:00:41. > :00:45.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. They press
:00:45. > :00:49.regulator established by Royal Charter, will it be enough to
:00:49. > :00:53.prevent another phone hacking type scandal? The Government publishes
:00:53. > :00:58.proposals this afternoon. Barclays slims down its investment
:00:58. > :01:04.banking operations and says they are clamping down on bonuses, but
:01:04. > :01:08.has the City culture changed? Up to 1200 die as a result of poor
:01:08. > :01:14.care in Stafford Hospital. There has been a 2000 page report, but
:01:14. > :01:19.why has no one resigned? House of Cards is back on our
:01:19. > :01:23.screens. Its author, Michael Dobbs, joins us live - but is it as good
:01:23. > :01:30.with an American accent? You might very well think that, I couldn't
:01:30. > :01:32.possibly comment. All that in the next hour. With us
:01:32. > :01:38.for the programme is the businesswoman Nicola Horlick,
:01:38. > :01:41.welcome. First today, University graduate
:01:41. > :01:47.Cait Reilly has won her Court of Appeal claimed that requiring her
:01:47. > :01:50.to work for free at a Poundland discounts caught -- store was
:01:50. > :01:53.unlawful. Three judges in London ruled that the regulations under
:01:53. > :01:59.which most of the Government back- to-work schemes were created do not
:01:59. > :02:04.comply with the law and has quashed them. A few minutes ago, Cait
:02:04. > :02:09.Reilly's solicitor spoke about it. We can speak to our political
:02:09. > :02:13.correspondent. How damaging is this for the back-to-work schemes?
:02:13. > :02:18.are playing this down, saying they will table new regulations so they
:02:18. > :02:24.comply with the law, but the table like -- the solicitor outside the
:02:24. > :02:27.court who has just won this case says it is a huge setback for the
:02:27. > :02:29.Department of Work and Pensions, that there is confusion within the
:02:29. > :02:33.department and she has raised the possibility that thousands of
:02:33. > :02:37.people who have had benefits docked for not complying with these
:02:37. > :02:41.schemes will have to have that money paid back. We have had
:02:41. > :02:45.reaction from the Employment Minister, he says the court has
:02:45. > :02:48.backed the Government right to require people to take part in the
:02:48. > :02:54.programmes which will help get them back to work, he says it is
:02:54. > :02:58.ridiculous to call it forced Labour. This has not been ruled unlawful on
:02:59. > :03:03.the grounds of the compulsion. The judges have backed the Government,
:03:03. > :03:07.saying they can run these schemes. The problem is with the regulations
:03:07. > :03:12.they have not explained enough about the sanctions, about the
:03:12. > :03:15.detail of these programmes, in Parliament. So it has gone beyond
:03:15. > :03:19.what Parliament originally approved, that is why the Government says it
:03:19. > :03:23.will rewrite regulations. Does this mean that somebody in the position
:03:24. > :03:28.of Cait Reilly, who is already working for free somewhere, which
:03:28. > :03:33.you could call work experience, will not be forced to go into a
:03:33. > :03:37.government back-to-work scheme at Poundland, for example? The whole
:03:37. > :03:42.point of this is a back-to-work scheme, it is supposed to give
:03:42. > :03:45.people an extra skill to help them get into the workplace. I suppose
:03:45. > :03:49.that was part of the problem, this woman was already doing voluntary
:03:49. > :03:53.work in a museum, she was a graduate. She says she is not above
:03:53. > :03:58.working in a supermarket, she does that part-time, but she felt it was
:03:58. > :04:01.wrong that she was taken away from looking at -- looking for work and
:04:02. > :04:06.another voluntary job to do a job in Poundland, which she felt would
:04:06. > :04:10.not lead to employment. A Work and Pensions Select Committee has
:04:10. > :04:13.looked into this and that is their problem. They do not have the
:04:14. > :04:17.problem with the compulsion, but you have to have a scheme which
:04:17. > :04:23.will give people extra skills which may lead to employment, otherwise
:04:23. > :04:26.there is no point. Nicola Horlick, in principle, do you support the
:04:26. > :04:31.idea that the Government can require young people in this
:04:31. > :04:35.particular case to take up unpaid work experience or lose benefits?
:04:35. > :04:39.do actually support that. I think they have to make sure that the
:04:39. > :04:45.work is suitable for the person and their qualifications. That is what
:04:45. > :04:48.this lady was arguing against an seems to have won on. I don't think
:04:48. > :04:52.it is appropriate to stick a graduate in Poundland when she
:04:52. > :04:57.might want to do museum work long term and was already volunteering
:04:57. > :05:02.in a museum. I think the Government needs to get a whole lot of
:05:02. > :05:07.companies to sign up to provide work experience. I do it all the
:05:07. > :05:12.time, I allow graduates to work with us for a couple of weeks or
:05:12. > :05:15.maybe even longer in order to have something to put on their CV. That
:05:15. > :05:19.can be formalised. There are all sorts of charitable organisations
:05:19. > :05:23.trying to do this, but having some formality and linking it to
:05:23. > :05:27.benefits, I don't think that is a bad idea. It is important for
:05:27. > :05:31.people to have things on their CV in order to get into employment.
:05:31. > :05:36.But if companies, or the right sort of companies, don't come forward
:05:36. > :05:39.with the right sort of work experience...? I think they will.
:05:39. > :05:43.Most people in positions of power in the workplace wants to help,
:05:43. > :05:47.because everybody knows there is a major issue with youth unemployment
:05:47. > :05:53.and we don't wanted to get to the proportions that today's inns, say,
:05:53. > :05:56.Spain. One of the problems with making people work longer before
:05:56. > :06:00.they can draw their pensions is that people at the other Wrens,
:06:00. > :06:04.coming out of university, are trying to get into the workplace
:06:04. > :06:09.and it is very hard. They need to distinguish themselves, in order to
:06:09. > :06:13.do that they need work experience. What about the issue of being paid?
:06:13. > :06:18.The argument was that any work experience is better than sitting
:06:18. > :06:22.at home, but if you will not be paid...? You are being paid a
:06:22. > :06:26.benefit, that is the thing. There have been so many debates over the
:06:26. > :06:31.years with the workfare concept, which in areas of the United States
:06:31. > :06:34.they have not introduced, and quite successfully. I think there is
:06:34. > :06:37.nothing wrong with the idea of workfare, so long as it is
:06:37. > :06:41.organised in the right way and people are getting the right sort
:06:42. > :06:44.of experience. Of somebody wants to be a plumber, why not send them
:06:45. > :06:48.along to somebody who will train them or give them experience so
:06:48. > :06:52.they know what being a plumber is like?
