want to reassure a lot of
:09:11. > :09:17.your viewers today, a lot of pensioners watching, that their
:09:17. > :09:22.pensions next year will go up more than inflation, 2.5%, on top of a
:09:23. > :09:27.5% increase last year. Also, for those on incapacity benefit, the
:09:27. > :09:34.employment support allowance, that will also go up by 2.2% in line
:09:34. > :09:39.with inflation, as well disability living allowances. Out-of-work
:09:39. > :09:43.benefits will go up by 1%. We don't know if inflation will be 2.2%. It
:09:43. > :09:49.could be more or less for pensioners. Let me sideline that
:09:49. > :09:54.for a moment. Are you sure that your benefit measures are really
:09:54. > :09:59.that popular? There is a poll in the Independent today showing 49%
:09:59. > :10:03.agree with the CAP and 42% disagree. There's not much of the difference.
:10:03. > :10:07.I think these are difficult decisions in an environment where
:10:07. > :10:11.you highlight the fact that people who are in work are seeing their
:10:11. > :10:14.wages go up at a slower rate than inflation, so what we're trying to
:10:14. > :10:19.do is think about the fairness in terms of those out of work on
:10:19. > :10:25.benefit, and those in work who, over the last five years, have seen
:10:25. > :10:32.their income to rise 10%, whereas those out of work have seen this,
:10:32. > :10:36.by 20%. We were very generous last time around. Now you are taking it
:10:36. > :10:41.back. Increasing it at a faster rate. The Chancellor was very
:10:41. > :10:46.generous to those who get the child tax credit on the lowest incomes,
:10:46. > :10:49.which went up 11% in his first Budget. We are trying to be really
:10:49. > :10:54.fair in terms of that relationship between those in work and out of
:10:54. > :10:59.work. The case is this. We understand a lot of the people on
:10:59. > :11:04.these welfare benefits are actually working. They are not the figure
:11:04. > :11:10.behind a curtain, the Chancellor is fond of talking about. 60% are
:11:11. > :11:15.working. Exactly. If you were in the public sector, your pay goes up
:11:15. > :11:20.by 1% after having been frozen for a while, but you are working, so
:11:20. > :11:25.why should those on benefits be getting more than that? We have
:11:25. > :11:28.supported that 1% cap, but what we have said is it should be done in a
:11:28. > :11:36.fair way, so those who are the highest paid get less than 1%
:11:36. > :11:41.increase, those lower get more than 1%. 1% does not affect those on
:11:41. > :11:45.very low public sector work. That's right. Our concern is that this was
:11:45. > :11:49.presented as something that only hits people out of work but it
:11:49. > :11:53.doesn't. The majority are in work. And the terrible thing I think
:11:53. > :11:58.about this is that, at the moment this is being done, April next year,
:11:58. > :12:03.the Government will increase, a big tax handout to the very highest
:12:04. > :12:08.paid, earning more than �150,000 a year. If you earn more than �1
:12:08. > :12:12.billion, you will get a tax cut next April have over �100,000
:12:12. > :12:18.course up can I make an important point here because under his
:12:18. > :12:21.Government, if you are under �6,000 a year, you pay income tax under
:12:21. > :12:26.Gordon Brown. We have raised that will the we have frozen council tax,
:12:26. > :12:31.the television licence, and we're trying to control the bills that
:12:31. > :12:35.families have to pay for from their income. How can they afford these
:12:35. > :12:44.play-offs at the BBC if you have frozen the licence fees? It's not
:12:44. > :12:48.fair. -- pay-offs. Let me get back to the serious point. We accept
:12:48. > :12:52.that a lot of people in work will be limited to the 1% but because of
:12:52. > :12:58.the rise in the personal allowance, there's now a substantial chunk of
:12:58. > :13:05.income in the first part of your income, approaching �10,000, is tax
:13:05. > :13:10.free, and that's a big help to those on the low incomes.
:13:10. > :13:15.greatly outweighs increase from the increase... They are losing out. By
:13:15. > :13:19.a large amount. For those on the lowest wages, that's what we're
:13:19. > :13:24.talking about, starting out in work, trying to move up the working
:13:24. > :13:27.ladder, where we really want to reward aspiration, taking on
:13:27. > :13:31.additional work, we want to make sure that those decisions are
:13:31. > :13:35.rewarded whereas, under the Labour government, effectively you were
:13:35. > :13:39.taxed at a very low income and then had to wait for Gordon Brown to
:13:39. > :13:47.give the money back to you. You became more and more dependent on
:13:47. > :13:56.the state. The net effect on an average family, the which has two
:13:56. > :14:00.children, about �534 worse off by the combination. A little bit extra
:14:00. > :14:04.through the increase in a tax allowance, a substantial reduction
:14:04. > :14:09.in their income through the reduced uprating of working tax credits,
:14:09. > :14:18.and its people in work affected by this. Does that calculation include
:14:18. > :14:24.assumptions about indirect taxes? No. Purely the impact of direct.
:14:24. > :14:28.It's a different matter, so, in the end, you're helping them there,
:14:28. > :14:34.limiting here, he says the overall impact is some body on average
:14:34. > :14:39.earnings is substantially worse off. Particularly if they have children.
:14:39. > :14:45.100 per defy pounds a year for the average person better off and
:14:45. > :14:50.children -- �125 a year for the better of person. Effectively,
:14:50. > :14:56.Stephen has voted for someone like myself to keep my child benefit for
:14:56. > :15:05.I have not seen the Treasury figure in the statement. The Treasury is
:15:05. > :15:10.saying the average family is 125p better off. Where does it say this?
