17/01/2013 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. One British man has

been killed, up to five more are being held hostage at a gas

facility deep in Algeria. The Government's emergency committee is

meeting here in London, we will bring you the latest. It is the eve

of David Cameron is big speech on Europe, awaited so eagerly by

Conservative backbenchers, but will voters be hanging on his every

word? Parliament, Fleet Street, the City of London, the BBC, why have

all these famous British institutions fallen from Grace? We

will ask the custodian of standards in public life. And stand by for an

export boom to Germany, princesses Eugenie and Beatrice hit Berlin.

They hit Berlin? They do! That is their first trade mission. Wow!

More exports. What do they know about it?! Don't ask me, I am not

their publicity officer! Stay tuned and you will find out. With us for

the duration, the chief executive of YouGov, Stephan Shakespeare,

welcome back. Let's starts this afternoon with the ongoing hostage

crisis in Algeria. Up to 41 foreign nationals are being held at a gas

facility in the south-east of the country. The group includes up to

five British nationals, and one British man was among two people

killed in the incident when the facility was being taken over by

the terrorists, which began yesterday. The Algerian army is

surrounding the facility, and the government's Emergency Committee,

COBRA, has been meeting. They will be co-ordinating with the other

countries involved in this, there are Americans and French and so on.

Speaking in Australia, where he is on a visit to give a lecture, the

Foreign Secretary said it was an extremely dangerous situation.

number of people are held hostage there. This does include a number

of British nationals, and this is therefore an extremely dangerous

situation. We are in close touch with the Algerian government, their

military have deployed to the area, and the Prime Minister has spoken

to the Prime Minister of Algeria. We are liaising very closely at all

levels with the Algerian government. I have just spoken to our

ambassador in Algeria and sent a rapid deployment team from the

Foreign Office in order to reinforce our embassy and consular

staff. We are joined from the Cabinet

Office in Westminster, Whitehall, by Richard Galpin. Good afternoon

to you, can you give us the latest? What more do we know at this stage?

Well, I mean, essentially, we know, as you were saying, that the

emergency committee, COBRA, has been meeting. We have not had any

information directly coming out of it, but as you were saying,

obviously the emphasis now is on co-ordinating with the other

countries involved, and of course specifically with Algeria, to see

if they can be a peaceful outcome to this. BP has put out a statement.

It has some of its employees taken hostage. They are saying the

situation on the ground remains unresolved and fragile, and we know

that Algerian troops have surrounded the gas installation,

but the Islamist militants have been quoted as saying that there

would be a great tragedy if there was to be any kind of military

force used to try to free the hostages. They are claiming that

they have placed explosives around the installation, and they are also

claiming that they are very heavily armed. Is the British government

working on the assumption that it is linked to the French

intervention in Mali, which has had British support, and do we know the

motivation of the hostage takers? We know they are Islamist, but they

are also, as I understand it, drug runners and cigarette smugglers.

Their boss is called Mr Marlborough! Yes, that is

absolutely right, a lot of these Islamist groups, so-called Islamist

groups in Algeria are a mix of things. It may be an ideology and

religion, but there are also criminal elements as well, and it

could be that this is about money. We do not know for sure of. The

Foreign Secretary was a little bit cynical about the link with Mali.

There are press reports quoting the militants as saying that this is

all about trying to stop the French with their military intervention in

Mali, but we do not know for sure that that is the case. That is the

only demand, or whether there are other demands, such as trying to

export a very large amount of money. Certainly, the Government is very

tight-lipped about this year, but the standard policy of the British

government, as we all know, is that they say that they will not pay any

ransoms, if indeed that is what is being demanded by the hostage

takers. Richard, thank you very much for joining us, Richard Galpin

outside the Foreign Office, not the Cabinet Office, as I said. That is

where they have been meeting. Now, time for our daily quiz. With which

character from Are You Being Served? Was the Education Secretary,

Michael Gove, compared yesterday? What did Mr Humphrys, Mr Grace, Mrs

Slocombe or Mrs Slocombe's pet? No sniggering, please! I'm sure our

guests will give us the correct answer. I know the answer. You?

don't! Don't you read the papers? Perhaps not the comparisons! It was

in all the papers... Anyway, David Cameron is no doubt polishing his

clogs in preparation for his big speech in Amsterdam tomorrow. It

has earned him some tulip bouquets from his backbenchers, but

brickbats from those who think a referendum will scare off investors.

There have been brickbats from Washington, EU capitals, Tory

grandees and political opponents over his long awaited Europe speech.