:06:52. > :06:56.If this afternoon, the Government is expected to outline the measures
:06:56. > :06:59.it thinks are necessary to prevent a repeat of the press excesses
:06:59. > :07:03.leading to the phone hacking scandal. Lord Justice Leveson
:07:03. > :07:07.published his long awaited 2000 page report at the end of November
:07:07. > :07:12.last year, declaring that the press had wreaked havoc with the lives of
:07:12. > :07:16.ordinary people. Lord Leveson said that the pressured continue to be
:07:16. > :07:20.self-regulated but there should be a new press standards body created
:07:20. > :07:25.by the Industry, complete with new code of conduct. Crucially, he said
:07:25. > :07:29.it should be backed by legislation. It is whether to have the statutory
:07:29. > :07:33.underpinning that has split the political parties. David Cameron
:07:33. > :07:37.and many in his party opposed to Parliament legislating to regulate
:07:37. > :07:42.the press, preferring a Royal Charter. This is a way of setting
:07:42. > :07:47.up a body as a single legal entity, and once it is established it can't
:07:47. > :07:51.be amended by parliament, which legislation could be. At the time
:07:51. > :07:55.Leveson was published, Nick Clegg indicated some specific concerns
:07:55. > :07:58.about Ofcom's role as the Independent verify of the new
:07:58. > :08:01.watchdog. Labour said they supported the central
:08:01. > :08:06.recommendations made in the report and published a draft bill to prove
:08:06. > :08:10.it could be done. Has David Cameron managed to bring out below back --
:08:10. > :08:15.Ed Miliband onside and bring a consensus around the Royal Charter.
:08:15. > :08:20.Natalie Fenton of the campaigning group Hacked Off joins me now. Can
:08:20. > :08:23.you tell us what the government responses are? The Royal Charter
:08:23. > :08:28.looks like it has tried to implement some of Leveson, but has
:08:28. > :08:32.not done so very well. It would seem, and I have not seen the final
:08:32. > :08:36.version so why can't comment in great detail, it would seem that it
:08:36. > :08:40.does not fulfilled the requirement of Leveson to be independent and
:08:40. > :08:44.effective. That meant independence from politicians and press, and
:08:44. > :08:48.effective in terms of delivering protection and redress for the
:08:48. > :08:53.public as well as safeguarding protection for the integrity of
:08:53. > :08:57.journalists. It seems like the Royal Charter does not deliver on
:08:57. > :09:01.those crucial accounts. As I understand it, royal charters are
:09:01. > :09:06.legally binding documents that can set out powers, rules and other
:09:06. > :09:11.responsibilities of a body, so why can't it deliver, in broad terms,
:09:11. > :09:15.what Leveson was saying? something is Independent it
:09:15. > :09:20.literally can't have interference from the industry and politicians.
:09:20. > :09:25.If you are going to set up a body with industry and put into who will
:09:25. > :09:30.be the chair, who will be on the board, that is really problematic -
:09:30. > :09:36.- something with industry input. Royal charters are designed to be
:09:36. > :09:42.independent of the industry that they are there to regulate.
:09:42. > :09:48.seems that the chair of the appointments panel will be selected
:09:48. > :09:52.by parliament... Actually, not by Parliament, by ministers. It will
:09:52. > :09:56.simply be appointed. The other people on the appointments panel,
:09:56. > :10:00.one of them will be there to represent the interests of the
:10:00. > :10:04.industry. The whole idea of the appointments panel is that it does
:10:04. > :10:08.not represent the interests of industry at all, it is there to be
:10:08. > :10:13.entirely independent. What do you fear if this is what will be
:10:13. > :10:18.established, this royal charter with representation from ministers
:10:18. > :10:23.and the industry? Sadly, it looks like the industry has persuaded the
:10:23. > :10:29.Government to do their bidding. That introduces a major problem for
:10:29. > :10:34.us and for victims. If that is the way it proceed without any further
:10:34. > :10:36.amendment, we simply can't support it at all. Do you think Lord
:10:36. > :10:42.Justice Leveson would agree with you that these proposals are the
:10:42. > :10:47.wrong way to go? He would absolutely agree with us. The
:10:47. > :10:50.majority of these recommendations are breached in this Royal Charter.
:10:50. > :10:56.What do you make of the Government are not introducing this with great
:10:56. > :11:01.fanfare? I think the whole process has been rather undemocratic. There
:11:01. > :11:04.has been very little consultation over the whole Royal Charter. They
:11:04. > :11:08.were talking to hacked off for a little while and then they stopped
:11:08. > :11:14.talking to us, they started talking to the press, but it should have
:11:14. > :11:19.been in the public domain, they should have been public
:11:19. > :11:24.concentration's consultation on how this Royal Charter functions. It
:11:24. > :11:29.has been announced without any consultation and there could be a
:11:30. > :11:33.bid to force it through in that form. Natalie Fenton, thank you.
:11:33. > :11:38.Conservative peer Lord Balad and Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming
:11:38. > :11:41.joined me. Do you share Natalie's fears that this is a stitch-up
:11:41. > :11:45.behind closed doors and will not establish any of the
:11:45. > :11:49.recommendations that Lord Justice Leveson put forward? My concern is
:11:49. > :11:54.to keep the politicians' hands of things like the regulatory code.
:11:54. > :11:59.There is a problem with statute, it puts politicians in charge of the
:11:59. > :12:06.regulatory code. This is not statute in that sense. A Royal
:12:06. > :12:09.Charter is potentially worse. Because it is within the gift of
:12:09. > :12:14.the Privy Council, which is more controlled by the Government than
:12:14. > :12:18.the Queen, we face a bigger problem with the Royal Charter than statute,
:12:18. > :12:23.potentially. Do you think phone hacking could happen again under
:12:23. > :12:26.eight Royal Charter? The phone hacking scandal was about the
:12:26. > :12:31.police not prosecuting criminal offences and sweeping them under
:12:31. > :12:36.the carpet as being unimportant. I am not sure myself why Lord Leveson
:12:36. > :12:40.solves a problem which is a failure of the police. What do you think
:12:40. > :12:45.about a royal charter if, as Natalie Fenton said, it is a
:12:45. > :12:48.stitch-up, a compromise in order to get the newspaper industry on
:12:48. > :12:53.boards and avoid statute in the way that David Cameron says he was
:12:53. > :12:59.worried about? Is it the perfect compromise? I think it is about the
:12:59. > :13:05.worst solution of a lot. Let me just tell you very briefly what the
:13:05. > :13:08.guidance says about royal charters. Once incorporated by Royal Charter,
:13:08. > :13:13.a body surrenders significant aspects of control of its internal
:13:13. > :13:17.affairs to the Privy Council. This effectively means a significant
:13:17. > :13:25.degree of government regulation of the affairs of a body. So
:13:25. > :13:29.government regulation, nobody can change it apart from the Government.
:13:29. > :13:32.John may have reservations about what Lord Leveson was proposing,
:13:32. > :13:37.but I would have thought it is nothing compared to the
:13:37. > :13:42.reservations he will have. I think you are right. This just hand over
:13:42. > :13:46.to the Government... To give you an example, the BBC a Royal Charter is
:13:46. > :13:49.the Royal Charter of the BBC. We had a long, long debate about his
:13:49. > :13:55.in the House of Lords, we made proposals about the management
:13:55. > :14:00.structure at the top of the BBC where everyone agreed with us that
:14:00. > :14:04.there was nothing anyone could do about it because it depended upon
:14:04. > :14:11.what the Government decided, and the Government decided against us.