:15:10. > :15:14.I'm just wondering. I know where your figure comes from. I got my
:15:14. > :15:18.figures from the Treasury and I can find out the source for you. It's
:15:18. > :15:23.such a big difference. philosophical difference, there is
:15:23. > :15:28.a difference here. We want people who want to move into work, who
:15:28. > :15:35.aspire to earn more, move up the working ladder, with the universal
:15:35. > :15:39.credit next year, taking out that 16 hours, where people got trapped,
:15:39. > :15:43.to really help people move up the innings spectrum whereas the Labour
:15:43. > :15:53.approach was much more to tax you at a lower level of income, and
:15:53. > :15:56.give you some of your money back in We have exactly the combination of
:15:56. > :16:01.policies we had in the 1980s which led to the highest rate of child
:16:01. > :16:04.poverty in Europe. A cut in the highest rate of income tax and a
:16:04. > :16:08.restriction on the uprating of benefits for up the highest rate of
:16:09. > :16:15.tax will be higher than it was under 10 years of Labour. Exactly.
:16:15. > :16:21.It has come down at a time when the Exchequer is in great difficulty.
:16:21. > :16:29.Off they has issued a document over how much these tax rates Ghana.
:16:29. > :16:36.President Hollande. Negative so Lyn Byl -- 7 billion. A negative effect.
:16:36. > :16:40.We don't know. I predict you again, even at 45p, which is high by
:16:40. > :16:44.international standards, it will be higher than every year of a Labour
:16:44. > :16:48.government. We are now in a time of austerity when the Exchequer is
:16:48. > :16:52.taking money away from that families, mainly low-income
:16:52. > :16:59.families, this is not a time to be giving money to the highest paid.
:16:59. > :17:04.You can have the final word on this side. I want to know why Stephen
:17:04. > :17:07.has objected to me losing my child benefit, why he has objected to a
:17:07. > :17:11.cap on the overall benefits that equate it with the average working
:17:11. > :17:16.family in terms of what they can take home. Let me leave these
:17:16. > :17:21.questions hanging. Ken Baker has been very patient. It is a good
:17:21. > :17:25.debate. Stephen, you have a real problem in your party. In office
:17:25. > :17:29.Ulex three things run out of control. Public expenditure in
:17:29. > :17:33.relation to welfare payments. You've got to get away from a
:17:33. > :17:39.society that is so dependent on welfare and that is the thrust of
:17:39. > :17:44.what Iain Duncan Smith is doing. Increasing the level of tax... It
:17:44. > :17:48.is now �10,000 where you don't pay tax. What you are saying is that if
:17:48. > :17:53.there was a Labour government, we will not do much about welfare. We
:17:53. > :17:59.believe welfare should be paid to come what may. It is a critical
:17:59. > :18:03.test. Her I will give Stephen Timms the final word. The problem the
:18:03. > :18:07.Conservative Party has is its central economic policy has not
:18:07. > :18:10.worked. We were told of this policy was implemented we would have
:18:10. > :18:15.steady growth and falling unemployment, but unemployment is
:18:15. > :18:18.high and it is projected to go up next year. That is why these cuts
:18:18. > :18:28.have to be made and working families are paying the price.
:18:28. > :18:31.
:18:31. > :18:34.have record numbers of work. It is a for! -- a fall. One of the few
:18:34. > :18:40.success stories in economic policies from this government has
:18:40. > :18:50.been the fall in unemployment. Much to the surprise of most of the
:18:50. > :18:51.
:18:51. > :18:58.Economist. The OBR said it would go up to 8.3%. I thought it would be
:18:58. > :19:01.3% by next December. A very fair point. They should suspend all
:19:02. > :19:09.economic forecasts. How can you judge how the economy will grow?
:19:09. > :19:14.You can't! The thank you, Merry Christmas.
:19:14. > :19:17.We will be talking about this in the new year, that's my prediction!
:19:17. > :19:20.Speak to employers in manufacturing and engineering firms and they'll
:19:20. > :19:22.often tell you that young people don't leave school with the skills
:19:22. > :19:27.needed for the world of work. Well, university technical colleges,
:19:27. > :19:29.which are popping up around the country, seek to address that.
:19:29. > :19:32.They're supposed to combine practical learning alongside core
:19:32. > :19:36.GCSE and A levels and the Government's already pledged to
:19:36. > :19:39.open at least 24 of them by 2014. They were the brain child of our
:19:39. > :19:42.very own guest of the day, Lord Baker, but how do they operate? We
:19:42. > :19:47.sent Susana Mendonsa to take a look at one.
:19:47. > :19:50.It might look like a factory but this is actually a classroom in a
:19:50. > :19:56.new university technical college in Birmingham. The people operating
:19:56. > :20:00.this machine are teenagers. Fees 14 year-olds are lose -- using the
:20:00. > :20:05.core engineering skills that would only be taught at apprentices
:20:05. > :20:10.usually. That focus on technical education would better prepare
:20:10. > :20:14.young people for the world of work. That starts with the hours, 8:30am
:20:14. > :20:20.to 5:30pm, which 16 year-olds a share and it would have only got
:20:20. > :20:24.used. They are long. It took me a while to get used to. I could get
:20:24. > :20:28.used to it and getting used to it is really good because it prepares
:20:28. > :20:33.you for work. I show letter of school because she thought she
:20:33. > :20:36.would do better here. Most grammar schools have higher expectations,
:20:36. > :20:39.everybody is expected to be on the same level. When you come to a
:20:39. > :20:43.place with different people, you get more of the chance to stand out
:20:43. > :20:47.for things you are good at so you get her acknowledged more.
:20:47. > :20:52.another classroom, another technical skill. They are making
:20:52. > :20:56.prototypes of electronic devices like cameras. This is one of the
:20:56. > :21:01.new wave of university technical colleges the Government is backing.
