18/06/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 18/06/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Daily Politics. David Cameron and leaders from the G8 group of


countries continue their summit in Northern Ireland, with Syria top of


the agenda. But can the Prime Minister persuade Vladimir Putin to


back his plan for peace? The Business Secretary hails the


Government's record on apprenticeships and forecasts that


they'll contribute over �3 billion a year to the economy within ten


years. Vince Cable joins us live. As the coalition's changes to the


NHS bed down, is now really a good time for more radical thinking on


the health service and social care? The think tank the Kings Fund think


so. They'll be here to explain why. And we'll hear from one academic who


says some high-achieving politicians share character traits with


psychopaths. And that's a good thing All that in the next hour. And with


us for the whole programme today is the Labour peer John Reid, who in


the last Labour government held a grand total of eight cabinet posts,


ending up as Home Secretary until 2007. He's now chair of the


Institute for Security and Resilience Studies. Welcome to the


Daily Politics. Let's start with the G8 summit in Northern Ireland which


continues today. Earlier this morning David Cameron and the other


G8 leaders gathered together for what's known as a family photo. But


it hasn't been all smiles, with Russian President Vladimir Putin


making it clear he doesn't agree with the British PM on the issue of


intervention in Syria. Downing Street wish to have a peace


conference today, but the big question is whether President Assad


will agree to step down. Is there a scenario where Russia can be cut out


of the G8 over Syria? I don't think so. And it is not just Russia, other


people at the G8 hold similar views. I think it is important to


realise that the Russian position is not just self-interest as regards


the long-standing relationship with Syria which, of course, is true, and


the Mediterranean. I would also guess that Putin would reckon that


one of the greatest threat to Russia is Islamist terrorism, and


particularly the likes of Chechnya and the southern flank of Russia.


His view, basically, it's better the devil we know than the devil we


don't. We don't know what will happen after President Assad goes,


if he does. Except, at the moment, people are saying he is butchering


his own people, killing them intends, that can't continue. It is


not better the devil you know. not justifying it, I am explaining


the Russian position. If you explain that inflamed the situation further


by bringing more arms, it might inflame a significant jihadist


presence in Syria. Syria is not just self-contained, it is a battlefield


in what is becoming a great sunny-macro/sheer-macro conflict.


The Alawite 's are a minority further within that minority. But


they are in the majority in Iraq, and in the non-Arab nation of Iran


next door. Hezbollah are sheer based. The majority in Syria, they


are Sunni and backed by Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia. But do


you agree that we can't allow a situation where the opposition is


exterminated before they even have a chance by the arms flowing into


support Assad noes regime. Asad is behaving monstrously. Their element


within the opposition to Asad who will operate in just such a


monstrous fashion if they ever take control. They are blowing up


innocent civilians through the world. The key question is not by


doing nothing to you avoid responsibility, you don't, right?


There are consequences, moral and otherwise, of doing mopping. But the


key question is by pumping in more arms, do you actually have an


outcome which is better. I suspect we will get an agreement from the GH


which says humanitarian, diplomatic and political moves, there may be


difficulty over the wording about whether the regime and Assad must


stay, but I think it will stop short of any agreement, certainly with


Russia, to put in extra weaponry. Let's turn to another major


international story - the news that NATO has handed over security for


the whole of Afghanistan for the first time since the Taliban were


ousted in 2001. At a ceremony in Kabul, President Hamid Karzai said


that, from Wednesday, our own security and military forces will


lead all the security activities. International troops will remain in


Afghanistan until the end of 2014, providing military back-up when


needed. Are they going to cope, the Afghan security services? I think


they will cope. They won't guarantee that there will not be continual


acts of terrorism. This is another battlefield in this great front. Six


years ago they had some 40,000 in terms of numbers, they've now got


350,000. They are a significant size. In terms of quality, my


understanding is that they have now become roughly equivalent to the


Army of a developing nation, so they are not as good as the advanced,


well-trained and well-equipped armies of the West that have been a


nice so far. But at some stage the handover has two take place, because


they need autonomy over their military, as well as politically.


don't have exact numbers, but there are Afghans already leaving the


army, and the worry is that the Taliban will just step in. How


important are the talks that have been mentioned with the Taliban in


Qatar? If I had a criticism over the government over the last few years,


I don't think it did enough on the political front. I don't think it


made sense to announce publicly that we are leaving militarily, then we


will start talking. We should have been talking to those allied to the


Taliban with whom it was possible, and then announce a leaving date as


a result of the politics. Not saying, we are off, will you now sit


down and talk? The Taliban have an old saying, you might have the


watches but we have the time. If you announce we are going at a certain


date, it's... Weakens the hand?It is not to say that a political


solution is not the ideal, it is. The Taliban are not a homogenous


group. Now time for Now it's time for our daily quiz.