:14:11. > :14:15.What do you want to see? Leveson. In its entirety? Yes. I think there
:14:15. > :14:20.has been a, frankly, hysterical reaction to Leveson, because all it
:14:20. > :14:25.is saying is we should have a body which the press will set up and we
:14:25. > :14:30.should have a checking mechanism which would have to be set out by
:14:30. > :14:37.statute. But if I may make this last point, on the Royal Charter,
:14:37. > :14:41.as far as I understand it it will need legislation to make it work.
:14:41. > :14:51.Quite well all the opposition to legislation goes at that point, I'm
:14:51. > :15:03.
:15:03. > :15:10.It puts politicians in control. The recognition process specify his
:15:10. > :15:17.what is acceptable press code. shouldn't they be accountable in
:15:17. > :15:21.the end to something? What is wrong with that? The question is why the
:15:21. > :15:24.press should be more accountable to Parliament and anyone else. Why
:15:24. > :15:30.those people whose job it is to look at what politicians are doing
:15:30. > :15:39.wrong, should be more accountable. If you look at the pressure that
:15:39. > :15:49.was put on the Daily Telegraph to not look at something, that
:15:49. > :15:58.demonstrates not putting politicians in control. The press
:15:58. > :16:02.have gone overboard and they have abused their position and as was
:16:02. > :16:10.being said before by Hacked Off there were lots of people out there
:16:10. > :16:17.whose rights have been trashed. police failed to prosecute criminal
:16:18. > :16:22.offences. It is not that, it is the culture. The culture inside the
:16:22. > :16:26.newspapers to allow that to happen is the problem. Let's come back to
:16:26. > :16:31.that main principle which is the excesses of the press, the Last
:16:31. > :16:36.chance Saloon, that something had to be done. Do you agree with that?
:16:36. > :16:42.I agree very much with what Lord Powell has said. They abused their
:16:42. > :16:45.power. They can destroy people's reputations within minutes. People
:16:45. > :16:50.were left, individuals, to fight them through the courts, by which
:16:50. > :16:56.time all the damage has been done. Of course it is vital to protect
:16:56. > :17:01.freedom of speech, but it has to be responsible freedom of speech. For
:17:01. > :17:05.some reason in this country it had got out of control. We have an
:17:05. > :17:09.unusual situation in this area in that people with wealth can
:17:09. > :17:14.suddenly by a newspaper and start influencing what that newspapers
:17:14. > :17:20.said and that has to be controlled. I think it has to be independently
:17:20. > :17:24.monitored. Self regulation clearly did not work. But if you set up a
:17:24. > :17:27.regulatory body which is either in statute or by Royal Charter, is
:17:27. > :17:32.there a fear that editors of newspapers would have to ring
:17:32. > :17:38.members of that body when they want to run a story like expenses in
:17:38. > :17:42.order to check they are going to be allowed to do so? No, they would
:17:42. > :17:47.employ lawyers as they do now to look at the story to decide whether
:17:47. > :17:50.or not it complies with regulations. But rather than having to waste
:17:50. > :17:56.enormous amounts of money on lawyers you should be able to
:17:56. > :18:01.quickly get resolution. That is vital. Now if you want to stop
:18:01. > :18:06.something, you can go and get an injunction, but after that there is
:18:06. > :18:12.a great big legal process. You have got to prove that you were right to
:18:12. > :18:19.get that injunction. Your position of not having any press regulation
:18:19. > :18:23.in that sense... The law is still there. We have failures in our
:18:23. > :18:30.legal system which is not accessible to ordinary people. That
:18:30. > :18:35.is the big problem. We need to stop the big problems. We have just made
:18:35. > :18:40.a proposal in the House of Lords on exactly that. The issues are ones
:18:40. > :18:45.that if we are saying you can only have freedom of speech and less it
:18:45. > :18:51.is responsible, there are great dangers of putting the politicians
:18:51. > :18:57.through ministerial order. Leveson said to change statute requires
:18:57. > :19:02.another statute, but that is not true. Both of you seem to disagree
:19:02. > :19:08.with your party leaders on this issue. Yes, we both disagree.
:19:08. > :19:12.are you going to do? I was the first person who raised in
:19:12. > :19:17.Parliament the scandal and app remained consistent look out.
:19:17. > :19:23.are you going to say to David Cameron? What I am saying to you
:19:23. > :19:29.now have. I am not suddenly going to change my view on this. Reform
:19:29. > :19:33.is well overdue, 70 years overdue some would think. What is being
:19:33. > :19:39.proposed by Leveson is a very moderate reform and infinitely
:19:39. > :19:44.better than a royal charter. It is a year since the Government put in
:19:44. > :19:49.place its changes to the NHS's struck Jeff in England. The
:19:49. > :19:53.original proposals caused such a furore they had to be modified. But
:19:53. > :19:57.has a package of reforms eventually passed made any difference?
:19:57. > :20:04.There was a time when Andrew Lansley and the Government's health
:20:04. > :20:09.reforms were not every day news, but news every day. Then a year ago
:20:09. > :20:14.the legislation that had angered many and confused some sympathetic
:20:14. > :20:19.to reform passed and suddenly the news. Away. What is actually
:20:19. > :20:23.happening? What can we see? Critics claim reform is stalling because
:20:23. > :20:26.the plans were designed for a country that had public money,
:20:27. > :20:32.others that they are adapting and progressing even more creatively
:20:32. > :20:37.because of the economic climate. These reforms were a big risk,
:20:37. > :20:43.absolutely enormous. Whether things were have bedded down in a couple
:20:43. > :20:47.of years' time, it is too early to say. Quite apart from hospitals are
:20:47. > :20:54.designed for the 21st century the Government wanted to design an NHS
:20:54. > :20:59.that was fit for the 21st century. But as politicians you have only
:20:59. > :21:04.got five years for us as consumers to really notice a difference.
:21:04. > :21:08.was a tough passage of legislation, there were arguments, arguments
:21:08. > :21:14.within and between the Government and outside groups. What you will
:21:14. > :21:21.see this here is patience starting to see what the actual reality is
:21:21. > :21:24.of that for them. That reality comes foremost in April as GPs
:21:24. > :21:29.offer more information about what treatments are available to
:21:29. > :21:35.patients, more choice of where you can go to get it, and what you can
:21:35. > :21:41.get. But there is still that nagging issue of money. The NHS is
:21:41. > :21:46.a huge organisation. It is spending �300 million every day. It is like
:21:46. > :21:51.a big super tanker in some way. If you can get in the way of it and
:21:51. > :21:56.try and push it, but it ploughs on, and it will take some time before
:21:57. > :22:01.these things to come through and take some time before us who I
:22:01. > :22:04.study it to notice it. The reason why it has gone quiet is a couple
:22:04. > :22:09.of hundred 1000 people are reapplying for jobs because it has
:22:09. > :22:13.been an enormous a shake-up. The good news is that what these
:22:13. > :22:16.reforms have done is they have put the GPs on to the front foot and
:22:16. > :22:21.put them in a position where they are much more interested in
:22:21. > :22:25.prevention and keeping people out of hospital. But an awful lot of
:22:25. > :22:29.the infrastructure around them is in chaos at the moment. Add to that
:22:29. > :22:33.the new findings coming from the King's band that NHS finance
:22:33. > :22:38.managers have some very gloomy predictions for the year ahead, and
:22:38. > :22:43.the fact that most of us do not ascribe a good experience at the
:22:43. > :22:47.doctor's to Government reforms and the question that by 2015 the NHS
:22:47. > :22:53.has changed for the better will become harder to diagnose.