Now it is the turn of the Business Secretary. In a speech later today,

Vince Cable is expected to warn it would be a dangerous gamble to try

to renegotiate powers from Brussels. The Liberal Democrat MP plans to

say that the policy is creating uncertainty for investors and is a

terrible time to have the diversion and uncertainty which the build-up

to a referendum would entail. Meanwhile, Ed Miliband has this

morning accused the government of taking the wrong stance on Europe.

I believe that committing now to such an in-out referendum has big

costs for Britain. That is where -- that is why I see the Prime

Minister is taking us to the economic cliff. I thought Lord

Heseltine put it very well, he said we are committing to a referendum

on a negotiation that has not yet begun, on a timescale that is

uncertain, with an outcome that is unknown, and that is an unnecessary

gamble for our country. Just think about this, imagine an investor

thinking now, should I be investing in Britain or Germany or Denmark,

or a whole range of other countries? I think if we put up a

sign around Britain saying, we might be out of the European Union

within five years, I do not think that is going to be good for our

country. Douglas Carswell and Julian Huppert joined as. What has

David Cameron got to say to satisfy you? I hope he will say he will

negotiate a new deal and then put it to a referendum of every single

person in the country, do we sign up to the New Deal or out? What

should be the architecture of that deal? What should be the bold

points? In order to persuade me to advise my constituents to vote to

stay in, I would want us to be able to negotiate free trade agreements

with countries around the world, I would want British law to no longer

be subsumed under EU law,... With the European Court of Justice in

Luxembourg. And also I believe that in order to compete in a modern

world, British companies should only have to comply with single

market rules when they are exporting to the single market, not

when they are looking to trade domestically or globally. Are you

prepared to be disappointed? We both know he will not go as far as

that. Well, hang on a second. I have waited a long time, not months,

maybe decades for his speech, and I'm looking forward to it. I'm

going to wait and listen in good faith, and I'm sure he will speak

in good faith. Vince Cable says it is a terrible time to be talking

about a referendum, it will undermine business. I'm afraid that

the Business Secretary does not speak for British business. If you

look at the BCC survey out recently that showed that 35% of their

members think that the price of being in the single market

outweighs the benefits. Business recognises we need a new deal, and

I find it quite extraordinary that the Business Secretary things we

should not be prepared to renegotiate at a time when Europe

is itself changing. Julian Huppert, what is the threat to business?

think it is a huge and very real threat. If businesses are not sure

what the rules are going to be in five years' time, that will hit

investment. People will be uncertain, and that is bad for

business. I'm fascinated that Douglas highlights a pack that a

third of businesses in one so they were not keen on being in Europe.

That leaves two-thirds who did not say that, of course! Most of the

businesses I speak to highlight the fact that what they want his

certainty, and it is the same case that David Cameron made about the

dangers of the Scottish referendum, that it will be bad for the

Scottish economy. There are millions of jobs in the UK who

benefit from working with Europe. We are huge beneficiaries, as well

as the fact that it allows people to travel freely and are all those

other benefits. It would be incredibly damaging to have

uncertainty. David Cameron has a tough job. Would you like me to

announce the major investments in Scotland that have been announced

since the referendum was unveiled? It is the same point. The challenge

is to name those which have not been named. Tell me those which

have not been named. I do not have a full list. You have any single

item on that list? I think the point... Do you? A number of

businesses are highlighting that they are concerned about that

uncertainty and what it will do. I have to say, Cameron has a tough

job to deal with the sensible part of his policy of one to get on with

rebuilding the British economy and the European fanatics and are

deeply concerned, who talk about Europe at every available

opportunity. I think you are talking about Douglas Carswell,

let's go back to him! It is at least theoretically possible that

uncertainty would deter international business from

investing in Britain. Look at the biggest source of uncertainty in

Europe at the moment, it is a product of ever-closer integration,

monetary union. Take companies that invest in his country in order to

manufacture cars. The European market contracted by 7% last year.

Honda is going to let go one in four of its workers in Lancashire.

