:00:38. > :00:44.Good afternoon, welcome to the daily politics, it is almost certain that
:00:44. > :00:48.human activity is responsible for global warming says an international
:00:48. > :00:52.panel of scientist, despite temperatures barely rising for the
:00:52. > :00:57.past 15 year, can an increasingly sceptical public be persuaded?
:00:57. > :00:59.Prawns, a lettuce garnish and heaps of sauce sau, the ingredients for a
:00:59. > :01:04.Prawns, a lettuce garnish and heaps good relationship with big business,
:01:04. > :01:11.but is prawn cocktail off menu as Ed Miliband gets tough with bosses? Is
:01:11. > :01:15.our gas a electricity among the cheapest in Europe or the most
:01:15. > :01:19.expensive, we investigate whether we are really being ripped off by the
:01:19. > :01:26.energy companies. And we will look back over an eventful week at the
:01:27. > :01:31.seaside. All that in the next hour, with us
:01:31. > :01:36.for the programme are are two old hands here at Westminster, Polly
:01:36. > :01:40.Toynbee of the Guardian and mown. Welcome to the -- Michael Brown. Let
:01:40. > :01:42.us start with a story briefed to a couple of newspapers this morning,
:01:42. > :01:47.that is there are plans to make the couple of newspapers this morning,
:01:47. > :01:52.long-term unemployed do work if return for receiving Job Job Seekers
:01:52. > :01:54.Allowance, an announcement is expected to be made at the
:01:55. > :01:58.Conservative Party Conference next week, a poll suggests the policy
:01:58. > :02:02.would be overhemingly popular among voters.
:02:02. > :02:07.What do you say Polly? I am sure it will be popular. It the the sort of
:02:07. > :02:10.thing that sounds like it will make sense. It will be like the bedroom
:02:10. > :02:14.tax. You will get a turn round. The sense. It will be like the bedroom
:02:14. > :02:19.bedroom tax is unpopular, having started off popular, because if you
:02:19. > :02:23.have a large group of people, working unpaid, they are displacing
:02:23. > :02:27.other people, it turns out to be expensive. It is difficult to find
:02:27. > :02:30.them all job, and they are going to include people with serious mental
:02:30. > :02:35.problem, with serious physical problems, and I think we will get a
:02:35. > :02:38.lot of stories of people in a bad state of distress, being made to do
:02:38. > :02:42.very unsuitable work, I suspect public opinion will say we didn't
:02:42. > :02:46.mean those people, we didn't mean in that way, as ever it is one of those
:02:46. > :02:50.back of the envelope sounds great for conference policies but it won't
:02:50. > :02:54.work. Or is it is back of the enslope or is it's a progression of
:02:54. > :03:00.the welfare policies that have been set out by the Government? Yes,
:03:00. > :03:04.think it is. I think Polly is being unfair to the Government on this.
:03:04. > :03:09.There is no doubt it will get as she says, a huge cheer at the Tory party
:03:09. > :03:14.conference next yolk, I went help feeling I have heard this made by
:03:14. > :03:18.successive Governments made. You have? Whether anything will come of
:03:18. > :03:23.it, I am not sure. Polly is right, it is where you draw the line, there
:03:23. > :03:26.are people who are long-term unemployed who do have mental health
:03:26. > :03:32.problem, single parent families who are bringing up tiny children, will
:03:32. > :03:36.obviously be possibly worried about this, but I think there is no doubt
:03:36. > :03:40.that the Government is tapping into a ripped seam of public opinion.
:03:40. > :03:44.Michael Heseltine did this and he a ripped seam of public opinion.