:22:53. > :22:57.I enjoyed by the shadow health minister Andrew Gwynne and the
:22:57. > :23:01.Conservative MP and she beat Philip Lee and Nicola Horlick is still
:23:01. > :23:06.here. In your position have you noticed any difference from the
:23:06. > :23:11.reforms? Not yet and I am not sure they really will be, especially if
:23:11. > :23:15.you have got a district set-up like we have in Hampshire. I do not
:23:15. > :23:20.think there is going to be a great deal of difference. In some ways
:23:21. > :23:24.that is a missed opportunity. The reforms have been watered down and
:23:25. > :23:30.all that is happening is a reshuffle of personnel who I going
:23:30. > :23:35.to be working for different organisations with different names.
:23:35. > :23:40.Of all that pain for not much difference? Indeed and I have some
:23:40. > :23:43.sympathy with that position. Things that you see in the news at the
:23:43. > :23:48.moment like Stafford Hospital is not to do with the change of
:23:48. > :23:52.commissioning. Commissioning in general terms was a positive move
:23:52. > :23:57.because you are putting things into the hands of the clinicians, but
:23:57. > :24:01.where I would agree is the challenge facing us now is one of
:24:01. > :24:05.structure and how we pay for it. But I thought the structure was
:24:05. > :24:11.supposed to have been changed by it all these top-down reforms that
:24:11. > :24:17.were criticised. Primary care structure. But has it been worth
:24:17. > :24:22.it? I think in time yes, it will have been worth it, but my concern
:24:22. > :24:25.is the capital cost means we cannot deal with the situations alike in
:24:25. > :24:30.Hampshire and in my patch in Berkshire. That is where I get
:24:30. > :24:34.frustrated. That is what matters to the punters and the constituents,
:24:34. > :24:40.they want these hospitals in their area to look after them. And that
:24:40. > :24:44.means closing others. You want to see bad hospitals close? It is
:24:44. > :24:49.inevitable we are going to have fewer acute sites in the future.
:24:49. > :24:54.And we should. All the research shows is that you need a population
:24:54. > :24:59.of at least 500,000 in order to provide things like radiotherapy.
:24:59. > :25:05.Some hospitals should close. there are MPs who have agreed with
:25:05. > :25:12.that, but then will we ever see an MP standing outside a hospital that
:25:12. > :25:18.is going to be closed saying, yes it should be closed, constituents.
:25:18. > :25:22.You are talking to me. You have done that. Yes, I have produced a
:25:22. > :25:28.report suggesting we need to merge acute trusts in my area which
:25:28. > :25:32.involved the closure of a side that has served my constituency. I will
:25:32. > :25:35.defend that site if they do not have a bigger plan, but I think it
:25:35. > :25:40.is in the best interest of my constituents to have a
:25:40. > :25:44.consolidation. That is a novel approach. Before the last general
:25:44. > :25:48.election we embarked on a programme of reconfiguration precisely for
:25:48. > :25:53.the reasons that have been out line because sometimes they deliver
:25:53. > :25:58.better health care outcomes and we had the then shadow Health
:25:58. > :26:02.Secretary, Andrew Lansley, and David Cameron, the leader of the
:26:02. > :26:07.opposition, appearing outside every hospital that was going to be
:26:07. > :26:12.downgraded. But Labour politicians have done that as well. Let me come
:26:12. > :26:17.to you in terms of which pits the now of the reforms would you
:26:17. > :26:23.reverse? We would repeal the Health and Social Care Act, but we are not
:26:23. > :26:29.going to embark on another top down a reorganisation. Is that not what
:26:29. > :26:34.would happen if you were to try and repeal the Act? No, and I hate to
:26:34. > :26:37.sound technical, but the actor is in three parts. Part one was about
:26:37. > :26:44.the Secretary of State's powers and we would re introduce the
:26:44. > :26:48.responsibility of the Secretary of State for the NHS. Part three was
:26:48. > :26:54.about competition and we would introduce the NHS as the preferred
:26:54. > :26:59.provider. Part two was about restructuring. Do you like the
:26:59. > :27:02.sound of that? I do not want another restructuring, but what is
:27:02. > :27:08.really important, and it is very difficult in this economic
:27:08. > :27:12.situation, it is to have money available for infrastructure. If
:27:12. > :27:17.you close a hospital, you want to create a new hospital that can
:27:17. > :27:20.accommodate more patients. The worst would be mergers which would
:27:20. > :27:25.involve bussing people around different sites. It is like when we
:27:25. > :27:30.got rid of grammar schools and secondary moderns. It is difficult
:27:30. > :27:36.to make that work. What we really need is a national plan for the NHS
:27:36. > :27:41.where we work out where we need our hospitals and capital injection and
:27:41. > :27:46.we need to build some new, acute care hospitals. Can I come to the
:27:46. > :27:51.proposals put forward by Andy Burnham, the idea of allowing local
:27:51. > :27:57.authorities to commission care. Why is that a good idea? What we want
:27:57. > :28:03.is whole person care. We want to stop the kind of mentality that has
:28:03. > :28:08.been part and parcel of our health care system where... It would
:28:08. > :28:13.politicise the commissioning of care. What we want to do is to
:28:13. > :28:17.ensure that the acute services, the primary care services through the
:28:17. > :28:22.clinical commissioning groups and the public health functions and the
:28:22. > :28:26.adult's social care all come together and in that way people
:28:26. > :28:31.approached the NHS as a single service rather than it being
:28:31. > :28:39.fragmented as it is at present. Would you like local authorities to
:28:39. > :28:43.commission care rather than GPs? Why not? The problem with
:28:43. > :28:48.commissioning, health care is very complex and quite a sophisticated
:28:48. > :28:52.business. When I look at hospitals, and this applies primarily to the
:28:52. > :28:57.previous Government, but I know my Government has done it, introducing
:28:57. > :29:03.a market in hospitals does not make any sense. If you have a heart
:29:03. > :29:08.attack, you want to go to the best hospital. You cannot compete to
:29:08. > :29:13.apply for that. There is a need for a national plan for acute and
:29:13. > :29:18.emergency care because you need to be able to look at the map and the
:29:18. > :29:22.demographics. I have requested this and said, this is what we need and
:29:22. > :29:26.I am getting nowhere. I have even spoken to colleagues on your side
:29:26. > :29:29.of the house. The problem is you are disconnecting and you are
:29:29. > :29:33.giving it to people who fundamentally do not understand
:29:33. > :29:39.health care and that would be problematic. We have to stop it
:29:39. > :29:43.there. This morning, MPs have been hearing evidence from Robert
:29:43. > :29:46.Francis who wrote the report into what went wrong at Mid
:29:47. > :29:51.Staffordshire NHS Trust where it is thought there were up to 1200
:29:51. > :30:01.additional deaths due to poor care. He was asked whether the current
:30:01. > :30:07.