And yet a company that invests in this country to export to Asia and

the Middle East, Jaguar Land Rover, has announced it is going to be

increasing this production and hiring 800 people. I think that is

a vivid illustration that actually the European project is not the be-

all and end-all. If it feared that it faced tariff barriers if we were

outside the EU, that could deter international manufacturers? Why

would they come here to face a tariff barrier? Look, they are not

going to. If you look at when we were to invoke the relevant clauses

to leave the European Union, part of that process would see us

negotiate a trade deal. Turkey has free trade and does not face tariff

barriers, Switzerland does not. There are good examples of states

that border and neighbour the European Union that are not members

that have market access. Julian Huppert, if a referendum is such a

bad idea, why were the Lib Dems urging us to say a petition saying

it is time for a real referendum on Europe? What we have said quite

consistently is that when there is a major change, something like the

constitution that was proposed, that would be an appropriate time

for Europe to reflect, but not when we are struggling to get our

economy going. No, excuse me, this was an in-out referendum you were

calling for, not on repatriation of powers. He said, it is time, the

clue is there, a time for a real referendum on Europe. Why were you

saying that only a couple of years ago, asking us to sign a petition,

send it to your headquarters? Why were you doing that then? I think

the point was, and what our manifesto said was very clearly

that it was about having a proper referendum if there was a major

change, not this constant sniping... No, and sorry, this referendum is

about an in-out referendum, time for a real referendum, not one on

powers, but a real one on whether we should stay in or out. Why were

you arguing that then, asking us to sign a petition to do so, and now

you are saying it is dangerous? suspect... I have not got this

piece of paper in front of me, I'm not sure I have seen it. The key

point is that it is about when you do that real referendum, when there

is a major national trigger, not just the fact that David Cameron

has a bunch of right-wing Euro- sceptics to placate. The damage is

being done. If you look at the proposed opt-outs from home affairs

issues, we have heard from Gbagbo that it would make it much harder

for police officers to do their jobs, arresting criminals, reducing

crime. -- ACPO. The timing now would be absolutely awful, damaging

to British business, damaging to British interests... So why would

it not have been damaging to British interests two years ago?

but what we were saying then, have a look at the Frazer Clarke

manifesto, it was very clear that the timing was one there was a

major change. -- have a look at the I brought with me a copy of your

referendum, in which you say you remain committed to an in-about a

referendum. Let's be clear, what Vince Cable and other Liberal

Democrats were fearful of was the idea that the results should be put

to the British people. They are absolutely terrified about that.

They know that unless it is a very, very good deal, it is going to be

out. Let me ask dude two questions, first of all on the attitudes of

business that, and I mean including small- and medium-sized companies -

what is their overall attitude to the European Union now? From my

perspective, the people I know, it is pretty much the same as the

public, which is, change is worrying, people do not want to

have a significant change with age cannot predict. -- which they

cannot predict. I strongly suspect they would prefer to stay in.

would they be in favour of staying in roughly on the status quo, which

is the position of Labour and the Lib Dems, or would they be in

favour of staying in on any possible Cameron deal? Well, any

possible Cameron deal would be crucial. If we have a straight in-

out question, it is 2-1 out. But with the better deal, everything

changes. When we say, if the Prime Minister can convincingly argue

that there has been a renegotiation, that some things will be better,

how would you vote, it is then positive, it is to stay in fuel

stop -- it is to stay in. My view is that this is all about risk, and

if people feel there has been some change, positively in that

direction, I think it would be relatively likely that there would

be an in vote. People have views on this, although it may not be at the

top of the list of their problems, but do people want a referendum, or

do they think this is not the right time? They always want a referendum.

If you ask, do you want a referendum, on almost any subject,

in any poll, they will say they want one. I think the news story

could be that this actually create agreement. Because if we agree that

we are good but the final outcome to the British people, in an in a

referendum, in a strange way, I think it could allow us to agree to

differ. But it could give the British people the final say. -- an

in-out referendum. This petition, which spoke about Britain's

membership of the EU, and that only, was this petition circulated during

the last election in your Cambridge constituency? I'm not sure that I

have ever seen it. Our manifesto was quite clear about the timing

issue. But we need to reform Europe, that is absolutely clear. At the

moment, we are not able to fix things like the Common Agricultural

Policy, or the fact that Brussels does not work as well as it should

do. I wish we could have a much more constructive relationship with

Europe, so that we could have a better Europe. Now, If Conservative

backbenchers, like Douglas, are looking uneasy, it is not our

probing questioning style, no, we are pussycats these days, aren't we,

Andrew? What they are worried about is the emerging threat from the UK

Independence Party. They came second at the last European

elections, and some people think they might go one better next year.

They are not yet predicted to win a seat at the next general election,

but they could threaten the careers of some Tory MPs, and make it

difficult for the party to win a majority. So, how seriously should

they take the threat from UKIP? UKIP have been going 20 years, but

for much of that time, they have been pitiful toddlers, pigeon-holed

by the grown-ups as a golf club that became a party, cranks,

racists in blazers, odd. But all the while, UKIP has been doing some

growing up, and now, the adults are worried. I think they are terrified.