:21:01. > :21:05.UCTs like this one came to-14 to 19 and euros they specialise in things
:21:05. > :21:10.like engineering. They are also sponsored by the employers or
:21:10. > :21:13.universities. The principal say they fill a gap. It is important to
:21:14. > :21:18.have a balance in this country. They are not for everybody. Not
:21:18. > :21:25.everybody wants to do engineering and science. Where students do one
:21:25. > :21:29.that focus can that specialisation, UCTs are well placed to provide
:21:29. > :21:39.excellent. Outside the classrooms that some of the young people are
:21:39. > :21:44.also been employed as in princesses. Kaka -- apprentices. While we are
:21:44. > :21:48.here we get the practical side of it. At university, we get Feighery.
:21:48. > :21:52.It balances. You know what you were doing on the theory side and the
:21:52. > :21:57.practical side. The managing director support more technical
:21:57. > :22:02.education, but says UCTs don't get done enough to get young people
:22:02. > :22:07.into the right mindset. challenge is to make kids are aware
:22:07. > :22:12.that this is work, you are not going to school any more, it is not
:22:12. > :22:17.looking up at a teacher and looking at your laptop. It is about work.
:22:17. > :22:21.Understand what work is all about. Getting out of bed at a reasonable
:22:21. > :22:24.time, being responsible, bringing something to the job you do.
:22:24. > :22:30.Producing young people with the skills needed for modern businesses
:22:30. > :22:32.is one of the aims. Teaching unions have warned that separating
:22:32. > :22:38.technical dedication from mainstream schools could create a
:22:38. > :22:40.two level system. -- technical education.
:22:40. > :22:43.Joining us now is the Shadow Schools Minister, Kevin Brennan,
:22:43. > :22:49.and Andrew Robinson, who runs an engineering firm near Bedford. Tell
:22:49. > :22:54.us what your business does. We may control systems for people like
:22:54. > :22:58.Jaguar Land Rover, British Aerospace. We make their kit work.
:22:58. > :23:01.We need technically interested children to join us after they've
:23:02. > :23:09.left school and help our company grow because the skill shortage we
:23:09. > :23:13.are suffering from his holding our business back. For you, University
:23:13. > :23:18.technical colleges, I would think, are a great thing? We would hope so.
:23:18. > :23:21.We are not very aware of them even though we have promoted ourselves
:23:21. > :23:27.and tried to get involved with many different aspects of what is going
:23:27. > :23:33.on recently. Engaging with them we find very hard. White was backed I
:23:33. > :23:38.don't know. One of the problems poor visibility. In preparation for
:23:38. > :23:42.today I looked up UTC and the first reference was on page 3. What I
:23:42. > :23:47.thought there was quite surprising. Are you losing business as a result
:23:47. > :23:52.of the skills shortage? This year alone we've lost over �10 million
:23:52. > :23:56.worth of business because we haven't got enough qualified,
:23:56. > :24:00.experienced, engaging, enthusiastic engineers to help us. Her that is a
:24:00. > :24:07.disaster! At it is awful. That doesn't just apply to our business,
:24:07. > :24:15.that is throughout... Whether it is customers or my peers, they have a
:24:15. > :24:19.similar problem. It is a serious charge. By 2020 we will be short
:24:19. > :24:24.for 1,000 qualified engineers and a million technicians. If we're going
:24:24. > :24:26.to have nuclear power stations, faster broadband and other things...
:24:27. > :24:32.In the other thing to do is bringing them in from other
:24:32. > :24:36.countries. Why can't we grow them here? Because for the last 50 years
:24:36. > :24:46.we haven't had good technical schools. They were closed because
:24:46. > :24:49.
:24:49. > :24:56.of snobbery. We made it. Five years ago, we started this concept. They
:24:56. > :25:01.are 14-18. By then youngsters know what they want to do. At 16, when
:25:01. > :25:06.you ask them at 16, they are not used to working day. Ours is a
:25:06. > :25:09.working day. They have to turn up. 4-2 days a week they are doing
:25:09. > :25:14.practical things with their hands, the other three days they are doing
:25:14. > :25:19.maths, English and science. Because those are melded the will -- melded
:25:19. > :25:23.into the specialism, they improve. These are successful and the one
:25:23. > :25:29.that has been going for two years in Staffordshire, we had 16-year-
:25:29. > :25:32.old and 18 year-olds this year. Every youngster but that you CT got
:25:32. > :25:38.a job or an apprenticeship in college or university. Would you
:25:38. > :25:43.like to see them rolled out in a bigger way? In terms of the model
:25:43. > :25:47.that has been set up by Ken Baker, these are something the Labour
:25:47. > :25:53.party would support? Absolutely. Kane came up with the idea five
:25:53. > :25:56.years ago and we supported the setting up of the first of these
:25:56. > :25:59.university technical colleges and Ken has got a great body of people
:25:59. > :26:04.together to work on them. The curriculum it is exactly what
:26:04. > :26:10.Andrew is talking about. It is getting young people more used to
:26:10. > :26:14.practical and vocational and technical skills. Still losing all
:26:14. > :26:18.that business because not enough people are coming through. Indeed.