Something a little different. The question for today is: According to


our guest John Reid, which of the following is the most likely result


of the 2015 general election? I hope you have your crystal ball! Is it a


Labour majority, a Labour/Lib Dem coalition, a Conservative/Lib Dem


coalition or a Conservative majority? At the end of the show,


John will give us the correct answer.


There's just a week to go before the Chancellor outlines the Government's


spending plans for the year after the next election. George Osborne is


looking to cut around �11.5 billion from public spending, and one area


which is likely to face another round of belt-tightening is local


government. Central government funding makes up around 40% of local


government budgets in England. Over the three years from 2011/12 to


2014/15 this part of their budget has been squeezed by 33% in real


terms. That's led to protests from local government chiefs, who warn of


dire consequences if budgets are reduced further. The Local


Government Association has warned, some councils will not be able to


deliver the existing range of services. The LGA has called on the


Treasury to lift all restrictions on council tax in the spending review.


At the moment, councils are encouraged to keep council tax rises


to less than 2%. But could local government make more savings without


affecting services? Last night, Channel 4's Dispatches programme


investigated waste in local authorities. It found that over �30


million has been spent by 374 councils on chauffeur-driven cars


for council officials over the last five years. The programme also


discovered that councils spent �3.7m on foreign trips to places like


Jamaica and South Africa over the last five years. With us now is the


Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis.


Is all spending on cars and foreign trips just frivolous, in your mind?


I am sure some spending will be done appropriately, to go to places and


see people, but we have to look at what is spent and is it


appropriate. �6,000 to see the World Cup, I don't think many taxpayers


would see that as reasonable. might be the exception. If you take


the figures, �30 million spent by 374 councils on chauffeur driven


cars, that is �16,000 per cancel per year -- per council per year, so


than the figures don't look so bad. That is why it is important to look


at details and why local transparency is so important, so


that local taxpayers can see what is being spent, what on and whether it


is appropriate. Transparency exist. It is probably one of the clearest


areas where you can get figures. It looks as if you are using all


referring to blanket figures that councils are being irresponsible.


Let's look at foreign trips, can they ever be justified? This is a


call not from government, from Dispatchers. We are saying that the


Local Government Minister look very carefully, there is over �2 billion


of uncollected council tax, �2 billion in fraud, �60 billion in


reserves, over �220 billion in assets, of which �2 billion is


listed as surplus and another �1 billion is up for sale. There is a


huge amount in the system that we would like to see better used.


look at the foreign trips. One spokesperson said, this is trimming


up business. Rather than being a waste, people are coming back with


cash for investment. Another example, social workers going to


countries to visit relatives in the care of the borough to see whether


children can be returned to relatives in Jamaica. It is more


subtle and nuanced than just saying, is this waste? That is why


transparency is important. Councils and quite rightly make the case


about what they think is appropriate, and the beauty of


democracy is that everyone gets a chance to have their view. But you


feel that local government is still wasting money? Two there are some


councils doing great, innovative work, sharing management and


outsourcing. �61 billion a year for local government, we can still go


further. We asked somebody from a council to come on, but they


couldn't, but local government Association spokesman said that


everybody working in the public sector is required to spend


taxpayers money at Canterbury. The details of expenses and allowances


claimed by councillors are published online, as well as all spending over


�500. What are you hoping to reveal? We brought in the transparency


rules, we are very proud of that. Local people can see what is being


spent. We need to make sure that money spent appropriately. We have


councils who have put up council tax and allowances. We don't think that


is what taxpayers want to see locally. What do you say about the


claim that Labour councils in particular are putting up council


tax, and they don't think it is justified? I was an MP for 25 years,


and the vast majority of councils of all parties to a thankless task,


very often, in the frontline of politics. They can't come off to


Westminster for four days a week, they are steeped in locality and


they are now more transparent than anyone else. Of course there will be


misusers in any organisation. We have seen it with MPs, the


government and so on. Given the degree of transparency, I think that


some of the examples here of the types of cars hired and so on, it


would be sensible to recognise that in a time of financial austerity you


leave yourself open, and the first thing to ask is how will this play


in the front page of the Sunday Post? Some of them are Jaguars and


Bentleys as opposed to other, cheaper makes of car. Let's look at


spending cuts. The LGA and individual councils are saying they


just can't take any more cuts to expenditure, it will affect


frontline services. Are you prepared to take that risk? Last year, local


authorities had a reduction in spending power of 1.3%. Most people


out in the world would say that saving 1.3% is quite achievable and


we should try to do it. Councils have to make sure that cracking down


on fraud and error, collecting council tax and using the reserves


they have built up in the best possible way to develop for the


future and to deliver good local services. So you think 's can be


made without risk to frontline services? -- you think at can be


made? �61 billion a year of procurement, saving a few % makes a


big difference to local taxpayers. It is about making sure that the tax


payers' money is well spent. John Reid, councils that we have had on


the programme before cover different areas with different problems.