:30:07. > :30:13.chief executive of the NHS should It is not accurate to say nobody
:30:13. > :30:17.has resigned. At Foundation Trust level, those primarily responsible
:30:17. > :30:21.for the care of patients in the trust are no longer there, and I
:30:21. > :30:25.have made comments about the circumstances in which some of them
:30:25. > :30:32.left. That was the foundation for my recommendations in relation to
:30:32. > :30:36.fitness for office. I don't think it is right for me to comment. It
:30:36. > :30:41.is not far inquiry chairman to say what people should do following an
:30:41. > :30:46.inquiry, it is for them and those who employ them to consider the
:30:46. > :30:55.report. Frankly, that is the sort of question which should be
:30:55. > :30:59.addressed to them, not me. They are coming! LAUGHTER.
:30:59. > :31:05.It is incredible that they have been no major prosecutions, that
:31:05. > :31:09.nobody has been sacked. Should they be? Yes, absolutely. I am
:31:09. > :31:14.flabbergasted, to be honest, by the tone of the report. I have not read
:31:14. > :31:17.the whole report, just the executive summary. One section says
:31:18. > :31:21.that individuals and organisations are not responsible for their
:31:22. > :31:25.actions within a negative culture. That is the Nuremberg defence. I am
:31:25. > :31:30.sorry, if that action makes an impact on somebody's life, that
:31:30. > :31:35.person dies, they should be held responsible. If they are too
:31:35. > :31:45.stressed, as I gather the CEO was, why are we paying them a six-figure
:31:45. > :31:49.sum? Was it right to promote Sir David Nicholson? No. I fail to see
:31:49. > :31:52.how you can when this man was responsible, as I understand it,
:31:52. > :31:57.for the Strategic Health Authority at the time. I struggle with this
:31:57. > :32:01.because so much wrong was done. The details of what happened are
:32:01. > :32:05.atrocious and I fear it may be happening in other trusts, maybe
:32:05. > :32:10.not to the same degree. To not hold people responsible for this type of
:32:10. > :32:14.behaviour is disgraceful. Do you agree? I think people need to be
:32:14. > :32:18.held to account. They are paid quite large sums of money to do a
:32:18. > :32:22.job, quite clearly the job was not done properly, but there are much,
:32:22. > :32:27.much wider issues. It is very difficult at the moment for acute
:32:27. > :32:31.care hospitals to function. If I walk around our hospitals, the
:32:31. > :32:35.average age of the patients is probably about 85 years old, and
:32:35. > :32:38.many of them are not releasing Keane have to be in an acute care
:32:38. > :32:42.hospital but not well enough to go home, there was no one at home to
:32:42. > :32:47.look after them. -- many of them are not really sick enough to be in
:32:47. > :32:52.an acute care hospitals. We need some sort of step down facility to
:32:52. > :32:55.get these people out of acute care hospitals. We need to look very
:32:55. > :33:00.carefully at the Francis Report and take the recommendations extremely
:33:00. > :33:04.seriously. The danger is there will be knee-jerk reactions, one is that
:33:04. > :33:10.we go back to business as usual and say the NHS is operating perfectly
:33:10. > :33:13.well... Nobody is saying that and nobody is advocating that. This
:33:13. > :33:20.happened on Labour's watch, thousands of people died who did
:33:20. > :33:25.not have to and Labour presided over the whole period. Andy Burnham
:33:26. > :33:29.instructed France's to commission the first reports, and as I say we
:33:29. > :33:33.need to look very seriously at the recommendations in this Francis
:33:33. > :33:38.Report. What I would say is that the other reaction that I think
:33:38. > :33:41.would be wrong from the Francis Report is to completely trashed the
:33:41. > :33:46.NHS and completely trashed the professionals, clinicians and
:33:46. > :33:48.nurses working in the NHS. Things have gone very badly wrong at
:33:48. > :33:54.Stafford Hospital and we need to look very carefully at what has
:33:54. > :33:58.gone wrong. Was it a lack of accountability in the Mid-
:33:58. > :34:02.Staffordshire Trust, a lack of supervision, a problem of
:34:02. > :34:07.governance? Coup was to blame? think there has been chronic
:34:07. > :34:11.mismanagement at every level... the managers should resign or be
:34:11. > :34:17.prosecuted? Absolutely they are accountable for their actions,
:34:17. > :34:22.there Hospital, they should really look very carefully at what the
:34:22. > :34:24.Francis Report has said went wrong. If a hospital is to operate
:34:24. > :34:29.properly you need a good relationship between clinicians and
:34:29. > :34:34.managers, there clearly was not that correct chemistry going on
:34:34. > :34:37.between those individuals in that organisation. It is all very well
:34:37. > :34:43.blaming the management, but doctors and nurses surely could tell if
:34:43. > :34:49.people were being mistreated, or should have said something at the
:34:49. > :34:52.time? Aren't they equally to blame? Of course. The tenure of the
:34:52. > :34:57.executive summary is that somehow you can construct systems to make
:34:57. > :35:02.human beings, system so perfect nobody needs to be good, to quote T
:35:02. > :35:06.S Eliot. Ultimately, you are human or you're not. I would say the
:35:06. > :35:09.culture introduced by the previous administration of targets,
:35:09. > :35:14.delivering financial targets which you could print and an election
:35:14. > :35:17.card pledge, leads to the inhumane care provided. To try to suggest
:35:17. > :35:20.that somehow the Labour government... I am not saying they
:35:21. > :35:26.meant to do this, but to suggest that the culture you introduced was
:35:26. > :35:30.not part of the problem, I think, is wrong. Do you think it was an
:35:30. > :35:34.unseen consequence? I think, and Andy Burnham has acknowledged...
:35:34. > :35:39.The targets were wrong? Targets are not wrong, they have brought down
:35:39. > :35:43.waiting times, they have brought down... And the cover up -- current
:35:43. > :35:47.government uses them as well. The problem at Mid Staffordshire
:35:47. > :35:51.and possibly one or two other trusts has been the implementation,
:35:51. > :35:58.they treated patients as numbers, they brought in a tick box approach.
:35:58. > :36:02.We need to go back to treating patients as people with real needs.