:26:19. > :26:25.We've said we absolutely have to focus on this and we didn't do
:26:25. > :26:28.enough in government to focus on those youngsters who will get a
:26:28. > :26:33.technical or vocational qualification. What is great about
:26:33. > :26:37.these is it leaves the route open because they do call education as
:26:37. > :26:42.well. It doesn't close off any opportunities to them, but it does
:26:42. > :26:47.give them a kind of experience that will make them ready to work in
:26:47. > :26:50.industry. The criticism is that they are still not heard -- high-
:26:50. > :26:55.profile enough or they are not engaging with employers. That may
:26:55. > :27:00.come in time. Do you accept the charge that successive governments
:27:00. > :27:07.have been snobs when it comes to these things? We are now paying the
:27:07. > :27:14.price. For the last 150 years we've been in a mess. There was a report
:27:14. > :27:21.in 1924. What do we want students to be? Students -- schools must
:27:21. > :27:24.produce students that are literate, but the duck of the 20 new ones we
:27:24. > :27:32.are looking at at the moment, they are supported by 250 different
:27:32. > :27:40.companies. I am going to get Tandy involved in the one near
:27:40. > :27:48.Bedfordshire. -- Andy. He will get a call from me. There will be
:27:48. > :27:53.tomorrow. Should be more money and focus be put into these sorts of
:27:53. > :27:57.colleges so that there isn't a risk of the two A-level system? All of
:27:57. > :28:04.the praise on the top universities, perhaps that sort of attention
:28:04. > :28:08.should be making these colleges elite? I think so. There will be a
:28:08. > :28:11.whole range of different schools out there and you will not be able
:28:11. > :28:16.to have a UTC rolled out immediately in every part of the
:28:16. > :28:26.country, but we need to focus on this kind of approach. Why not?
:28:26. > :28:29.eventually that may be the case. It takes time. We are extremely
:28:29. > :28:34.supportive of this approach. One of the great things about it is they
:28:34. > :28:43.have a working day. At the end of the day, the young people have
:28:43. > :28:47.completed their work in school. need to get the schools to want
:28:47. > :28:53.their children to leave school and getting to engineering. That is the
:28:53. > :28:57.problem we have. When children at a younger they are into Lago and
:28:57. > :29:04.computers, they like creating things, but by the time they leave
:29:04. > :29:07.school it has gone. He they would all rather do media studies! Do you
:29:07. > :29:15.think it has been drilled out of them?
:29:15. > :29:19.I get involved with people on the automotive Council. We have
:29:19. > :29:24.conversations where we talk about getting the education establishment
:29:24. > :29:31.to encourage people to do it. People are concentrating on
:29:31. > :29:35.business. We need to integrate the whole thing together. You'll be
:29:36. > :29:42.glad to know it there's one in media city dealing with the
:29:42. > :29:47.technology to make this programme go out. Very positive. Behind you
:29:47. > :29:54.there has about six or seven Engineers. We have to train more
:29:54. > :30:04.people and I'm very glad it is part of this. A we need the Government
:30:04. > :30:12.
:30:12. > :30:17.to focus more on this. On what 300 Just a little smile on the crews's
:30:17. > :30:27.faces. I've never seen them so happy. It will take us weeks to be
:30:27. > :30:30.to them back into shape! Anyway, after yesterday's critical reports
:30:30. > :30:32.into the BBC's handling of the Savile and McAlpine stories on
:30:32. > :30:34.Newsnight more condemnation of the corporation this morning. The
:30:34. > :30:37.Public Accounts committee has published a scathing report
:30:37. > :30:41.criticising the �450,000 pay off for George Entwistle, who was
:30:41. > :30:47.Director General for just 54 days. It also criticised excessive
:30:47. > :30:52.severance payments made to ten other senior managers. And to
:30:52. > :30:56.Caroline Thomson, who stepped down with over �600,000 in her handbag.
:30:56. > :31:01.A big handbag. A lot of licence fees went into that. Here's
:31:01. > :31:05.Margaret Hodge, who chairs the committee. I think the BBC
:31:05. > :31:09.displayed a cavalier attitude to the way it uses tax payers money
:31:09. > :31:17.through the licence fee. This is our money, and this man had been in
:31:17. > :31:22.the job for 54 days, and he walked away with �450,000 and a package of
:31:22. > :31:26.benefits including a year's access to private health care, money for
:31:26. > :31:31.his lawyers and four p are to deal with all hostility he was facing
:31:31. > :31:35.from the media. Nobody else would get that. We still don't know what
:31:35. > :31:41.his pension is, but we have a final salary pay scheme at the BBC, and
:31:41. > :31:45.if his pension is based on that, that he only learnt before 54 days,
:31:45. > :31:50.that's not right, and I think the BBC management it doesn't get to
:31:50. > :31:55.what the public think. That was Margaret Hodge. Let me welcome
:31:55. > :31:59.viewers from Scotland to join us from first Minister's questions.
:31:59. > :32:05.You are now with the Daily Politics, discussing the BBC after the news
:32:05. > :32:09.which came out yesterday. We heard from Margaret Hodge, the head of
:32:09. > :32:12.the Public Accounts Committee who has attacked the number of pay-offs
:32:12. > :32:15.and the size of them that the BBC and the trust have been making.