Bradley Lewis always talks about councils in the round in England,


but there are inner-city areas that will have bigger problems with,


perhaps, social care than a rule area. I think people recognise that


there has to be some greater efficiency continually, in all


services. You think they can't take more cuts? No, what I'm saying is


that while I agree there's always room for efficiency and looking at


that, I think the Government would be better to be up front and just to


say, yes, we understand that even with that, there might be a


deterioration in services. I think it's a bit hypocritical to say, yes,


we are reducing services in given areas because of the austerity in


which we're in. People recognise that, but when it comes to local


Government, we'll not only cut, not only ask them to be efficient, but


we'll pass responsibilities to them that they didn't previously have and


then we'll pretend that this is going to happen in a way that there


won't be a deterioration. There will be a deterioration in services here.


And the responsibility for that is shared and particularly if there is


less money coming from central Government. I don't think that needs


a great cull pability, a great admission of doing things wrong. Cut


backs are taking place in every department of Government. You be


more honest? We are being very clear and honest. What about a


deterioration in services? We have seen public satisfaction with


council services going up. That's because councils are being


innovative and doing more for less. That's a good thing. There are


councils out there doing great work in that regard. It's important to


note that it's not fair to say urban areas will need to spend more than


rural areas. Some rural areas will argue because of sparsity there are


other pressures. There is a different type of pressure and


response they have to give. That's why it's important that these


decisions are made locally by local authorities that understand and care


about their local area. Thank you very much.


Now this morning, the chief executive and chairman of Lloyds


banking group have been questioned by the Treasury Select Committee


about the failed sale of 632 bank branches to the Co-op. A deal was


instruct with the Co-operative Group last summer but has unravelled after


it emerged the group is facing a capital black hole of up to �1


billion. The Co-op pulled out of the deal in April and announced a rescue


plan yesterday morning. The Lloyds chairman was asked whether


politicians pressured them into accepting the bid? Is it true, as


has been alleged, that the decision to a award Verde to the Co-op was


made on political rather than commercial grounds? No. It is not.


What the board looked at was financial and execution, the ability


to execute. Those were the only two things that we looked at. There was


no political pressure? Yoo no. And no indirect contact via others?


No direct contact either to me or, I think, to Antonio, no the other way


around. Well, we've been joined by the Conservative MP David Davis who


chaired the future banking commission in 2010. What went wrong?


Oh, so many things went wrong. I mean, today's evidence is incredible


really. They're supposed to have done due diligence. That's so you


see the facts. When they were doing that, the Co-op was losing 50


million a month. Writing off 300 million of debts. They clearly


didn't do the work. When you do this sort of business, you look for red


flags. This had more red flags than a minefield. You say there wasn't


dew -- due diligence. So not enough work was done rather than they did


the work but still wept ahead with what looked like a rotten deal?


committee was quite gentle with them today. The Co-op had trouble taken


over the Britannia Building Society, that was failing. It was having


trouble with its profit making. It was losing money. Now, we know, it's


1. 5 billion in the hole. This is only six months after the deal was


struck. What's changed in the last six months? Next to nothing. Either


they did a terrible job of due diligence or they did a loose one


because they were encouraged to dot deal. You don't believe them when


they say there was no political pressure? I think there's something


wrong with this deal. That's what I know. I can't tell you, because I


wasn't in the room. But there's something wrong with the deal.


due know there was something wrong with the deal once it became clear


there was a 1. . 5 billion black hole in the Co-op's finances, which


does beggar belief that no-one spotted that. They're inside, we're


not. When it finished, the other bidder wrote to me. When I got the


letter I thought well, this might just be a sore loser. I handed it


over to the PAC just in case. What's happened is everything he predicted


then, the failure of every part of the system has come true. That


letter that he sent to me and others was given to chairman Bischoff in


January of last year. What do you think? Well, let me just say at the


beginning, I'm disappointed that the mutual status of the Co-op is now


under threat. Because I really believe in muchuals. The Government


-- mutuals. The Government has expressed this as well. This looks


complete completely botched. At worst, there's a whiff in the air.


There are two questions, the first is - does the question have a


strategic interest in the banks that it's nationalised and the stability


of the economy in. A general sense, yes. We might disagree in that


because David is more of a Libertarian on these issues. The


real question is in this instance, was there a nod and a wink, was


there a political decision taken to en encourage these events to happen


which in retrospect seem very, very popped, at the least, and possibly


catastrophic. Who would benefit? don't disgree over the importance of


the Government having a strategic view. But that should have been up


front. There's a rule of law problem when you let two people bid if


you're only going to allow one to win. There are issues with that.