:36:03. > :36:07.Stafford and that trust were serving 230,000 people. When Nicola
:36:07. > :36:11.is right, the hospital is struggling to provide the acute and
:36:11. > :36:13.emergency care. For the nurses and doctors is is extremely difficult
:36:13. > :36:17.to provide the care if your hospital does not have the
:36:17. > :36:26.facilities, the staffing or whatever. It feeds back into what
:36:26. > :36:33.we said previously, we have too many acute hospital sites. Do you
:36:33. > :36:38.engage at board level?... At day wards level? Our board go around
:36:38. > :36:40.and our governors do mystery shopper checks, they will suddenly
:36:41. > :36:45.appear and inspect commodes in the ward and make sure it is clean,
:36:45. > :36:49.talk to the patients, ask them about their experience. Say you
:36:49. > :36:53.have a ward with 15 very old people, half of whom are suffering from
:36:53. > :36:57.severe dementia, and the trolley arrives at lunchtime with 15 hot
:36:57. > :37:02.meals and you have three nurses and it takes half-an-hour to feed each
:37:02. > :37:06.patient, how on earth are they meant to cope? It is
:37:06. > :37:10.extraordinarily difficult, even in the best hospitals. Our nurses are
:37:10. > :37:15.all fantastic and working night and day to get this right. So we need
:37:15. > :37:17.to spend more money to employ more staff? Absolutely. One of the
:37:18. > :37:21.things that the Francis Report identified was that at Mid-
:37:21. > :37:25.Staffordshire, at a time of real growth in the NHS, there were
:37:25. > :37:31.staffing problems. It happened at a time when so much money was going
:37:31. > :37:35.into the NHS. And record numbers of nurses, we have lost 5000 on the
:37:35. > :37:40.watch of this government. We have 14 trusts being investigated for
:37:40. > :37:44.mortality rates. As a time when in the last 10 years you did, you
:37:44. > :37:48.doubled the spend. If it was simply about spending money, it would be
:37:48. > :37:52.easy. You have to be very careful looking at mortality rates. We have
:37:52. > :37:57.a culture where people go to hospital to die a lot of the time,
:37:57. > :38:00.50% of people die in hospital, partly because relatives move away,
:38:00. > :38:06.there is nobody to care for them and they are dumped in a hospital
:38:06. > :38:09.to die, which is terrible. It comes back to the social care issue.
:38:09. > :38:13.afraid I will have to leave it there, thank you, gentlemen, for
:38:13. > :38:18.joining us. Is the culture in our banking
:38:18. > :38:20.industry changing? The chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland appeared
:38:20. > :38:25.before the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards yesterday and
:38:25. > :38:30.said Stephen Hester, the chief executive, is modestly paid. Just a
:38:30. > :38:35.you know, his annual packages around �7.8 million. I don't think
:38:35. > :38:43.it is hyperbole to say that he is dealing with a challenging and
:38:43. > :38:48.demanding jobs. RBS was the biggest banking firm in the world. Stephen
:38:48. > :38:53.took it on at an exceptionally difficult time. He has also, in his
:38:53. > :38:58.four years in charge, been paid well below the market rate for a
:38:58. > :39:02.job in world banking. Nicola, is he being paid well below
:39:02. > :39:07.the market rate, Stephen has to? Probably, but the question is
:39:07. > :39:10.whether the market rate is the right rate. We have seen huge
:39:10. > :39:14.inflation in banking salaries and bonuses. We have been infected by
:39:14. > :39:18.what was going on in the States, we had these longer than telephone-
:39:18. > :39:21.number salaries. Headhunting started to go global and we are
:39:21. > :39:26.saying, you need somebody from an American investment bank to come
:39:26. > :39:30.over and run this British bank. As a result, salaries have gone up and
:39:30. > :39:35.up and up. In the old days, what we hadn't the banks was you would be
:39:35. > :39:39.paid a relatively small amount in terms of your actual salary and
:39:39. > :39:44.then the bonus depended on how the bank did. A portion of the bank
:39:44. > :39:48.profits, usually around 20%, would be set aside to cover bonuses. I
:39:48. > :39:53.think we have lost that link and people have contractual right to
:39:53. > :39:58.very large sums. If you look at Stephen Hester and what he has done
:39:58. > :40:03.in terms of, as they would argue, transforming the bank, and it has
:40:03. > :40:08.gone global, how can one bank or British-based banks be the ones
:40:08. > :40:12.paying hat -- paying far below the market rate if that is the case?
:40:12. > :40:16.think Stephen felt that you very much had to forgo bonuses and so on
:40:16. > :40:20.previously because there was a real spotlight on him and what was going
:40:20. > :40:25.on. The truth of the matter is he has done a very good job. I should
:40:25. > :40:29.declare an interest, I have known him since we were 18, we were at
:40:29. > :40:34.university and he is an old friend. But looking at it is passionately
:40:34. > :40:39.and objectively, he has done a very good job for us, actually, the
:40:39. > :40:43.public who, in effect, on that bank. If you don't pay and the market
:40:43. > :40:48.rate, will you go off and do something else? Isn't that just a
:40:48. > :40:51.myth? I don't know. I think he feels a real sense of
:40:51. > :40:56.responsibility and a desire to sort it out, he probably wouldn't walk
:40:56. > :41:02.away, but that is for the board to decide. They have to make that
:41:02. > :41:05.judgment. What he potentially walk away and leave them in the lurch?
:41:05. > :41:09.Bonuses are one thing, but there was also news coming from a
:41:09. > :41:12.slightly different quarter, Barclays Bank, this morning, they
:41:12. > :41:17.are axing jobs in their investment banking division and reducing the
:41:17. > :41:22.amount available to pay bonuses. Chief Executive Antony Jenkins has
:41:22. > :41:26.waived his own bonus this year and suggests that the culture at the
:41:26. > :41:29.Bank, mired in the LIBOR scandal, was changing. It is about building
:41:30. > :41:34.a better Barclays, what we call the go to a bank. It is about running
:41:34. > :41:38.it in line with our purpose and values but also about delivering
:41:38. > :41:42.great returns for shareholders, that is the plan we are laying out.
:41:42. > :41:47.Do you believe Antony Jenkins? He says the culture has changed, he
:41:47. > :41:50.waived his bonus last year. Symbolic and financially real, in
:41:50. > :41:57.that sense. But if they are starting from Ground Zero, can they
:41:57. > :42:01.do it? I think he is a genuine person who does want to change the
:42:01. > :42:05.culture of Barclays. But it is like a supertanker, it is an enormous
:42:05. > :42:09.organisation, you cannot change it literally overnight, but I believe
:42:09. > :42:13.him when he says he wants to attempt to change the culture. I
:42:13. > :42:18.sometimes think that maybe this is to do with the fact that we don't
:42:18. > :42:22.have wards any more, to any great extent. All the testosterone is
:42:22. > :42:26.thrown into the City, that is the battleground, and the rewards are
:42:26. > :42:30.these excessive salaries and bonuses. I think you need to
:42:30. > :42:34.temperate, calm it down, stop people behaving in this incredibly
:42:34. > :42:38.irresponsible manner which has caused as enormous problems. We are
:42:38. > :42:42.going to see the results of everything what -- which went wrong
:42:42. > :42:47.in 2007 for decades, there does not seem to be light at the end of the
:42:47. > :42:52.tunnel currently. Many people would argue that banks should be punished
:42:52. > :42:58.further. But in the way that Antony Jenkins -- Antony Jenkins has set
:42:58. > :43:03.out, you could argue that what is so dramatic about Goldman Sachs
:43:03. > :43:08.getting rid of 10% every year to get rid of the dead wood, so are
:43:08. > :43:11.they making dramatic steps? There is a hire-and-fire culture in these
:43:11. > :43:18.organisations and they have these cults on a regular basis, the
:43:18. > :43:22.workforce goes up and down pretty rapidly. -- they have these culls.