:32:15. > :32:18.We're joined now by the Chairman of the Culture Media and Sport
:32:18. > :32:27.Committee, John Whittingdale. And Ken Baker is still with us, who
:32:27. > :32:32.takes a big interest in this, as a former Home Secretary would. What
:32:32. > :32:35.do you make of the Public Accounts Committee report? I entirely agree
:32:35. > :32:42.with it. My committee expressed concern about the size of the pay-
:32:42. > :32:45.off to George Entwistle, and Chris Patten and it indeed the came
:32:45. > :32:50.before us and I think they are right to highlight, not just the
:32:50. > :32:53.single payment to George Entwhistle but it appears to have been a
:32:53. > :32:57.culture, whenever anybody left the BBC, they went with a huge amount
:32:57. > :33:02.of cash but this is a time when resources are under pressure and
:33:02. > :33:05.they are having to make cuts to things like BBC local radio. It all
:33:05. > :33:10.in these easy to spend other people's money, the licence fee
:33:10. > :33:15.money. What do you say in response to the chairman of the BBC trust,
:33:15. > :33:23.Chris Patten, who was on the radio this morning saying, well, if they
:33:23. > :33:27.had fired him, George Entwhistle, he could have gone for constructive
:33:27. > :33:32.dismissal and it would have cost the BBC a lot more. Firstly, it
:33:32. > :33:37.raises questions over the contracts at the BBC. They need to look at
:33:37. > :33:41.that in future but, I think Chris Patten made similar remarks before
:33:41. > :33:46.my committee that this was the legal advice, but they should have
:33:46. > :33:49.challenged that because the public expectation was some body who
:33:49. > :33:56.failed in his job should not be able to walk away with that kind of
:33:56. > :34:02.money. And Caroline Thompson? that case, she left with even more
:34:02. > :34:06.money. We are told her position was got rid of and her duties were
:34:06. > :34:10.taken on by the chief financial officer. Again, it's an
:34:10. > :34:15.extraordinary amount of money for somebody to go away with for the
:34:15. > :34:21.the BBC are claiming poverty are the moment. Don't we know it. Did
:34:21. > :34:28.you see us at the party conferences? No, exactly. I expect
:34:28. > :34:36.you would not have been paid as much as Caroline Thompson. There is
:34:36. > :34:40.a difficulty here. For the sake of this discussion, most licence pay
:34:40. > :34:44.users will side with you and there will be fury about this. There is a
:34:44. > :34:51.problem, though, which is what can you do about it because at the
:34:51. > :34:55.moment, the moment Parliament tries to do anything about it, you are
:34:55. > :34:58.interfering in the independence of the BBC. It's up to the BBC to
:34:58. > :35:02.tackle this problem which was highlighted again by Nick Pollard
:35:02. > :35:06.in his report revealing things which were not a great surprise.
:35:06. > :35:11.There's too many people, it's not clear what they are actually doing,
:35:11. > :35:15.and there needs to be a much clearer line of responsibility and
:35:15. > :35:22.fewer tears of management. The new manager will have to get on with
:35:22. > :35:29.that quickly. This also the structure and whether that's it for
:35:29. > :35:33.parliament and whether the trust is working as it should. The BBC trust
:35:34. > :35:40.was a construct created for Michael Grade of. He then decided to go to
:35:40. > :35:43.ITV instead and left us with this strange hybrid organisation. The
:35:43. > :35:50.BBC having its own board with non- execs author and the BBC trust on
:35:50. > :35:55.top of that. We will enter another round of charter renewal, I suspect.
:35:55. > :35:59.What should be done? Actually, I was the opposition spokesman at the
:35:59. > :36:04.time and was critical of the formation of the BBC trust because
:36:04. > :36:07.it's trying to do two conflicting roles, regulating and championing.
:36:07. > :36:12.What I think should happen, the BBC should be externally regulated like
:36:12. > :36:15.the other broadcasters, Ofcom, and there should be clipped corporate
:36:15. > :36:21.structure were the chairmen, chief executive, and non-executive
:36:21. > :36:25.directors like Channel 4 and others. The trust would go. You have been
:36:25. > :36:30.round this course many times. agree with what he has been saying.
:36:30. > :36:36.His committee has become very influential. One of the great hopes
:36:37. > :36:40.for the BBC, Tony Hall, the new director-general. I was responsible
:36:40. > :36:45.for the BBC and he was in charge of the news for that I think he
:36:45. > :36:51.handled it very well indeed. The Conservative Party other day was
:36:51. > :36:55.absolutely loathed, even more than today. And he handled it very well
:36:55. > :37:00.indeed and he will be a big plus. When it comes to the management of
:37:00. > :37:04.the BBC, I would introduce that no one should have more than six
:37:04. > :37:09.months notice of a contract for the immediately, limit the chances are
:37:09. > :37:12.big payouts for that there should be no payments like those ones for
:37:12. > :37:18.public relations. It's quite remarkable. When somebody leaves,
:37:18. > :37:21.it I was in business, you try to make it easy for them, you say you
:37:21. > :37:27.want a happy lever, so you become generous with other people's money
:37:27. > :37:32.and that's not fair in these cases. I think the Pollard report was
:37:32. > :37:39.accurate and the fact nobody has been sacked at the BBC, you are a
:37:39. > :37:47.member of a cosy club. The BBC is a cosy club. I haven't got a pension.
:37:47. > :37:51.You might be different. There will be no pay-off when I go. Excellent.
:37:51. > :38:00.That's an example which should be followed. It will be zero. That's
:38:00. > :38:04.very good. Why doesn't has become the standard for everybody? Apart
:38:04. > :38:11.from the two BBC managers which were told they were incompetent,
:38:11. > :38:15.they were not sacked, but given other jobs, presumably on existing
:38:15. > :38:20.salaries and those jobs have not been specified at the BBC. They
:38:20. > :38:23.have no respect for authority. Everybody will know does two are
:38:23. > :38:28.clean to their jobs by their fingernails. Their authority and
:38:28. > :38:31.respect will go. I agree and that's something I raised and I'm told by
:38:31. > :38:37.the BBC disciplinary measures have been taken against a number of
:38:37. > :38:43.individuals. Who? They haven't stated but I'm sure we can make a
:38:43. > :38:47.fair guess. They haven't been able to say it publicly. But I hope
:38:47. > :38:51.further assurance of that kind will be given because the public will
:38:51. > :38:55.expect measures to be taken a gives people who have failed. More BBC
:38:55. > :39:00.execs come before your committee in the new year, do you think? It I
:39:00. > :39:05.think we will want to look at the way in which the BBC runs.
:39:05. > :39:09.consider the way changes should be made. We've got a lot on it would
:39:10. > :39:14.be Leverson Inquiry as well. It's a busy time for my committee. It's
:39:14. > :39:18.something we will want to look at. It's still a great institution, in
:39:18. > :39:21.spite of all these difficulties. What we are going through his
:39:21. > :39:25.management who could not deliver the high profile case and they
:39:25. > :39:29.panicked. They could not deal with it themselves and there was bad
:39:29. > :39:33.management course of it's still one the greatest broadcasters in the
:39:33. > :39:37.world. That's a good note to end on. Let's quit while we are ahead.