It's right we have an interest. Otherwise the economy won't recover.


Why not the alternative bid? The evidence this morning, as the chief


executive and chair of Lloyds said the money wasn't there in NBNK's


bid. True. That is simply not true. It was going to be there in escrow


up to �730 million. I know he said that. It's not the case. Similarly,


it said the bid wasn't underwritten. Who provided the underwriting for


the Co-op? Lloyds did. This bid was put in by the biggest players in the


City, Aviva, foreign and colonial investment. All sorts of big


players, who wouldn't have set it up unless they intended to fund it.


What now for Lloyds? They have got to do this branch sell off. They


will do an IPO. Nobody involved in this decision should have any share


options in that float, nobody. Because I don't want anybody who has


made this much of a botch of it to profit from it. Though that's


probably not what the Treasury is thinking. Well, I think the Treasury


may have trouble with the House of Commons when we come to that


position. ?Oh, yeah. These people have clearly maed a mess of. This


they've damaged one of the great institutions of our country, the


Co-op in doing so... Well is the Co-op damaged? Somebody might think


it's a great deal that it's going to save the bank, including the chief,


which is unsurprising. Joot Co-op has been a very successful


organisation. Yes it needed to modernise and so on. It did it on


mutual basis. It was probably the preeminent mutual society. It wasn't


on the Stock Exchange. It wasn't just controlled by a group of small


shareholders and so on. In that sense, yes, this has damaged it.


Reputationally it will damage it as well. Especially since they're


talking about the bond holders and that, many of whom may well be


pensioners having to take a cut on their investment and get cut back.


There will be short-term loss for long-term gain in that sense? Do you


think the culture of bank will change? Of the Co-op?Yes. Because


shares will be owned by commercial investors? John's right. You need


all sorts, you need an ecosystem. You need limited liability companies


and mutual companies in a stable system. We have lost one of the part


system. That's a bad thing. , thank you very much. We'll no doubt return


to this in the future. You might be forgiven for thinking there is very


little new left to say about the NHS in England, after recent reforms and


endless debate. But the leading health think-tank the King's Fund


has found another issue to discuss. Today, they're launching a


commission into health and social care questioning whether the


boundary between the two needs to be redrawn. The King's Fund says the


health system faces a series of challenges this century, including


increasing costs of care, a growing and ageing population. The current


system, established after World War II, has remained unchanged with the


NHS free at the point of use, while social care is means tested. At the


moment, some aspects of social care are paid for by local authorities,


not from the NHS budget. As we've also discussed, local councils are


warning further cuts to their budgets will increase pressure on


the services they provide. Elderly people are also expected to


contribute to the costs of their own social care. Although the Government


plans to cap this at �72,000 from 2016. The King's Fund also questions


whether the relationship between health and social care staff is good


enough. The Government has made a commitment to have a fully joined up


health and social care service by 2018. Well, we've been joined by


Chris Ham from the King's Fund and by the minister for social care,


Norman Lamb. Welcome to both of you. Why is this review needed? We seem


to know most of what I've said. What are we going to learn? We believe


now is the time to do a fundamental review, not just of how the currents


system works but whether it's the right system for the future. I would


have an ageing population. We have people who don't just have one


health care need but several. They span health and social care.


Successive governments have tried to get local authorities and NHS


organisations to work together with limited success. We believe it's


long overdue to reexamine what happened in 1948 when the NHS was


set up and local authorities were given responsibility for social care


and ask how to bring them closer together and bring about


improvements in care for older people who most need that care.


agree that health and social care funding should be brought together?


We argue that now is the time to address that question seriously. We


think there are ways of doing it within the existing system that may


not go far enough. Within the existing system, in other words


still allowing councils to be the ash tors and -- arbitors and


distributors of social care? limited option would be to pool


councils to get organisations to agree to share resources. The


radical option would be to say let's break down that barrier entirely,


have a single pool of money paying for both health and social care.


What you would like to see? Well, I think Chris and I are complete lay


greed that the model of care has to change completely. So we have to be


open minded about all the different options. The idea of just being able


to work from one budget for the needs of people, individual patients


don't understand the difference between health care and social care.


They just want to receive care. The idea of breaking down this barrier I


think is immensely attractive. are in favour of having one fund,


really, from which all care would come, including social care?


question is whether you do that as a national settlement, where you just


change this arrangement, whereby you have the NHS and local authorities


or whether you get it to happen the -- at the local level. What we're


doing in Government is making it happen locally. We have set a tough


ambition to get to a fully integrated system by 2018. We have


pioneers that we're going to announce in septs that will really


push the boundaries -- September. All the best countries in health


terms are doing this. They recognise that the big challenge is people


living for many years with chronic conditions and we're not caring for


them very well. That's the challenge. We're not delivering good


care and it's not a sustainable system. Is this new? When you were


Health Secretary, people were talking about closer integration


between community care and hospital care, for example. Do you agree with


what Norman Lamb is saying? As it happens, I think both are spot on.