:03:44. > :03:50.did it well. I supported it at time I think he call it Work Fair. It was
:03:50. > :03:56.popular but he paid people, he said, if you are working, you deserve to
:03:56. > :04:05.get more. They will say there is no money round. The trick is to make it
:04:05. > :04:11.an inseven sieve. That is where the Work Fair, that was based on make it
:04:11. > :04:16.pay to work. But I think, but one thing in the Government's defence is
:04:16. > :04:20.this, you do find that when benefits are withdrawn, or threatened to be
:04:20. > :04:24.withdrawn, a lot of people may well be on the black economy any way, and
:04:24. > :04:27.you do find that the number of claimants go down. Do you think
:04:27. > :04:31.there could be an incentive put into a policy like this, because you are
:04:31. > :04:35.right, people will say surely it is better to do something, than sit, I
:04:35. > :04:38.don't want to use George Osborne's analogy of sitting in the room with
:04:38. > :04:42.the blinds down, but sitting round not doing very much else. Of course
:04:42. > :04:46.it is S work experience is a good thing. It depend on whether they are
:04:46. > :04:50.doing things that are useful, and that will lead to work, and whether
:04:50. > :04:53.they are the right people who are being... But they should be
:04:53. > :04:58.reregarded. Otherwise they will, if over a long period of time, you
:04:58. > :05:03.know, you have a million people ng unpaid work, what does that do to
:05:03. > :05:07.the world of work? It it tips the balance, there are too many people
:05:07. > :05:11.working at free labour, they will displace real jobs. Do you think
:05:11. > :05:14.it's a sophisticated enough announcement, in terms of setting
:05:15. > :05:19.out what Polly is say, which is it does have to be work that could,
:05:19. > :05:23.that might lead to a job at the end of it, bear in mind the long-term
:05:23. > :05:27.unemployed is two years, out of work, that it would lead to
:05:27. > :05:30.something. It isn't just slave labour as some would call it. I hope
:05:30. > :05:32.something. It isn't just slave the Government when it makes an
:05:32. > :05:37.announcement like this as a party conference, it is just the headline,
:05:37. > :05:42.it will get the crowd pleasing delegates on their feet. I do hope
:05:42. > :05:52.that behind it there has been some work done. Wouldn't count on it!
:05:52. > :05:56.Sometimes Government make announce and we nev hear about them
:05:56. > :06:01.thereafter. Who knows where it will go. It might well be something that
:06:01. > :06:03.the Government will announce as something that could be fleshed
:06:04. > :06:08.fourth the next manifesto. There is no doubt that the general public are
:06:08. > :06:13.on the Government's side on this. Thank you. Scientists are on the
:06:13. > :06:16.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have today published the
:06:16. > :06:19.first part of their fifth assessment report, setting out the current
:06:19. > :06:21.state of scientific knowledge about climate change. The panel's fourth
:06:21. > :06:26.state of scientific knowledge about report which came out in 2007 was
:06:26. > :06:31.undermined by incorrect projection, about how quickly glaciers were
:06:31. > :06:36.melt, and controversy over the apparent exclusion of scientists who
:06:36. > :06:40.challenge the mainstream consensus. But the IPCC insists it has learned
:06:40. > :06:43.lessons. Scientists are more confident than
:06:43. > :06:48.ever that climate change is happening, and that people are
:06:48. > :06:53.largely to blame. They say there is a 95% chance that human activity is
:06:53. > :06:56.responsible for more than half of the observed changes since the
:06:56. > :07:02.1950s. The culprit St the emission of
:07:02. > :07:07.greenhouse gas. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is
:07:07. > :07:10.40 hers higher than in the preindustrial era. The report says
:07:10. > :07:13.that global surface temperatures will increase by the end of this
:07:13. > :07:18.century. On almost all scenarios, the average
:07:18. > :07:23.century. temperature will rise by more than
:07:23. > :07:28.1.5 degrees centigrade relative to the period 1850-1900. If emissions
:07:28. > :07:33.continue as a high rate that is likely to exceed 2 degrees. However,
:07:33. > :07:37.the expected range of temperature increase this century is lower than
:07:37. > :07:44.in the previous report. The IPCC now suggests it will be
:07:44. > :07:49.between 0.3, and 4.8 degrees. That compares with a range of
:07:49. > :07:56.1.1-6.4 degrees in the fourth assessment. This shift follows an
:07:56. > :08:02.observed and unpredicted hiatus in at fer Mick warming since the 90s.
:08:02. > :08:07.It could be that more excess energy is being absorbed by the ocean, and
:08:07. > :08:12.on sea-level rise the IPCC is more pessimistic than before. The report
:08:12. > :08:16.says they will go up between 26 centimetres and 82 centimetres by
:08:16. > :08:19.the turn of the century. A hiring range than previously
:08:19. > :08:25.thought. Well, with us now is the
:08:25. > :08:28.Conservative peer Matt Ridley and the climate change minister Greg
:08:28. > :08:31.Barker. Welcome to the programme. Matt Ridley. Scientists are more
:08:31. > :08:35.certain than ever about climate change, we have to act to limit the
:08:35. > :08:39.effects? What this report is saying is that both extremes were wrong.