:39:37. > :39:43.Merry Christmas to you. Now, how would you like a day named after
:39:43. > :39:46.you? Yes, hold your horses! Our guest of the day's managed it.
:39:46. > :39:49.Baker Days. That's a day off school for the kids. A childcare headache
:39:49. > :39:52.for parents and the teachers? Well, they are working hard brushing up
:39:52. > :39:54.on their teaching skills of course. Lord Baker's time as education
:39:54. > :40:04.secretary was also, of course, marked by teachers' strikes. Here's
:40:04. > :40:08.
:40:08. > :40:13.How does Kenneth Baker a boy had a dilemma that impelled his
:40:14. > :40:17.predecessor? -- avoid the dilemma that impaled his predecessor? Today
:40:17. > :40:20.was designed as a show of strength as one union leader put it, a
:40:20. > :40:30.demonstration that the teachers were prepared to put their money
:40:30. > :40:43.
:40:43. > :40:47.Appropriately, the first of Mrs Thatcher's Cabinet onto the streets
:40:47. > :40:57.this election was the Education Secretary. His critics were waiting.
:40:57. > :41:10.
:41:10. > :41:14.There is a great deal of support And we're joined now by Kevin
:41:14. > :41:18.Courtney of the National Union of Teachers. Just before I come to you,
:41:18. > :41:22.Kenneth Baker, Michael Gove has written to every head teacher it
:41:22. > :41:26.demented take robust action against teachers involved in industrial
:41:26. > :41:34.action and dock their pay. Do you agree with that? I believe teachers
:41:35. > :41:40.should strike. The strike in 1986 had been going on for 18 months. No
:41:40. > :41:47.one could settle it. It was my first priority. I settled it by
:41:47. > :41:51.doing something quite dramatic. I took away, by law, all knitters
:41:51. > :41:55.fishing rights from teachers' unions and introduced a committee
:41:55. > :41:59.which would determine teachers' pay which did a much better deal.
:41:59. > :42:06.review body. It was much better than its predecessor, a much better
:42:06. > :42:10.deal for teachers, who came out of negotiating procedures. That's a
:42:10. > :42:13.different approach Michael Gove is perceiving. Do you think his
:42:13. > :42:18.approach will work? I think he selling to a conflict with the
:42:19. > :42:24.unions over this but is taking a very tough line and I support him.
:42:24. > :42:29.What do you say to that? We are not striking at the moment, but it's
:42:29. > :42:32.not disrupting any education. It's improving education Bilal and
:42:32. > :42:38.teachers to focus on teaching and learning instead a bureaucratic
:42:38. > :42:43.nonsense. You operating a work to rule, aren't you? We don't call it
:42:43. > :42:48.that. For example, we are not saying don't to a football club on
:42:48. > :42:52.a Saturday, music after school, we're not saying those things. What
:42:52. > :42:57.we are saying is, in system of professional standing. If your head
:42:57. > :43:00.teacher says to you says you have to hand in a week's planning on a
:43:00. > :43:04.Sunday afternoon when you know it's not the right way to plan the
:43:05. > :43:08.lessons, don't do it. The how does this end? We look at the way
:43:08. > :43:13.Michael Gove is dealing with it and he has made this threat, if you
:43:13. > :43:18.like, and you are responding in the way you have just outlined. You
:43:18. > :43:22.can't go on like that indefinitely? In many schools, you can't see it
:43:22. > :43:27.happening because head teachers are happy with it. In many schools, you
:43:27. > :43:30.can't see it but we think Michael Gove wants to excavate the so, in
:43:30. > :43:35.the Sunday Times last week, he said is on a war footing, with teaching
:43:35. > :43:43.unions. We think it's with teachers in practice, and he wants to tear
:43:43. > :43:46.up the entire pay framework created through Lord Baker's dealings. He
:43:46. > :43:53.wants to have paid determined at the level of the school for that we
:43:53. > :43:57.think it's a huge craziness. Why? In every one of those 26,000
:43:57. > :44:01.schools, head teachers, governors and teachers are thinking about
:44:01. > :44:04.paying teachers instead of think about learning and teaching.
:44:04. > :44:10.There's a central issue here whether there should be national
:44:10. > :44:15.pay bargaining in the whole of the country or regional pay. I have
:44:15. > :44:19.come to believe regional pay would be reasonable. In the private
:44:19. > :44:22.sector there is certainly regional pay, no doubt about that. People in
:44:22. > :44:29.the north-east and north-west get low wages than in the south and
:44:29. > :44:35.south-east, which is a cauldron of activity. Deprived areas getting
:44:35. > :44:39.low wages, a race to the bottom? that is the line-up Michael Gove is
:44:39. > :44:45.moving towards full that what do you think of the idea schools will
:44:45. > :44:49.themselves, within pay banding, negotiate and dictate teachers pay?
:44:49. > :44:52.One of the most significant changes I made was to give to school
:44:52. > :44:56.control of their budgets, delegating budgets, and some people
:44:56. > :45:02.tell be they would not be able to control them. They controlled them
:45:02. > :45:05.perfectly well. They should be able to determine their pay as well.