Let's leave aside our differences and address the key question: There


are two mammoth organisations. When I was Health Secretary there was


about 1. 25 million people in the NHS and the same again and more in


social care. Just behind the red army. Yeah they used to say apart


from the Indian railways and Chinese Red Army, it was the largest


organisation in the world. However, what has changed over the past 25


years? It is the demographic changes. We're growing older, much


older than we were. We're being sustained in life by new


pharmaceuticals, new technology and so on. That means in the future,


actually, most of the illnesses, the problem addressing them won't ab


cute operations in hospitals, it will be chronic illnesses which


requires care in the community. The big gap that used to be seen between


care and hospital operations and medical side is disappearing because


of social change. Why hasn't that happened? I've had endless


discussions about this. Everybody recognises the problem and actually


recognises the problem and actually recognises the problem and actually


put forward solutions. It has happened incrementally, we


introduced the number -- increased the number of community nurses and


local health centres in the community, we expanded GP practices.


That was incremental movement towards it. What our guests today


are saying is that we really need to look at a big, strategic radical


change, perhaps years out. We have already had a big, strategic radical


change. Can the health service cope with a different one? With respect,


it was the wrong one. What Norman and the government have said is that


we will move some of the NHS budget to social care to help hard-pressed


council is not to have to rush and social care to needy older people,


because the two systems need to work together, that is where we need to


focus. You made the wrong change? This is the model of care, not


structural change. I would say we are in agreement... Except he says


the reorganisation was not the right thing to do. Two you ask why it has


not happened so far. The stars are lying snow and, critically, every


part of the system recognises that unless change happens it will


collapse. Reign and across parties. Then the more we can take the public


with us. I am not a conservative, I am a Liberal Democrat. You are in


coalition. And I have argued from the moment I got into the Department


for health, I think it is really happening. Your commission wants to


ask if the entitlements and criteria used to access who can access health


and care be aligned. Social care is means tested. Do you want to apply


means testing to parts of the NHS? We have set up a commission to look


into that. But the logic of that question is we should look at means


testing. We have not spoken about affordability and the difference in


the budgets for the NHS and what councils receive for social care.


But if you put them together, would you have to consider means testing


part of the NHS? If we are revisiting the post-war settlement,


you should not leave anything off the table. But we believe there is a


lot of scope for using existing spending more efficiently. We spent


105 �15 billion on the NHS, �15 billion on social care. Nobody says


every pound is spent wisely and efficiently. If we did not have


people in hospitals who could be cared for at home if the money was


used flexibly, we would save on the wastage expenditure on expensive


hospital treatment and help people to be supported where they want to


be. So you will reduce the NHS budget and shift it to social care?


We need to shift from repair to prevention. That is where we have


made too much investment over the years, we have to stop people


getting ill in the first place. it wrong to ring fence NHS spending?


I think it was right, it has given us the capacity now to do quite


exciting things with Health and Social Care Bill. The other big


collaboration is between the statutory services in the


community, people and neighbourhoods. Lots of people in


retirement have time on their hands and want to give something back to


their community, to neighbours. If we can unleash that power, together


with the statutory services, we have a potential solution. When will the


report be finished? The interim report, early next year, the final


report in September, to feed into the election debate. There are holes


in the NHS ring fence. The money that has been earmarked and


protected, some of that is being transferred to local authorities to


deal with their funding pressures. That is only a short-term sticking


plaster solution. There is so much political consensus that now is the


time to do that. C if anything can be agreed and done. Reign it is


great that you are doing it. Apprenticeships should be as valued


as a university degree - that's the view of Business Secretary Vince


Cable, who has pledged to boost the image of apprentices, as well as


increasing their numbers. More than half a million people started an


apprenticeship last year, and the government is aiming for almost four


million to have completed an apprenticeship scheme by 2022. This


is what David Cameron said to young workers at a car factory during


National Apprenticeship Week. Apprenticeships, and investing in


apprenticeships, is a win-win situation. It is good for you


because you get the chance to acquire skills which mean you can


have a worthwhile career. There is some research evidence out recently


that shows that if you do a higher-level apprenticeship, it


raises the earning potential in your life by �150,000. So it is a win for


the people undertaking the apprenticeships. It is a win for the


companies, because the government is putting money into apprenticeships,


allowing companies to access great training and great skills which will


be good for the companies. But it is a win for the country.