:08:39. > :08:41.People who say it is not happening are clearly wrong but people who say
:08:42. > :08:47.we are in for calf frof is wrong. It are clearly wrong but people who say
:08:47. > :08:52.has lower the range of likely projections, to about one to 2.5
:08:52. > :08:57.degrees over this century, most of which will be beneficial. It will be
:08:57. > :09:01.70 years before we see any harm from climate change, and we are seeing a
:09:01. > :09:05.lots of harm from climate policy, so I think, the models have clearly got
:09:05. > :09:10.things wrong over the last 20, 30 year, they didn't predict this
:09:10. > :09:12.pause, or that climate change would be as slow as it has, and they have
:09:12. > :09:15.to be revisited. You do accept that climate change is
:09:15. > :09:20.happening, and they are pretty certain humans are to blame? What
:09:20. > :09:24.they say is that more than half of the climate change since 1950 is
:09:24. > :09:30.man-made, and I think virtually everybody I know on the sceptical
:09:30. > :09:34.side as well as on the alarmist side accepts that. I do and have all
:09:34. > :09:39.along. Enyou say climate change policies are doing more harm, are
:09:39. > :09:43.you saying it is better to live with the consequences of climate change
:09:43. > :09:48.than to take policies that will do something to mitigate them? The
:09:48. > :09:53.consensus view is up to 2 degrees you don't see net harm to the
:09:53. > :09:58.economy or the ecology, because you get longer growing season, you get
:09:58. > :10:04.fewer winter death, more precipitation so it isn't going to
:10:04. > :10:08.come into play until our great grandchildren. It is worth taking
:10:08. > :10:11.the policies before harm occurs, what do you say Polly, because they
:10:11. > :10:14.have been wrong and the rate of temperature increase is not as fast
:10:14. > :10:18.as they did first think it was going to be, is it worth taking action is
:10:18. > :10:22.now It is a small change, they have sightly changed the range, but I
:10:22. > :10:26.mean the catastrophic is the main, you know, is the main part of it,
:10:26. > :10:30.and what they are predicting. It could be less or more, 70 years is a
:10:30. > :10:33.short time. I have young grandchildren, that is not very
:10:33. > :10:37.long. If you look at what they are projecting for Britain, if the Gulf
:10:37. > :10:42.Stream moves away, instead of being a temperate moderate climate, we
:10:42. > :10:45.could be cold, we could be sublingt subjected, the idea ewe will have a
:10:45. > :10:48.longer growing season, that is not for Britain, not if the Gulf Stream
:10:48. > :10:50.longer growing season, that is not moves, which it may. When you look
:10:50. > :10:54.longer growing season, that is not at risk you were a chairman of a
:10:54. > :10:58.company, Northern Rock, you looked at risk, you took the little bit
:10:58. > :11:03.that said there was no risk and did nothing about the enormous bit that
:11:03. > :11:06.said there was. That is shot to the way the look at this. To spend more
:11:06. > :11:11.on becoming self-sufficient on energy is not a huge price to pay,
:11:11. > :11:14.to counter the very large enormous and more convincing risk of
:11:14. > :11:19.something catastrophic. I don't know about you and risk assessment, but
:11:19. > :11:24.so far your record has not been great. Are you complacent. What the
:11:24. > :11:28.financial crisis teach us is we should not follow financial models
:11:28. > :11:31.blindly. That is what happens in the financial crisis, everybody was
:11:32. > :11:35.following the models rather than really. -- reality. We find the
:11:35. > :11:41.models are wrong and they have been wrong for 20 years: You were taking
:11:41. > :11:47.your owned a vice. As for the crisis, the cost of these policy, we
:11:47. > :11:52.are doubling people's energy bills, we are killing 200,000 people a year
:11:52. > :11:57.by raising food price, the policies are not without enormous pain to the
:11:57. > :12:01.here and now. Nothing like the proportion of pain that is predicted
:12:01. > :12:05.by the majority of scientists as being 95% likely. That is not true.
:12:05. > :12:10.The 95%, remember, is about the fact that there has been more than half
:12:10. > :12:19.of the warming since 1950, that was caused by mankind.