:45:05. > :45:10.What's wrong with that in individual schools? I take your
:45:10. > :45:13.point they could be too much focus on deciding teachers' pay but head
:45:13. > :45:17.teachers could conclude that they know their staff, they know who is
:45:17. > :45:27.stronger, and who is less able to deal with a heavy workload and pay
:45:27. > :45:32.We don't want the focus for head teachers to be on that. Think about
:45:32. > :45:35.it from the point of view of one of the teachers. The responses we are
:45:35. > :45:41.getting at NUT headquarters is a real hostility for this for several
:45:41. > :45:45.reasons. How will you know whether your head teacher's decision is
:45:45. > :45:49.based on your competence or on the school's financial position? If it
:45:49. > :45:54.is because of the school's financial position, if your face
:45:54. > :45:59.doesn't fit, where do you were Peel? If you're in a big
:45:59. > :46:03.Association, you can appeal over the head teacher's head. There is
:46:03. > :46:07.no independent appeal body. There is some evidence that black
:46:07. > :46:11.teachers find it harder to cross the performance threshold. We think
:46:11. > :46:16.there is already evidence of headteachers making wrong decisions
:46:16. > :46:20.and has no appeal mechanism. We are taking away a teacher's career
:46:20. > :46:25.structure. At the moment you move up based on part on years of
:46:25. > :46:29.service and on the head teacher's assessment, but with these
:46:29. > :46:35.proposals you lose any security you have any move to another school.
:46:35. > :46:39.Our members don't like that. Let's go back to the approach. You talked
:46:39. > :46:44.about how you dealt with that strike. His Michael Gove's approach
:46:44. > :46:49.working? Talking about a war footing. Is that going to resolve
:46:49. > :46:55.it? What I was surprised to hear from the union was that the action
:46:55. > :47:00.taken in schools doesn't seem to be visible anywhere. Members are
:47:00. > :47:05.taking action, but it is not affecting Saturday football and the
:47:05. > :47:12.other things. Why are you doing it then? It is having no effect on
:47:12. > :47:16.education so what are you doing it for? I don't understand that.
:47:16. > :47:22.didn't answer my question about Michael Gove's approach. But we
:47:22. > :47:26.have to finish there. He played for time!
:47:26. > :47:28.Could a gas rig be coming to a field near you? Last week, the
:47:28. > :47:31.Government gave the go-ahead to the controversial technique of
:47:31. > :47:33.extracting gas from rock known as fracking. It was halted after earth
:47:33. > :47:35.tremors near Blackpool were blamed on drilling in the area.
:47:35. > :47:38.Communities affected have been campaigning against any further
:47:38. > :47:43.drilling, but what if there were financial incentives for local
:47:43. > :47:45.people to support fracking? That was an idea taken up by Lancaster
:47:46. > :47:55.and Fleetwood MP, Eric Ollerenshaw, in a Westminster Hall debate
:47:56. > :47:59.
:47:59. > :48:05.yesterday. He will join us in a moment, but
:48:05. > :48:10.first let speak to Helen Rimsha of Friends of the Earth. Are there any
:48:10. > :48:15.conditions under which you would support fracking? No. Looking at
:48:15. > :48:20.the community benefits is the wrong place. We need to look at this in
:48:20. > :48:25.the wider context in the future of the energy policy. We need to move
:48:25. > :48:30.away from fossil fuels. We need to reduce reliance on glass -- gas and
:48:30. > :48:35.move towards renewable energy. There are potential impacts for the
:48:35. > :48:44.environment in Lancashire. There are risks of water and air
:48:44. > :48:48.pollution and this region of Lancashire has important... We are
:48:49. > :48:58.taking a huge risk. We will be dependent on gas for quite some
:48:58. > :49:02.time. It is becoming -- it is coming from Norway and other areas.
:49:02. > :49:07.Given that we are going to use gas for the foreseeable future, it
:49:07. > :49:11.would be sensible to have some home-grown gas. Another thing the
:49:11. > :49:15.Committee on Climate Change said last week is that a UK share of gas
:49:15. > :49:19.will have no big impact, it will not be a game changed on energy
:49:19. > :49:24.prices. We have rising energy prices because the price of global
:49:24. > :49:28.gases going up. We need to reduce the reliance on gas and develop
:49:28. > :49:32.clean energy sources. That would not only cut carbon emissions, but
:49:32. > :49:38.create thousands of new jobs, particularly in places like
:49:38. > :49:45.Lancashire. 9,000 people are already employed in the renewable
:49:45. > :49:50.energy sector. What do you say? agree with the date -- great deal
:49:50. > :49:56.of what she says. We are long way off this. We're just resuming one
:49:56. > :49:59.Test site. If it is going to happen, Lancashire need to pay back. Surely
:49:59. > :50:04.Lancashire would get a payback. You would be the crucible of the
:50:04. > :50:08.activity. We are just very generous people in Lancashire! But we are
:50:08. > :50:13.not Texas. In Lancashire at the moment before these wells go ahead,
:50:13. > :50:18.the company will get the profits and if Starbucks don't do the
:50:18. > :50:23.drilling, the Chancellor will get his taxation. The mineral rights
:50:23. > :50:27.belong to the Duchy so we will get precious little. Have you been to
:50:27. > :50:31.Aberdeen? Yes. Have you seen what Coyle has done for Aberdeen? Why
:50:31. > :50:37.can't it do the same for Blackpool? That is drilling under the sea and
:50:37. > :50:42.coming in. In Lancashire, you are talking about 800 wells across
:50:42. > :50:46.rural Lancashire. Why don't you go along with her? Why bother if you
:50:46. > :50:51.are so miserable. We are not miserable people, but we are trying
:50:51. > :50:54.to put a marker in the shale about what should happen if this proves
:50:54. > :50:58.to be the bonanza the national press claim it might be.
:50:58. > :51:06.national press know very little about it. I was brought up in
:51:06. > :51:11.Lancashire. You can tell that from my accent! They are canny people. I
:51:11. > :51:16.am strongly in favour of a fracking, it will transform the British
:51:16. > :51:22.economy. To turn your back on fracking means that you might as
:51:22. > :51:27.well... It is samba -- as important as North Sea oil. America but --
:51:27. > :51:33.America will be self-sufficient with energy into of three years.