:43:22. > :43:25.But it is about the culture, how they do business and whether it is
:43:25. > :43:30.ethical. Investment banks are one thing, high-street banks are
:43:30. > :43:33.completely different. Barclays is a hybrid bank. One of the issues we
:43:33. > :43:39.have at the moment is that banks are not giving money to businesses,
:43:39. > :43:44.not lending to any great extent. They will enter a third seed
:43:44. > :43:47.company... Not a small business. The majority of businesses in this
:43:47. > :43:52.country of small businesses and they cannot borrow, we really need
:43:52. > :43:55.to focus on that. From the point of view of Barclays, I am not
:43:55. > :43:58.particularly concerned with the investment banking side, I'm
:43:58. > :44:02.concerned about the High Street. Thank you.
:44:02. > :44:07.Who are Britain's most powerful women? Other than the ones in this
:44:07. > :44:11.studio, of course! Radio 4 think they know and have unveiled the 100
:44:11. > :44:18.women who have made the Woman's Hour Power List. One of the judges,
:44:18. > :44:23.Oona King, joins me. Who got the top three slip -- slots? It is
:44:23. > :44:28.unbelievable, the Queen won, can you believe it(!) But it was only
:44:28. > :44:33.this last week that she went to number one. In the top 20 we have
:44:33. > :44:38.thanked them, then we have put the rest, the following 80, they are
:44:38. > :44:44.just an alphabetical order, it is a bit too hard! We have also done it
:44:44. > :44:48.in terms of groups like politics, arts, culture etc. It was really
:44:49. > :44:53.interesting, the discussion between soft power and hard power. I am
:44:53. > :44:57.more at the heart power end, but those women who really influence us
:44:57. > :45:02.with the ability to make another generation listen, we must take
:45:02. > :45:06.them into account. The criteria, between hard and soft power, what
:45:06. > :45:10.other things did you look at in terms of the most powerful and
:45:10. > :45:14.influential women? We had to be sure we went excluding whole groups.
:45:14. > :45:18.I have no idea who the most powerful women are in terms of
:45:18. > :45:21.engineering or genetic research in science, we had to take expert
:45:22. > :45:27.advice and be careful when we looked at business, are we taking
:45:27. > :45:30.into account the turnover in terms of shares, what sort of matrix are
:45:30. > :45:36.we using to measure the power? But what comes out from the list, the
:45:36. > :45:41.key message, his first day that it is not as diverse as we might
:45:41. > :45:46.wanted to be. -- his first the that it is not as diverse. I am not just
:45:46. > :45:50.talking about ethnicity, although seven out of 100 are from ethnic
:45:50. > :45:54.minority backgrounds, but also social diversity and class and how
:45:54. > :45:58.women managed to break the glass ceiling. It seems as though we have
:45:58. > :46:02.not made Joe boot made as much progress as we would help. But
:46:02. > :46:06.looking down the list, you will not recognise many names of some of
:46:06. > :46:10.these women because they have huge power and influence but they are
:46:10. > :46:14.not in immediate talking about the froth that might come along here
:46:14. > :46:19.and there, they are at an underlying level talking about how
:46:19. > :46:23.things -- changing how things happen in Britain. Which women did
:46:23. > :46:28.well in politics? You would expect the Home Secretary to be there, she
:46:28. > :46:32.was number two, on the other side of politics there are people like
:46:32. > :46:39.Harriet Harman and people like Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP deputy
:46:40. > :46:43.from Scotland to. There are women that did not make the list who use
:46:43. > :46:47.social media in a way, for instance, in politics that in a few years'
:46:47. > :46:51.time will very much have them on the list, people like Stella
:46:51. > :46:55.Creasey, who has done impressive things by reaching out far beyond
:46:55. > :47:00.the usual range that politicians can reach out to people with,
:47:00. > :47:03.people like Gloria Del Piero. I think we will have a different
:47:03. > :47:08.looking list and it will be even more different outside politics,
:47:08. > :47:18.where social media has made the transition between hard power and
:47:18. > :47:27.
:47:27. > :47:32.You can see the full list on the women's our website. So, women can
:47:32. > :47:41.have it all, but what about men? What about in the domestic sphere?
:47:41. > :47:44.How accepting his society of men who look after, cook and clean?
:47:44. > :47:51.Michael Reeves is giving a lecture tonight about The Symmetrical
:47:51. > :47:57.Family. Where men and women have an equal opportunity to go to work and
:47:57. > :48:02.earn money, or an equal opportunity to stay at home and raise children.
:48:02. > :48:06.We leave behind the gender roles that we attach to men, that we have
:48:06. > :48:15.mostly managed to leave behind that we attach to women. We are halfway
:48:15. > :48:18.in a sense that we have seen the conversation we had just had and
:48:18. > :48:23.the conversation earlier about how much there was too much
:48:23. > :48:28.testosterone in the city. Saying that you are a career man or in
:48:28. > :48:36.working father might sound a bit weird, and until it does not sound
:48:36. > :48:39.weird, means we cannot have absolute equality. You cannot have
:48:39. > :48:44.equality unless men changed as well. It is interesting looking at it
:48:44. > :48:47.instead of women pushing at the glass ceiling we have got will
:48:47. > :48:53.almost encourage men to be proud of taking a more central role at home.
:48:53. > :48:57.What do you say to that? Things have changed dramatically and men
:48:57. > :49:04.do an awful lot more in the home than they used to. I do not think
:49:04. > :49:09.they did terribly much with babies a few decades ago as now they are
:49:09. > :49:13.prepared to change nappies these days. I have come across a few men
:49:13. > :49:18.who have stayed at home and looked after the family, but quite often
:49:18. > :49:22.they get frustrated and eventually return to the workplace. I think
:49:22. > :49:28.men are programmed to go and hunt and gather and women are programmed
:49:28. > :49:32.to stay at home and nurture to an extent. Often what happens is were
:49:32. > :49:36.meant work and still go and buy the food and do the cooking and do the
:49:36. > :49:42.cleaning. Actually, women end up doing both and are completely
:49:42. > :49:46.frazzled and exhausted. That is one outcome, they end up working a
:49:46. > :49:51.double shift and end up being exhausted. I think those attitudes
:49:51. > :49:55.are the problem. If we say men are programmed to go and hunt and
:49:55. > :50:00.gather and women are programmed to look after kids, then we should
:50:00. > :50:07.accept that the pay gap will be here forever. You'll get a gap in
:50:07. > :50:12.boardrooms. I am just asking is it possible? I do not think it is a
:50:12. > :50:16.cultural thing. I think it is mostly a cultural challenge. For
:50:16. > :50:22.example, the Government has said it will make almost all maternity
:50:22. > :50:27.leave transferable between men and women. But men cannot breast-feed.
:50:27. > :50:33.That is right, but maybe they can make some decisions in the first
:50:33. > :50:38.six months. We leave it to them to decide, but you are right it is
:50:38. > :50:42.mostly cultural. The US military are put in women on the front line.