:12:19. > :12:23.It is a very small probability of catastrophe. If you read the report
:12:24. > :12:27.it says the amount of snow and ice as demiles an houred and ocean
:12:27. > :12:30.warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system,
:12:30. > :12:34.that is where a lot of the climate change is being absorbed, you are
:12:34. > :12:39.storing up massive problems for the future. That is not the case... They
:12:39. > :12:44.are saying that is the case in terms of the sea-levels and the oceans are
:12:44. > :12:48.warming, Sea-level is rising 3 millimetres a year, there is no
:12:48. > :12:54.acceleration. That is a foot per century. They project a foot to two
:12:54. > :13:00.feet. The risk is remote. Very very few scientists they the Gulf Stream
:13:00. > :13:04.is likely to move. Can I bring Greg Barker in, because you are just
:13:04. > :13:08.costing the population with policies that aren't necessary according to
:13:08. > :13:11.Matt. Let us be clear about one thing you said about Northern Rock.
:13:11. > :13:14.It wasn't us who were responsible, it was the chairman and the
:13:14. > :13:18.directors the of Northern Rock and the failed banks who were
:13:18. > :13:24.responsible. But we are talking about people who have a clear view
:13:24. > :13:29.on how you react to risk and how you manage risk in the face of evidence
:13:29. > :13:35.and expert advice, I think that is clearly relevant, but what we have
:13:35. > :13:40.to do is take seriously that 259 of the world's ing climate scientist
:13:40. > :13:44.from 39 different nation, from the most respected institution, have a
:13:44. > :13:48.very clear message that climate change is very real, that human
:13:48. > :13:50.activity is in large part responsible for it, unless we change
:13:50. > :13:57.activity is in large part our way, we will see not just
:13:57. > :14:02.warming, but extreme weather events, heat wave, rising sea-level, melting
:14:02. > :14:05.glaciers they will have a massive effect on people. Even if, I want
:14:05. > :14:09.you to answer that point directly and particularly when you said there
:14:09. > :14:14.could be advantages at the moment in terms of your example of the longer
:14:14. > :14:18.growing season, but not for -- parts of the world. There is plenty of
:14:18. > :14:22.calculation by leading sin tis, here is another report which I think I
:14:22. > :14:27.the minister should reed. 47 leading sin tests are written it. It comes
:14:27. > :14:32.to the opposite conclusion, it is launched today also. 47 important
:14:32. > :14:36.scientists have launched it. Can I finish the point. In terms of things
:14:36. > :14:40.like sea-level rise and so on, we are seeing effects of warming, of
:14:40. > :14:45.course we are, nobody is is denying that, the question is are we seeing
:14:45. > :14:51.an acceleration to SATS frof and no. We have seen a slow down, that has
:14:51. > :14:58.been acknowledged by the IPCC. They have cut back their model, they are
:14:58. > :15:04.saying climate Rons is 1-2 upon.5 degrees. That produces net benefits.
:15:04. > :15:08.Not in a small island state where we are front sea rise. Respond to this,
:15:08. > :15:10.it is the crux of the matter, isn't it, there is an agreement that
:15:10. > :15:18.it is the crux of the matter, isn't climate change is happening... And
:15:18. > :15:22.that. Sceptics are moving to the fact that gradually there is an
:15:22. > :15:27.increasingly solid consensus, this isn't a fantasy, it is real. The
:15:27. > :15:35.question is, how we respond to it. That is... It is milder than it was.
:15:35. > :15:40.Don't talk over each other. Anything over two degrees is dangerous, and
:15:40. > :15:45.we have to manage that. It will impact not just us but people in
:15:45. > :15:48.Africa, Asia, and that all has knock on vents -- effects on us on the
:15:48. > :15:53.economy, migration, it's a real danger. I am going to, I will let
:15:53. > :15:57.you, I am going to bring in Polly Toynbee to say the problem is to
:15:57. > :15:59.some extent there has been a loss of cred bility because of some of the
:15:59. > :16:03.some extent there has been a loss of things that happened ahead of the
:16:03. > :16:12.last report, and the public is generally sceptical. Yes, one group
:16:12. > :16:18.of scientists were caught behaving badly, but it remains the case that
:16:18. > :16:24.the weight of scientific opinion... They could be wrong and the sun
:16:24. > :16:29.might not rise tomorrow. But on the whole, anybody looking at risks,
:16:29. > :16:35.anybody in charge, as you are, of this area of policy, has to look at
:16:35. > :16:38.probability. On the other hand, we say, why shouldn't we become
:16:38. > :16:42.self-sufficient in energy anyway? That would be a good thing. Most of
:16:43. > :16:49.the sceptics like yourself are actually investors in the old carbon
:16:49. > :16:54.fuels. Aid Davey says people are being misinformed by people with
:16:54. > :16:57.vested interests. They are blocking climate change policies. Well, there
:16:57. > :17:05.are people with vested interests in renewable energy as well. But is
:17:05. > :17:09.that the recent? There are people with vested interests on all sides.