:51:33. > :51:38.The industries in America which had become uncompetitive are being re
:51:38. > :51:44.created. We have a huge opportunity. Although Greenpeace are full of
:51:44. > :51:49.nice people, if you had been around in the 18th century, you would have
:51:49. > :51:57.said don't dig coal mines. You have to recognise that this is
:51:57. > :52:01.transformation of. On your question of whether Lancashire should get a
:52:01. > :52:11.benefit, with nuclear power stations the villages around it got
:52:11. > :52:11.
:52:11. > :52:16.free energy. In the United States, shale Gas has cut the price of gas
:52:16. > :52:26.by a third. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs created as new
:52:26. > :52:27.
:52:28. > :52:31.industries relocate back to America. They call it a homecoming in the US.
:52:31. > :52:38.You are Friends of the Earth... Ken Baker caught you Greenpeace! I do
:52:38. > :52:45.apologise. Why should Britain lose out on this if that is the
:52:45. > :52:50.prospect? A lot of energy analysts agree it is a different scenario in
:52:50. > :52:57.the UK. It will be more expensive and more difficult to extract. It
:52:57. > :53:01.is a different environment, it is more densely populated. We don't
:53:01. > :53:05.need to extract this resource, it is not worth the risk. You would be
:53:05. > :53:10.against it anyway. You are against fracking in the US. Her absolutely
:53:10. > :53:14.because of the climate change impact. It is quite amazing that
:53:14. > :53:20.the Secretary of State gave the go- ahead to fracking without even
:53:20. > :53:25.having conducting the environmental assessment. How come, even though
:53:25. > :53:29.the US economy has been growing, unlike the European economies, how
:53:29. > :53:33.come US carbon emissions are down substantially since they moved to
:53:33. > :53:38.shale gas? Europe, which hasn't been growing, his way over its
:53:38. > :53:42.carbon targets. We still need to move away from fossil fuels. That
:53:42. > :53:49.is the answer to my question. are many reasons why the US
:53:49. > :53:53.economy... It is a lesser carbon fuel than coal. Unconventional Gas
:53:53. > :53:59.has a higher carbon impact than conventional gas. We can't afford
:53:59. > :54:03.to extract this gas. It is clear from the science that we can't
:54:03. > :54:10.afford to burn this gas and we don't need to. We have fast
:54:10. > :54:17.renewable resources. We could meet our electricity needs by six times
:54:17. > :54:26.over with windfarms. P it was under question I asked. We will leave it
:54:26. > :54:29.there. Has the postman been yet? Because
:54:29. > :54:32.it's that time of year when the post can bring you something a
:54:32. > :54:35.little more welcome than the usual bills and junk mail. Here in
:54:35. > :54:40.Westminster, ears are straining to hear the thud of Christmas cards on
:54:40. > :54:43.the mat in the hope that there will be a card from Dave or Ed or even
:54:43. > :54:45.Nick. In a moment, we'll be discussing what it all means with
:54:45. > :54:55.political commentator Simon Hoggart. But first, here's a selection of
:54:55. > :54:55.
:54:55. > :55:45.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 49 seconds
:55:45. > :55:52.Don't know how that last picture got in there. I'm not sure I like
:55:52. > :55:57.myself with a beard. It is like an estate agent's Christmas night out!
:55:57. > :56:02.That is a complement! We're joined now by Simon Hoggart from the
:56:02. > :56:07.Guardian. Have you had yours from Dave, Ed and Nick? I must have
:56:07. > :56:13.dropped off the list. That is terrible. An amazing one from Keith
:56:13. > :56:21.Vaz. A cartoon that shows Keith in the middle of the Olympics Opening
:56:21. > :56:27.Ceremony with the cream parachuting down -- at the Queen. Are they the
:56:27. > :56:31.bane of a politician's life, having to sign all of those cards? It is a
:56:31. > :56:37.way to keep in touch with your constituents. Be it has now become
:56:37. > :56:41.very expensive to do. It is 50p per card. Not if you e-mail it.
:56:41. > :56:47.they are not really. They are boring. E-mailed Christmas cards
:56:48. > :56:53.are not the same. They don't have the same glow about them. Do they
:56:53. > :56:59.filly with joy? Politicians always do things for reason and on their
:56:59. > :57:06.Christmas cards, what of the messages? It is all on the cover.
:57:06. > :57:13.Let's have a look at David Cameron's Christmas card. That has
:57:13. > :57:17.got a lot of messages. You've got Kate Nisbet, a military hero and an
:57:17. > :57:22.Olympic torch carrier. You've got Dave and Sam. They have not brought
:57:22. > :57:28.their children out this time. have before. Tony Blair always used
:57:28. > :57:34.to bring out his children. Gordon Brown never did. The message is the
:57:34. > :57:40.Olympics, our brave or roads -- heroes and summer. Let's have a
:57:40. > :57:50.look at Ed Miliband's. Him with his family. A slightly different
:57:50. > :57:55.message. That's as I'm a human being -- and that says. What is
:57:55. > :58:02.puzzling is his wife, a highly intelligent woman, they've chosen a
:58:02. > :58:09.picture which makes her look like the joker in Batman. Sign an! --
:58:09. > :58:15.Simon. Do you think it is unwise to put your family on? I think so.
:58:15. > :58:21.Christmas is a Christian festival. This has become common fodder for
:58:21. > :58:29.politicians, they send out hundreds of them. Show us your card. This is
:58:29. > :58:39.a cartoonist. He low Ruth Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair even more.
:58:39. > :58:39.
:58:39. > :58:48.-- Pirlo moved Margaret Thatcher. At Cap we have run out of time. I
:58:48. > :58:51.will be back with this week at 11:50pm tonight. Our I will be
:58:51. > :58:53.joined by Michael Portillo, Alan Johnson, Sir Ming Campbell, Mary
:58:53. > :58:55.Ann Sieghart, Nick Watt, Kevin Maguire, Quentin Letts, John