This morning, Business Secretary Vince Cable was out spreading the


word and giving awards to the Apprentice Team of the Year. Dr


Cable is with us now, and we're also joined by Julie White, managing


director of the Coventry-based concrete cutting firm D-Drill, where


almost half the staff are apprentices or came through their


apprentice scheme. Welcome to the Daily Politics.


Vince Cable, you want to increase the number of apprentices with a


target of creating almost 4 million between now and 2022, how will you


do that in the shadow of the Spending Review? There has been a


massive expansion since we came in to government, and although my


department has come under significant cuts, I decided we


wanted to prioritise apprenticeships and we have virtually doubled the


number. We got half a million kids going through the system, mostly


young people that some adults, this year, and there 1 million


altogether. But it is not just numbers, it is about quality. We


have cut out some of the shorter courses and are concentrating on


advanced apprenticeships. Two or three years? You have to be the


minimum of a year, there were some short courses before which were not


really apprenticeships. What about the age of apprentices? You say the


figures have expanded while you were in government, but the figures show


that the number of apprenticeships for under 19 dropped in 2011/12.


other age groups have expanded massively. There is an issue with


young people. Apprenticeships is treated as a serious training


opportunity, not something you walk into. We envisage a preliminary


stage called a traineeship, where you get work experience and basic


English and maths. Then they become an apprentice. Julie White, because


apprentices, as I understand, are paid less than the minimum wage when


they start, is there a danger of them being used as cheap labour?


think that might be right in some larger companies, but at D-Drill we


pay our apprentices �1 under a qualified apprentice. Because they


can't reduce very quickly and we make money from them. So they are


the lifeblood of the company and have a great feeling for the


company. We keep talking about too many of the bigger companies talking


about apprentices, there are 5 million SMEs out there, you should


be getting us to take apprentices. Why is it such a problem for SMEs to


get apprentices set up? They are often very busy. With a lot of small


compass -- companies, they train somebody at great expense and time


and then they drift off, they can't retain them. But big companies find


it easier to lock people in. We recognise the problem. We are trying


to make the system work more smoothly and we are giving them


financial incentives, �1500 if they take on an extra apprentice. There


is a cash incentive. We need to work on this. How easy is it for a small


company to get an apprentice? paperwork is astronomical, and


although the National Apprenticeship Week 's help, it is still tough. We


are in one of the biggest recessions, hopefully coming out,


but we need more help. �1500 is nothing when you want to bring in an


apprentice, because it is the livelihood of all those companies


coming through. But it is a drop in the ocean. This is from somebody...


We would like to do more. But you haven't got the money. Indeed, but


we are giving it a priority. This is your priority? We are doing more


apprenticeships than anything else, but it is alongside supporting


technology and universities, too. Julie, you mentioned this database


idea, explain a little bit. If it is difficult to access the apprentices


you want, or too difficult, what would a database do? Concrete


cutting is very specialist, you can't get our workers from


university or college or anywhere, so we have to home grow them. So we


thought that once an apprentice has been through a construction company


and does not have a full-time job, because some of them don't, there is


not enough work, why can't I access those people? One, they have decided


to go into construction, two, they usually want to work, but I have


been told I can't access them because of data protection. That is


ridiculous. What do you say? I think it is a good idea, I don't


understand the data protection problem, I would have to look at it.


We already have a talent retention scheme for qualified people. If you


get a redundant engineer from the aerospace industry, they are fed


into the system. We need to know about this. I don't see why we can't


extend this to apprenticeships. this the way the government should


be going, focusing attention and what money there is on building up


apprenticeships? I think that Vince's prioritisation of this is


important, not just in terms of the economy but in fairness. This is the


forgotten 50%. There is an obsessive discussion about universities, which


I understand, but this is the lifeblood of the economy,


engineering, scientific, manufacturing sectors. Vince, cut


down the bureaucracy, make it easier and go online. Let's have an


exchange of names and possible potential apprentices for small


companies. My one worry would be the point that you made, that last year


there was an increase in 16 to 18-year-olds -- there was not an


increase in 16 to 18-year-old, there was a drop. David Cameron was


speaking to people that age, so we have a lot more apprentices, but


many are over 25. There is a 10,000 drop in the 16 to 18-year-olds.


health and safety, we cannot get them onto a construction site if


they are not 18 and above. We have got one thing going against us, then


another. So how will you get young people into... ? But you can go into


conflict in the Army at 17 but not construction.


This is massively oversimplifying, we do not want people killing


themselves. What about the value of an apprenticeship? You say you have


dealt with quality, but what are you doing to equate it to a business


degree, for example? And that I think there is still an awful lot of


snobbery around the fact that, perhaps, they are not as good as


university degrees. That deeply entrenched apartheid between the


qualification... We have to... them all? If you get into an


advanced engineering apprenticeship, you are actually


already doing a degree. The group of apprentices I met this morning, the


team leader is doing a degree. He started on the shopfloor, became an


apprentice and is doing a degree equivalent. That route is available


for those who work hard and have the academic and vocational skills.


you think apprentices are undervalued by the public bastion


mark yes, the word apprentice has been so downtrodden for so long.


have we made it about a degree is everything in life? The Swiss, the


Austrians, the Germans, apprenticeship is everything. My


whole management team have come through an apprenticeship course.