:17:09. > :17:20.I have actually been banging the drum for shale gas -- coal, and
:17:20. > :17:25.Charlotte -- shale gas is a bigger threat to that. But the government
:17:25. > :17:30.does not speak with a unified voice on the subject. George Osborne said
:17:30. > :17:34.he does not want Britain to go faster than other countries in
:17:34. > :17:38.cutting emissions. John Hayes was opposed as energy minister to wind
:17:38. > :17:40.farms. Owen Paterson, the climate change minister, says the measures
:17:40. > :17:48.taken to combat climate change may change minister, says the measures
:17:48. > :17:53.cause more damage than they prevent. We have taken radical steps that the
:17:53. > :17:58.first green investment bank that is capitalising private sector
:17:59. > :18:04.investment into green growth sectors across the economy, if you look at
:18:05. > :18:11.the Greendale -- green reforms of the energy markets, we now have the
:18:11. > :18:14.world's largest offshore industry. So were you crossed with those
:18:14. > :18:20.ministers when they spoke against pushing faster with green policies?
:18:20. > :18:23.Well, we have got a record. We don't need to talk about what we are going
:18:24. > :18:28.to do . We have a record of solid action, and we need other countries
:18:28. > :18:33.to catch up with Britain. We have international leadership on this. We
:18:33. > :18:36.need the rest of the world to pick up the pace. Has David Cameron
:18:36. > :18:43.really had the greenest government ever? I hope not. The problem the
:18:43. > :18:48.government has got in my view is that there is a danger that climate
:18:48. > :18:51.change policies may be doing as much damage to British industry as
:18:51. > :18:58.climate change. What is the evidence for it? When you put additional
:18:58. > :19:03.costs on industry, I used to represent a steel company, and all
:19:03. > :19:09.the time that you add to the costs of industry like the steel industry,
:19:09. > :19:13.you export jobs to the third World. And all the time that you are
:19:13. > :19:17.dealing with climate change in this country, I don't know what
:19:17. > :19:20.percentage of greenhouse gases Britain is responsible for, but
:19:20. > :19:26.compared to Indonesia, China, India and the United States, until we
:19:26. > :19:30.start making sure that those countries owed by the kind of rules
:19:30. > :19:38.we have to obey, steel jobs go to Indonesia. The current most
:19:38. > :19:44.successful manufacturing sector in Europe is Germany, and they have the
:19:44. > :19:49.highest level of renewable energy. Last year, the CBI tells us that the
:19:49. > :19:52.low carbon goods and services sector accounted for a third of all growth
:19:52. > :19:57.in the economy and was our biggest export. I take your point on Germany
:19:57. > :20:03.will stop my family, apart from me, export. I take your point on Germany
:20:03. > :20:09.live there. But my sister says that since Angela Merkel closed down the
:20:09. > :20:14.power plants, they are importing their nuclear power and Germany is
:20:14. > :20:20.building coal plants. They have much more renewable energy than we do.
:20:20. > :20:23.They are crucifying themselves on the cost of energy. If you don't
:20:23. > :20:26.think energy costs are important, look at what is happening in
:20:26. > :20:31.America, where, by going for shale gas, they have cut the cost of
:20:31. > :20:36.energy. That is causing manufacturing industries to move to
:20:36. > :20:43.America wholesale from this country. I was at a fracking site in Virginia
:20:43. > :20:48.yesterday. That is something -- somewhere where a global move to gas
:20:48. > :20:53.is a good thing. The worst problem this government has is tied up with
:20:53. > :20:57.what Ed Miliband said in his speech the other day. The public perceives
:20:57. > :21:02.policies to deal with climate change as putting up their bills, and if we
:21:02. > :21:06.don't carry the public with us on the cost of energy, we used the
:21:06. > :21:14.argument. B the average family Bill is far too high. Last year, it cost
:21:14. > :21:19.£9 to support onshore wind. £9 out of £1300, the average bill. We have
:21:19. > :21:23.to be realistic in analysing what is driving up the cost of family
:21:23. > :21:30.bills. Overwhelmingly, it is not government policy, it is the cost of
:21:30. > :21:36.fossil fuels. What would it take to change your mind? Evidence. I have
:21:36. > :21:45.always been driven by empirical data. Very selective data. Body five
:21:45. > :21:51.years ago, when I was an economist, I was convinced that this was a
:21:51. > :21:52.dangerous thing. The more I looked into it, the dodgier the data
:21:53. > :21:58.looked. The wealth of data that into it, the dodgier the data
:21:58. > :22:02.comes out today says that climate change has happened, which we all
:22:02. > :22:09.accept, and that we are in for a mild warning for the next -- a mild
:22:09. > :22:13.warming for the next 70 years. All the public has seen for the last few
:22:13. > :22:20.years is Italy cold winters. What can be done to convince people more
:22:20. > :22:25.that it is worth paying something now in the way that Greg Barker has
:22:25. > :22:30.set out, to avoid the arguable -- arguable catastrophe of the future?