:50:42. > :50:49.We have had a women Prime Minister and we have completely changed
:50:50. > :50:53.about the way women are in society. I meant up for this? I think some
:50:53. > :51:01.art and some I not, like the feminist somewhere ahead of the
:51:01. > :51:04.curve and others needed to be convinced. But there are more women
:51:04. > :51:08.graduating from British universities than men, so it seems
:51:08. > :51:12.to be entirely unsustainable to have a labour market based on the
:51:12. > :51:17.idea that that is the man's World and something has to give. It is
:51:17. > :51:23.either exhausted women, badly raised children or up real gender
:51:23. > :51:27.equality. You say you would like to see more men to get on that role.
:51:27. > :51:32.What could Government do to encourage it? Well, child care is a
:51:32. > :51:35.major issue, the cost of it, so I am not sure it men should have to
:51:35. > :51:41.stay at home and look after children. We should be investing
:51:41. > :51:45.more in childcare. My PA has just been on maternity leave and her
:51:45. > :51:48.husband is a film-maker and she is a PA, and they both want to work,
:51:48. > :51:54.but they cannot afford more than three days a week of childcare and
:51:54. > :51:58.she is having to work less. That is true for so many people. If you add
:51:59. > :52:02.in the cost of getting to work. A lot of people cannot afford to live
:52:02. > :52:07.in central London, and then it becomes economic for people to work.
:52:07. > :52:12.Child care is a major issue. It is not just a matter of who stays at
:52:12. > :52:16.home to look after the children. I think both should be able to go out
:52:16. > :52:20.and work and both should have an economic future and we as a society
:52:20. > :52:24.should have a better way of looking after children. There is nothing
:52:24. > :52:31.preventing men from doing this. There is nothing preventing men
:52:31. > :52:35.from engaging more at home, is there? Currently women can take a
:52:35. > :52:43.year off in maternity and men can take two weeks of, so there is a
:52:43. > :52:50.very big a symmetry in legal rights to take time off. The recent
:52:50. > :52:54.Government announced men could attend antenatal clinics. I am not
:52:54. > :52:58.claiming some conspiracy against men, but we need to recognise the
:52:59. > :53:02.assumptions about the role of men are still there. Child care is
:53:02. > :53:07.important and the Government is doing more on that, but I do not
:53:07. > :53:10.think the way to gender equality is for women to work the way men have
:53:10. > :53:15.always done and sub-contract the child-rearing to others. We are
:53:15. > :53:20.looking for something a bit better than that. Are you old enough to
:53:20. > :53:25.remember the political drama series house of cards? It's not an
:53:25. > :53:29.ambitious Francis Urquhart played by Ian Richardson try and find his
:53:29. > :53:34.way up the political greasy pole. It has now been adapted for an
:53:34. > :53:38.American audience with Kevin Spacey taking the lead role as an American
:53:38. > :53:42.Democrat Frank Underwood. We will be speaking to the author Michael
:53:42. > :53:46.Dobbs who is an executive producer on the new series. Let's remind
:53:47. > :53:56.ourselves of the original drama and also take a look at Kevin Spacey in
:53:57. > :54:03.
:54:03. > :54:13.action. Don't you see I had to do it. How could I have ever trusted
:54:13. > :54:15.
:54:15. > :54:21.her? You might very well think that I could not possibly comment.
:54:21. > :54:31.exactly may I help you? You must know the administration's
:54:31. > :54:31.
:54:31. > :54:38.legislated agenda. I'm May. Will you tell me? What will your guess
:54:38. > :54:44.be? In migration, tax reform is not sexy enough, it is education,
:54:44. > :54:48.everyone can get behind children. Is that education? You might very
:54:48. > :54:53.well think that, I could not possibly comment. That
:54:53. > :54:58.unforgettable phrase. The author of the House of Cards, Michael Dobbs,
:54:58. > :55:05.is here with us now. Have they kept true to the original version? Have
:55:05. > :55:09.you kept true to the original version? It is treated the spirit.
:55:09. > :55:15.But the Americans have have poured so much money into it. It is a
:55:15. > :55:19.superb series. In 13 hours it does not even get as far as the BBC's
:55:19. > :55:24.original four hours, so it goes into new territory, but plays
:55:24. > :55:28.wonderful homage to the original. Everybody there, the directors and
:55:28. > :55:34.the writers, they were all inspired by that brilliant original series.
:55:34. > :55:38.I cannot we forget Ian Richardson playing Francis Urquhart, I did not
:55:38. > :55:48.think anybody would be able to match that look and that crushing
:55:48. > :55:53.comment. Does he? Kevin Spacey? feel as if I should give -- be
:55:53. > :55:59.given a gold medal. Yes, how did you get Kevin Spacey? He plays in a
:55:59. > :56:06.different way. Ian had some pretty camp humour. Kevin Spacey is much
:56:06. > :56:12.darker. But he was pretty dark. but this is much darker. This is
:56:12. > :56:18.the west wing for where waltz. He has just come off a global tour of
:56:18. > :56:23.Richard the Third and it is like he was using that as his training for
:56:23. > :56:27.this. Shakespeare's and Berlin into his new role. What was it like
:56:27. > :56:31.adapting it from a British political system into the American
:56:31. > :56:38.political system at which is different? It is different, but it
:56:38. > :56:43.is the same. They have whips there, but they have more power, more
:56:43. > :56:48.money and bought interests. It gives a whip even more possibility
:56:48. > :56:52.of manipulation. It is not about Britain and America, it is about
:56:52. > :56:56.power and people. I am not comparing myself to Shakespeare,
:56:56. > :56:59.but it is what Shakespeare it knew and understood. It is not about
:56:59. > :57:05.systems, it is about people and what motivates them and where they
:57:05. > :57:10.go wrong. Did you watched the original series? Yes, I loved the
:57:10. > :57:16.original. I will definitely download it and watch it. I think
:57:17. > :57:22.Kevin Spacey is a very good villain. He is very good at chilling roles.
:57:22. > :57:27.He is not just a television actor. He took the Old Vic Theatre from
:57:27. > :57:31.where it was going to be turned into a theme bar and has made it
:57:31. > :57:37.one of the great cultural forces of today. He has all that quality
:57:37. > :57:46.which he pours into this series. Clyde could you not keep the name
:57:46. > :57:50.Urquhart? They could not possibly pronounce it. Do you think there is
:57:50. > :57:54.always a real-life Francis Urquhart behind the scenes politically?
:57:54. > :57:59.only people I have ever upset as far as I am aware in politics are
:57:59. > :58:05.those who have come up to me and have said was Francis Urquhart me?
:58:05. > :58:09.I had said, No It was not you, and they go away totally crestfallen.
:58:09. > :58:13.That is all for today. Thank you to Nicola Horlick for being our guest
:58:13. > :58:18.today. The One o'clock News is starting over on BBC One. Andrew
:58:18. > :58:22.and I will be here tomorrow at 11:30am. We will leave you with
:58:22. > :58:27.some of the highlights of the annual parliamentary pancake race
:58:27. > :58:31.which was run this morning. MPs took on teams from the House of