The fact that Cameron will be giving this speech on Friday

regarding a referendum, even though we are not sure what it would be on,

basically tells us just how strong UKIP is, because we have driven the

agenda on this subject. What is more scary for the established

parties is the research into who is voting for UKIP, which suggests

Europe is only third on their list of priorities, allowing the party

to attack the fact that it gets labelled as a one-issue party.

There is no constitution to give them a legal framework pandered

chief executive to give them management of the party machine. --

there is a new constitution. This party has tightened up over the

years, but not to the extent that we need. People are used to having

autonomy, and they will lose some of that, so there will always be

resistance. We did have a constitution, but it was devised

for the sort of party which UKIP had been, fairly amateur, we would

have to admit that. It is inevitable in a small party

starting out. But this is a serious game, we are up against highly

professional parties, which have been around, some of them, for more

than 300 years. You cannot play the amateur for ever. One thing we had

to do was to bring in a set of rules to enable us to play the game

on a level playing field. Perhaps one of the biggest signs they are

much during is that they know they are not grown up yet. Loose cannons

have and perhaps will embarrass them. You cannot be a successful

political party if you do not know what you stand for. That is the

fundamental point. There is room for debate, and we welcome back,

but there is certainly no room for people to create their own agendas.

The party does that. Also an acceptable to them now is the idea

that they were too close to the BNP. That has been illegally tackled in

their new constitution. Those kind of people have no place in UKIP.

Nigel Farage has been playing about that. I am behind him 100% on that

aspect. It is vital. UKIP's big weakness is that they have no

geographic base. It is hard to see the winning a seat at Westminster.

But that does not mean they are not influencing debate. If we are

polling 10-15%, it could be very difficult for the Conservative

Party to form a majority, unless at some point they sit down and speak

to UKIP. Douglas Carswell and Stephan Shakespeare are still with

us. We are also joined by Mark Field. How worried are you by the

rise of UKIP? Many supporters feel UKIP speaks for the more than the

coalition government. It goes beyond simply the European issue.

It covers things like grammar schools, law and order. So, the

important thing is that we have to recognise that they are going to be

a significant force in politics. They did very well in the European

elections, and they will do so again next year, there is no doubt

about it. The wrong approach would be to try to dismiss them as being

odd. You have got to take head-on their arguments. On Europe, they

have a different view to the official Conservative view, which

is to stay in the European Union. UKIP obviously want to get out.

do you accept that argument that actually UKIP and its supporters,

people who might be considering joining UKIP, the main attraction

for them is not necessarily the debate about Europe? There is some

truth in that. One reason I believe the Conservative Party should adopt

something like open primaries is to do with this. A lot of UKIP

supporters are attracted to the idea of anti-politics. If we as --

as Conservatives want to do something about that, we need to

change the way we approach that. But what about Europe? The first

lesson in politics is to learn how to count. If you do the maths, you

see that if you can get between 10% and 20% in the polls, it is an

existential threat. Yes, we need to tackle the Europe question, with

brick Nietzschean-about choice, but that is not enough. -- with an in-

about choice. I think the difficulty is, my own view is that

the befriend am I suspect people will be offered will be something

post-2015. The concern I have always had it is the disconnect

between the political class and the public at large. In many ways, UKIP

are able to tap into that. That's partly because the Liberal

Democrats used to be able to do that, but that there are no longer

able to do so. Is the issue of Europe, and the banging on about

Europe, which David Cameron said he wanted to avoid, is that an

electoral desert for the Conservatives? The Conservatives

are ahead of UKIP on the economy. If they are going to take them on

on Europe, I think that will be a problem for them. If on the other

hand they can neutralise that subject and bring the debate back

to the economy, that is when they can get Voce back. So, you are not

doing your party any favours -- votes -- going on about Europe, you

need to tackle the economy. With respect, I would not be sitting

here in Westminster if I had not persuaded people in a marginal seat

to vote for me not once but twice. One reason why I held my seat was

by making it clear that Douglas Carswell wants Britain to have a

referendum on Europe. I think there would be more of them if others who

had been standing at the last election had taken a similar line.

Do you agree that there would have been more Conservative MPs if they

had stood on a similar platform? Without question, do the maths.

is overstating the number who lost last time, I would say. Something

like 20 also lost their seats because of Europe last time. At the

next election, you cap will be up to 8%, compared with 3%. -- UKIP

will be up. You have got to stand on a platform for what you believe

in. There needs to be a sense of leadership, a sense of vision, of

where David Cameron once things to be, not in terms of short-term

political tactics, but a sense of being led. I think the public at

large will take on leadership where AC a sense of vision for the future.