Why have we devalued it so much? Vince Cable, you are quoted today as


the grumpy old man. I am often cheerful and I don't regard myself


as old! I take that back!But I have strong views about the needs to


invest in skills and technology and backing up the brilliant work that


people like Julie are doing. Will you settle with George Osborne


before next week? We have not yet, that we have amicable, businesslike


discussions. It is not winning or losing, hopefully we will all win.


There is a compromise to be done, but you are worried about a false


economy? I don't think we should even think about false economies,


cutting back on badly needed investment in areas like skills. I


think there is a way through and I will happily negotiate. I wouldn't


say happily. But we are having good, even tempered, businesslike


discussions. That is what you say in public, are you worried about going


to the Star chamber? I describe that as amateur theatricals. We will


continue to talk to the Treasury. They are the key in this. It is mean


to ask you to do this, briefly, but what do you think is the best way to


return Lloyds to private ownership? I don't want to anticipate what the


Chancellor will say. And we have only got the Parliamentary


commission report just coming out today. We have to try to die just


that. I think most of us, looking at it, recognise that Lloyds is in a


somewhat different position from RBS. But what that means in terms of


timing and the detail, I think you have to wait. A quick sell-off?I


think not, let's let the Chancellor say. I will not anticipate. When we


hear the word psychopath we tend to think of Hannibal Lecter. But not


only do our politicians share some personality trats but it's a good


thing. It's a theory put forward by Dr Kevin Dutton. He argues in order


to be effective our leaders have to have something of the night about


them. Here's a slightly scary We're going to do something a little


unusual on the Dalily politics today. We're going to take you


inside the mind of one of Britain's greatest political leaders. One who


allegedly shared some of the personality trats of the psychopath.


Robert Hardy has played Churchill to critical acclaim. He's also got into


character to take part in a study of psychology. Do I understand why in


spite of his emotional nature and his good nature and his generosity


of spirit, why he was able to take these killing decisions, the answer


is sheer courage. Clear vision has to be done, can't bear the thought


of doing it, have to do it. Call on courage. It's not just Winston. Dr


Kevin Dutton and some of his colleagues asked buy yog fares of


some of the world's leading political figures to take the same


test on behalf of their subjects. He found that many share personality


traits with criminal psychopaths. They're charming, charismatic, cool


under pressure, self-confident. If you think of the jobs that


politicians would have to do, some of the decision that's they make,


those traits can come in handy in that line of work. Before you jam


the switchboards, bear with us. Dr Kevin Dutton's point is that


actually a little bit of psychopath in our politicians isn't just good


for society, it's vital. In any kind of job where you've got to make


tough decisions, or you've got to be cool under pressure, where you have


to be charming and charismatic and not necessarily always dot thing


which you would like to be liked for, I think you need psychopathic


qualities in order to discharge those duties. So I think in the


right context and at the right level and I think broadly speaking,


politicians stick to those parameters. We have need


psychopathic traits. Theory. But to those who've been up close to


political greatness buy it? I go back to the time where I was in


Conservative central office, the years and thousands of pounds we


wasted on trying, for instance, to make Margaret Thatcher appear kind


and cuddly. Complete waste of time. She wasn't kind of cuddly. She was


somebody would got things done. Fay told her that she was, she had


psychopathic ten densies, I suspect herries would have glinted at me and


then a nod, yes, she didn't want to be loved. She didn't want to be like


everybody else. Lord Dobbs created arguably the greatest political


psychopath of all time. No politician wants to be like him, do


they? The only people that I'm aware of, the only politicians who I'm


aware of who are upset by writing about Francis Erkhart. They ask if


it was them. It wasn't. It was a xozity figure of many people that I


met and studies. -- studied. Our politicians might not be add or


dangerous to know, but could they be dangerous to know? You might think


that. I couldn't possibly comment. How very chilling. David Thompson


reporting. We're joined by the psych therapist, Lucy Beresford. Is it a


bit of an exaggeration to say that great political leaders share some


of the personality traits of a psychopath. It is. Personality


traits aren't mutually exclusive. In lots of ind steroids you want --


industries you want people to be Ruthless, making quick decisions,


having emotional detachment. The surgeon who operated on my wrist


last week, I needed him to be detached. You probably need to have


those certain traits. It doesn't mean to say you're a psychopath.