I think a Euro-sceptic line would help the Conservative Party at the

next election, if... My point is that if it is something that the

whole party was unified about. But we know that the consequence of

going on a very Euro-sceptic line is a split, and that is what

worries voters. So, disunity could be... I'm not sure a division

between Ken Clarke and the rest is really a serious thing.... I am not

talking about that. You're saying, if we do not repatriate powers, we

must pull out. Look at the last time we had a referendum, on

electoral reform, it allowed politicians to get over their

differences, the sky did not fall down, the world carried on. As far

as the coalition is concerned, it is an ongoing problem. Without

boundary changes, it is difficult to see how the Conservatives can

get an overall majority at the next election. So there is an ongoing

impact. This is not just an internal Conservative issue, this

is a coalition issue. The European issue is an important strand. There

is an appetite for greater direct democracy, and giving people a

referendum on Europe is part of that. But there are other

democratic changes we need, in order to reach out to people who

are disaffected with the whole of the Westminster Establishment.

you accept that this could give Britain what it wants in terms of

repatriating powers? This is where I think David Cameron is really on

to something. If we enter into negotiations saying, can we please

have a new deal or else we will leave, I think actually he could

achieve something quite extraordinary. That is an absolute

illusion. At the margins, we can get a little bit of repatriation...

The idea that we are going to be able to have a fundamental

renegotiation is an absolute fantasy. But was the last time we

tried? Can I just say, just to throw it into the bitch, on Europe

spokesman for Mark we to's party has said that David Cameron will

not find an ally if he takes this approach. But the Dutch government

will not be voting in the referendum, so it is interesting,

but it is not central. But they will have a veto over the

repatriation negotiations. If we cannot get a deal, then the British

people are more likely to vote for out. At the margins, of course we

can do a little bit. But one of the biggest difficulties I feel is the

City of London, because we are talking about the idea of a

headlong rush towards banking and fiscal union, which under pines --

undermines one of the most important things which we all feel,

which is the single market. We have got plenty of remarks already on

Twitter. Douglas Carswell and Mark UKIP will be happy! Yes! Do you

know what the parliamentary Stone is? It is the extra weight that MPs

gain from all the boozing, schmoozing, the lack of exercise,

it is an unhealthy environment that can play havoc with a waistline.

Never mind the journalists! To help combat this, MPs have been weighing

in to highlight the rise of obesity in Britain and to get people to

take urgent action. Susana Mendonca has got a set of scales on College

Green! We have transformed College Green

into our very own Fight Club, we have the weighing scales, the

measuring chart, a very official- looking man with a clipboard. Conor

Burns and Michael Gapes, and as you can see, he has just had his height

measured. While it is very amusing to watch our MPs doing this, there

is a serious point, a campaign to get us thinking more about how much

we way. It is a very serious point. One in four adults in the UK is

obese, and a third of 11 year-olds, and it costs the NHS �5 billion per

year. This is saying to people, if you recognise it, there's lots of

things you can do to take responsibility, go for a walk, go

for a swim, joy in a gym, take responsibility and save the country

a lot of money in the future. You're off from Obesity Management

Association, which came up this idea. How do people measure their

BMI? It looks quite complicated. is your weight divided by your

height, your weight in kilograms divided by your height in metres

squared. It can be a little bit complicated, it is much easier to

go to the website, you can use the calculator there. And the point of

this is to get people like looking at how much their way, because BMI

is not a perfect measure, is it? is not perfect, but at the launch

we had a group of MPs from across the political spectrum, and on a

hole most of them were surprised how high it was. That is typical of

the population, it creeps up on you. So, Conor Burns, is he looking

good? 27.6 is in the overweight category. The need to keep an eye

on it, he is a big guy, it is not too bad. -- he needs. Mike, how are

you feeling? Fine! MPs have a lifestyle, lots of lunches, a lot

of temptation. People have a lot of temptation, it is difficult to tell

people you need to be checking on your weight. Absolutely, and I

think all of us who are, and I will come out as the obese, there are

millions of people like that, like I am, who have busy lives, and in

my case I do not always eat at regular times. I think there is a

tendency... Sadly, time is running out, what is is BMI? I'm afraid it

is 33.2. You are the loser, how do you feel about that? Not surprised,

but I am working on it, giving up alcohol for January. There are no

winners and losers, if we reach a few people at home who will make

changes, they are the winners. loser will have to do a few laps of

College Green! I think I am going to step up here and see if I can

work out what might the Emaar eyes. However, sadly, we are running out

of time, no time for me to tell you! -- what might BMI is. We will

broadcast it tomorrow! For I thought it was an airline that

British Airways board. We have just been joined by viewers in Scotland,

who have been watching First Minister's Questions. Welcome to

you. Parliament, the banks, Fleet Street, at the police, the BBC,

there is hardly a British institution that has not fallen

from grace. The custodian of Standards in Public Life is

Christopher Kelly. In a moment, we will ask him why standards have

fallen during his tenure. Not that we are blaming him! But first, a

reminder of the scandals we have # Whatever happened to their

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 44 seconds

# Whatever happened to all of the And the chairman of the Committee

of Standards in Public Life, Christopher Kelly, joins us now.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. Please explain how you managed to

conclude that standards in public life have improved! I don't think I

said that. We are in no doubt there is a result that standards in many

areas have improved. In many areas, and that is absolutely true. Given

the perfect storm and of others, the incidence of the last few

months, let alone the last few years, it is easy to fail to

recognise that in quite a number of respects standards have improved.

There is much greater transparency, there is now much greater emphasis

on issues like accountability, proper processes for making

appointments and so on. And yet, and yet, if anyone needs reminding,

we still get these long series of accidents, to put it at its mildest.

You say that all these things have happened, but just to remind you

and our viewers, according to Chris Patten, the chairman of the BBC, we

at the BBC are and will donate tsunami of filth! -- engulfed in.

We have heard of the Xavi abuse, the MPs' expenses bill lingers on.

-- Sabha all. We have had the banks rigging LIBOR and being fined

millions of pounds. We have had the hacking by newspapers, the

investigations into the police for illegal immigrants, and a former

Cabinet minister on trial! Many of those things are not in the public

sector, although a lot of them reflect cherished institutions. You

do not need to convince me of those things! Did you think long and hard

before you wrote this?! It is important to keep these things in

context. There are a large number of things that need to be done.

There are still very many instances which show that people have not

fully internalised what needs to be done to maintain high standards.

But in a number of respects, things are better. You can ask me about

this as long as you like, I do not dispute that there are lots of

things that are wrong, and the reason, I imagine, the reason you

are vast media is because we produced a report this morning

which looks at what are the things that need to be done in order to

address these issues. -- the reason you have asked me here. The public

cannot agree, never mind me. 2003, 81% of people trusted BBC news

journalists. 44% now. ITV was 82, now 41. Your local MP, 44, 37.

Senior tier-one. Leading Conservative politicians have gone

from 20 down to 19! The red-top papers are down to 10, even

upmarket papers, like the Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian,

according to the polling, down from 65 down to 38. The standards of

journalism and journalists do not fall within my remit. Otherwise you

would still be writing the report! We tracked public trust and

confidence ourselves, and there has been a long-term decline in trust

and confidence in all kinds of public institutions and semi-public

institutions. That is evident elsewhere. What pollsters often

tell you is that, it was ever thus. What say you? Certainly, it is

declining as a result of what we have seen exposed, but the process

here is that the more that is exposed, the more people censor

themselves, and one day we will not need a committee, because it will

be so obvious if you do anything wrong, it is going to be seen by

everybody. What does your report think now needs to be done? You

think it is getting better in many areas, not everywhere. What needs

to be done in your view now to improve standards in public life?

OK, well, there or two sorts of sets of things. One is really

boring, routine, bread-and-butter stuff. We know what is needed to

maintain high standards in organisations, and it is things

like a clearly expressed, a clearly expressed set of values relevant to

what the organisation is doing. It is things like processes which

embed those values. And processes that are aligned with them, and not,

as happened at the banks, one set of values expressed and another set

of behaviours which were rewarded. And it requires leadership which

embeds those values in the culture of the organisation and exemplifies

them, and we have known that for a long time. The issue really is, why

isn't there more of that happening? The second, if I may, the second

set of issues is, in his report, there is a long list of issues

which need to be addressed, recognised issues that need to be

addressed. Things like party funding, for example, on which my

committee produced a report last year. Which has not been

implemented. Will it ever be implemented? This is the point.

Many issues are quite difficult to address. Addressing party funding

requires some people to give up party-political advantage, it

requires some people to change a long-standing and highly symbolic

relationship with the trade unions. It requires all the parties to

address a possible public objection to some of the things. These are

difficult issues, but the point is, unless they are addressed in a

proactive way, they will come back and hit you, and when they do, by

the time that happens, trust has gone down even further. The damage

done by these expenses is enormous. It will take a long time. I use

that to be going? Am I sat to be going? -- sad. Yes and no. Now you

sound like a politician! It is important that people do not do

jobs like this for too long. Thank you for coming.