Helpful? They talked about Winston Churchill, one of the greatest, is


it helpful to say that the personality traits of a psychopath


are those that a successful politician needs to have, so whether


it's charming, ruthless, cool under pressure, self-confident, who does


that remind you of? I don't think it's particularly helpful. It makes


a great headline on a noon chat show politically. It's a good job you're


on one then. I'm in the a psychotherapist. A psychopath.Or


that. I understand the central thing here, I understand from what the


background I've been given to the programme is this question of


empathy and empathy being, as I understand it, the ability to


understand another person's emotions and feelings. It certainly is not a


helpful thing to have a lack of empathy as a politician. Have you to


be able to understand the emotional effect and the feelings of -- of the


people that your decisions affect. Equally, have you to be able - this


applies to all leaders in industry, military, politically, probably even


parents - you have to understand that while you can empathise with


somebody's emotions, that sometimes, for the longer term good, whatever


position you're in, including parents, have you to take a


particular decision. Now I don't regard that as psychopathy. That's a


degree of resolution and decisiveness, which is required in a


leading position. You have talked about empathy and everybody would


say absolutely. But to be a really successful leader is ruthlessness


not the critical factor? No, it isn't. Decisiveness is. Resolution


is. But if by ruthlessness you mean the capacity to take decisions


irrespective of people's feelings or because you are incapable of


understanding their feelings, that's an entirely different thing. Supreme


indifference towards other people is a trait of being a psychopath. There


is this great danger and it was touched on in a fabulous book by


Lord Owen in sickness and in power, which examined the mental health and


the physical health of quite a lot of the world's leaders over the last


100 years. It looked at things like megalomania and that ruthlessness


which is tied to enormous self-belief and a certain


restlessness of personality and perhaps an inattention to detail,


shall we say, that for some people, it's all about the big picture.


Looking at Tony Blair for example, what were the key personality trats


that made him, in your mind, such a successful leader in terms of the


number of terms he won? I think the intellectual capacity to understand


the changes in the modern world. He had an analystical mind to focus on


the strategic questions that had to be addressed. He was well aware that


some of the decisions he took would not be agreed with, would be


upsetting to people, but also he had an understanding, and this applies


toe all leaders, to decide is to divide. That's why opposition is


easy compared to Government in. Opposition you can give the


impression you're against everything. When you're in


Government you have to take a decision. When you do that, you have


to accept that there will be people who will into the gree with you and


many people who might be upset by it. But if you do not take that


decision, there'll be no movement forward at all. That thought for the


next bit of our programme. Lucy Beresford, thank you very much. Now


back to our quiz. A slightly different one from our usual style.


The question was: According to you, which of the following is the most


likely result of the 2015 general election. A, a Labour majority, B, a


Labour/Lib Dem coalition, C, a o Conservative/Lib Dem coalition or D,


a Conservative majority. Am I supposed to have said at some time?


No, your judgment. On the facts at the moment would suggest a small


Labour victory probably the order of 40 in the latest opinion polls. It


may well be that even a minority Labour Party could form a


Government. I think the most disastrous thing would be for Labour


to anticipate and work towards a coalition with the liberals.


Strategically that would be a very bad mistakes. There are good


individuals in the liberal party, you know Vince Cable and others who


have been on your programme today. But I think that if you believe that


you should work towards a coalition, and therefore you plan for defeat,


you will bring about that defeat. Speaking to Andrew Neil in April,


you said, " Now was the time for Ed Miliband to move the party from a


voice of protest to position of party as a potential Government." Is


he getting there? The present signs are yes. I said that I thought we


had to stop saying, we're against this and start saying what we would


do. That has happened now. Ed Miliband has done. It Ed Balls has


done it. You agree with those policy announcements that have been made,


the caps on welfare spending, universal benefits for rich pension


snerz I do. And the health and social care coming toghts. Liam


Byrne saying on welfare we have to reform and relate it more closely to


the contribution that you've made over the years. Stephen Twigg twig


yesterday on building... Did you understand what's the difference


between a parent-led academy and a free school? A free school has to


have a sponsor. It has to have a significant amount of money put in


by an individual or individuals. It also is part of the local planning


process, sorry an acad my meets those qualifications. A free school


is any school that's established at the behest of a group of parents.


They have similar attributes. The key thing is that he said that some


of the freedoms that have been extended under the Labour Government


to academies and... Will be taken on? No, should be extended to state


schools. That is the length of the day, the flexibility of the


curriculum and so on. I'm all for that. So, Stephen Twigg, Andy


Burnham, Liam Byrne, Ed Miliband and Ed balds, since I recommended that


we come out with policy direction, I'm glad to say... They've taken it


on board. On that note, we'll end it. Thank you very much to our guest


of the day John Reid and all our other guests. The one o'clock news


Download Subtitles