1,000 gigabytes makes a terrified, did you know that? 1,000 of them,

do not get me started on the next one. We are not talking about

another dodgy snack from Tesco. yes, we are! These are names for

huge volumes of computer data, the government churns out a lot of it,

and our guest of the day has been asked to see if any of it is used

for. Here is Adam to explain. You thought CSI was sexy, wait

until you hear about Public Sector Information! All the facts and

figures generated by the government and its agencies, and there is a

lot of it. It includes information from the likes of Ordnance Survey,

the Land Registry and the Met Office, and the coalition is

serious about releasing as much of it as possible. Here is sum, the

Treasury's list of all public spending, called the coins database.

Pretty impenetrable, but it is not really for you and me. The idea is

that software developers will turn it into use of apps and website

that we can use, a whole new growth industry that might boost the

economy. But at the same time, politicians are getting seriously

worried that releasing too many embarrassing documents through the

old-fashioned Freedom of Information Act, so we are getting

a lot more numbers and potentially Joining us is the Freedom of

Information Campaign and Heather Brooke. Is there any useful

information in that, or is it just a case of providing a lot of

numbers which do not tell us very much? There is a huge amount of use

in this. If you just think about the applications for medicine in

the NHS. We had Jeremy Hunt announcing that everything would be

digital soon, in about a year's time, and that the courts would be

able to be exchanged between hospitals. This means that we can

get fantastic efficiencies not only in the Health Service, but across

the public services, as we see what's really going on, what works,

what doesn't work. Without this information, how can you actually

make things better? How can you know what methods in medicine, in

surgery, are working better? You need this data, which has been

hidden, to suddenly become available. You must welcome this,

Heather Brooke? Yes, I have been campaigning about this since at

least 2004. It is certainly welcome. There were some ridiculous things

which happened in the past, when public data was copyrighted by the

Crown, and even the first computer analysts, who were trying to

digitise Hansard, and they were threatened with a copyright breach

for doing so. So, yes, I welcome this, it is great. Is there a risk

that all of this information is out there, and people will be worried

about the wrong sort of people getting their hands on the

information? There are two points. We have to realise that, is this

going to be about the public interest, or is it going to be for

business? I think you can do both. There is a strong public interest

in relating the data, but there may not be an obvious business case.

the idea that it is going to be available to everyone?. You can get

schools data already, can't you? Actually, you cannot get very much.

You can get very, very basic comparative data. You have to stop

worrying about the privacy issue in terms of hiking in all of this, and

deal with it through legislation, because there is no way that you

can make data completely safe. It is not safe now. You Ruislip

somebody 50 quid and... It is not safe now, that is exactly right.

The only way to be totally safe is not to keep it in the first place.

But I think one has to look in the past. In Britain, access to data

and information has always been about class, really. It was not as

if certain people could not access information, they have always been

able to, but usually they were the people at the very heart of power.

I think what this debate brings out is the unease about the regular,

common man having access to data. Politicians would argue that with

freedom of information, there is a danger of letting the plebs,

although they would not use that word... That's not go there! Of

letting people have access to all sorts of very sensitive information

on things like security... Obviously, on things like national

security, that is an issue. But the argument has basically been

accepted in government that there is such a thing as freedom of data.

As taxpayers, we have paid to create this data, why should we not

have it? The issue now is, how do we make it available, how do we get

value out of it, and how do we get the capability to turn it into

something useful? Rows of numbers are of no use to anyone. You're

convinced that it will lead to growth? In America, they have a

huge knowledge industry, precisely because they do not restrict.

Government documents in America are not copyrighted to the government

alone, whereas they are in this country? Yes. That's remarkable.

Now, Are You Being Served? By your Education Secretary? That was the

question asked by the Commons education Select Committee

yesterday? They evoked the spirit of the 1970s sitcom to put Michael

Gove in the spotlight. If you listen carefully, you will even

here the answer to our daily quiz. I think there is a bit of an

upstairs downstairs mentality in the department. The ministers were

on the seventh floor. Officials were summoned to the office, when I

just wanted to have a quick chat, and it had to be an official

meeting put in the diary, and it was put in the diary. Occasionally

I actually went to another floor, it was like a state visit! Most

officials have never met the Secretary of State. It might be

just a few like people for the Christmas party, or something like

that, appearing and disappearing like Mr Grace from the Grace

brothers. That is no way to run an important department. Effectively

now we have only one Children's Minister, for whom I have a great

deal of respect, but who now has a huge brief to deal with, and a

declining number of officials to help him do that. I think Michael

would say that he felt he had confidence in his ministers to get

on with it, and that he was focused on his priority, and I did not

feel... If I had a battle to fight around government, and there were

plenty of battles, as you would expect, particularly on the agenda

on special educational needs, for example - Michael went in to bat on

those things. If I went to him and said, I need your help on

negotiating with this government department, he delivered. One last

question from me, why were you sacked? Well, your guess is as good

as mine, chairman, and having spent 45 minutes in a pleasant drink with

the Prime Minister before Christmas, I came out of that meeting with no

greater insight into the answer to that question than I went in with.

And having not had any communication with the Secretary of

State for Education since the reshuffle, I am none the wiser. So,

if you find an answer as a result of this inquiry, I would be

delighted to hear it. Not sure we can help him! That was the former

Children's Minister Tim Loughton. He is not better, not at all.!

Anyway, did you get the answer to the quiz? The question was, with

which character from Are You Being Served? Was Michael Gove compared

yesterday? And the answer, of course, was the elderly and rather

remote Mr Grace. It was a good programme. Now, God Save our

Gracias Princess's, Beatrice and Eugenie, who have been chosen by

Downing Street to promote British industry. They will hit Berlin,

where they will be driving a Mini Cooper from the Brandenburg gate to

the British Embassy. The car is British-built but owned by Germans.

Next, the princesses, whose sense of style has not gone unnoticed,

will attend a so-called bread and butter fashion event. Then they

will be scooting back to their roots, the German city of Hanover,

where they might bumping to a long- lost cousin or two. We went out to

find out what the great British public think. They are women on a

mission, riding around the streets of -- of Berlin, in a Union Jack-

branded what a. But has Downing Street chosen the right people for

the German job? -- Union Jack- branded car. I do not even know

them. They are the princesses, sixth in line for the throne..

you think they might be the right people for the job? They might be..

Who would you have as a trade ambassador? Alan Sugar. He is

synonymous with business and trade. Maybe him. You think he should do

this help -- the Thelma & Louise thing instead of these girls?

I don't know... Maybe if he is going to wear that hat, then yes.

That car is not built by British Leyland any more. You could send

Richard Branson. Somebody like Hugh Grant, maybe. I think he would be

interesting. David Beckham, pretty much. Everybody knows he is British,

and he does that kind of stuff already. Do you think he would be

better than the Princess's? He is better dressed, he has got more

style.. Victoria, she could do it! Who would you send to foreign

customers to promote British interest? Certainly not those. I am

not sure they would understand what they were supposed to be achieving..

An interesting range of views there. How is this going to go down, do

you think, in Germany? I think the Germans love the Royal Family, much

less so than here are the scene as a home-grown royals, as it were,

which is of course what many Brits associate them with. But I think

the joy of royal stories continues unabated in Germany. I'm sure they

will be given a very warm welcome. Will people know who they are?

Probably not. Is that a problem? Unless they remember very well the

wedding, the Royal Wedding, and that spectacular hat that one of

them was wearing. Yes, what do you call it, the hat? Somebody called

it the pretzel hat. It was fairly unforgettable. Is it going to work,

do you think, for them, and for us, if they are trying to sell Britain

abroad? Well, they are young, everybody is obsessed with youth. I

think they are young and royal and they are princesses, and they are

actually really charming girls. As long as they do not have the

arrogance of perhaps the father, or the profligate... Habits of their

mother? Profligacy, I want to say, I don't think it exists, does it?.

Oh, yes, it does. I think they will do well. Having said that, they do

not want to do this all of the time, because they have got jobs, and

they want to work, because they do not want to be criticised all the

time for being royal freeloaders. What do they do? I knew you were

going to ask that. I think Beatrice works for Goldman Sachs, doing...

Something. I dread to think. they style icons, in Germany, for

example? No, a kink the cars they are driving. Well done, BMW, they

are getting loyalty to promote a German car. Excuse me, it is a

British car. What is British about it? It is made in Oxford, last time

I looked. Will it work? It is great advertising for BMW. We did a Sagna

-- we did a poll on this about a year ago, and it was about two to

one sale and the girls should stay at home and have a royal life! --

saying the girls. They love to do some charities have occasionally,

but they know that they have got to be seen to be working, otherwise

they will just be criticised all of the time, and it is horrible and

hurtful. They want to be princesses, but they want to get on with their

lives. Their father is a trade ambassador, and he gets criticised

or of the time for this. I think he is behind this. I do not think it

is their mother. Finally, will there be a lot of press coverage in

Germany? Interestingly, I believe initially the idea was for the two

foreign ministers to drive the car. At the moment, tensions are

increasing between Berlin and London. I think they are very

interested in Cameron's speech tomorrow. That was going to be a

symbol of... That's it for today. We thank all of our guests. I am