:22:30. > :22:33.When people realised the risk with the Gulf stream, that we will not be
:22:33. > :22:39.growing olive trees in this country, I think people are
:22:39. > :22:42.beginning to see far more dramatic weather systems around the world and
:22:42. > :22:50.they are taking that on board. There is no evidence for that, Polly. Your
:22:50. > :22:55.idea of evidence is the 5% of the 95% of world scientists who say one
:22:55. > :23:01.thing. You were just quoting a minority view on Gulf Stream 's. But
:23:01. > :23:06.if one is in charge, as you work, of a large company, you have to look at
:23:06. > :23:09.the risk of fraud probability. The probability is not certain that the
:23:09. > :23:13.world scientists are right, in which case you have to try and mitigate
:23:13. > :23:19.what might be an absolute catastrophe will stop not certain,
:23:19. > :23:25.but might be. Let's take it in pure figures terms. There are more
:23:26. > :23:31.scientists who are warning about catastrophe than there are
:23:31. > :23:40.scientists who aren't. You don't know that for sure. Seriously. The
:23:40. > :23:45.95% are people who say that climate change is affected by humans. I am
:23:45. > :23:51.one of them. Then what is your problem? I have sat around a table
:23:51. > :23:56.with all the other countries from Russia to the USA, China and Japan,
:23:56. > :24:03.all agreed that climate change was real and happening. So do I. Agreed.
:24:03. > :24:11.And we need to come up with an effective response. Every major
:24:11. > :24:13.economy. I have to finish it there. Now, the centrepiece of Ed
:24:13. > :24:16.Miliband's conference speech on Now, the centrepiece of Ed
:24:16. > :24:19.Wednesday was of course that pledge that an incoming Labour government
:24:19. > :24:24.would freeze energy prices until the end of 2017. But if you were
:24:24. > :24:28.watching Wednesday's programme, and I hope you were, you might have
:24:28. > :24:33.heard Andrew asked this question of labour's Stephen Twigg. If the
:24:33. > :24:37.energy market in Britain is as dysfunctional as your parties claim
:24:37. > :24:41.yet to be, why does Britain have some of the lowest gas and
:24:41. > :24:46.electricity prices in Europe? Now, Andrew's question was based on
:24:46. > :24:52.figures from Ofgem, as you can see on this graph of domestic gas
:24:52. > :24:55.prices. Britain's is almost the cheapest, but a viewer wrote in to
:24:55. > :24:57.save this comparison is misleading. He says the final price consumers
:24:57. > :25:01.pay includes government taxes, which He says the final price consumers
:25:01. > :25:06.he says makes up almost half of the final energy price in some
:25:06. > :25:07.countries. He claims that if you look at the cost without government
:25:07. > :25:12.taxes, UK prices don't look as look at the cost without government
:25:12. > :25:18.competitive. So what is the truth? Professor Jim Watson is from the UK
:25:18. > :25:22.energy research Centre. Have we got cheap gas and electricity, or
:25:22. > :25:27.haven't we 's we have if you look at most of the comparisons. You have
:25:28. > :25:31.quoted Ofgem's figures, and European figures show we are towards the
:25:31. > :25:35.bottom end of the range, but your viewer is right that in some
:25:35. > :25:47.countries, the proportion of tax is much lower than here. Here, we have
:25:47. > :25:51.5% VAT. So when we are comparing prices, you have got to compare like
:25:51. > :25:55.with like. If we look at other countries in Europe, should we use
:25:55. > :26:00.the end price to the consumer, which includes taxes, or not? You should
:26:00. > :26:03.include, but it is important to break down the bill and make the
:26:04. > :26:07.comparison knowing what the constituents of the bill are. How
:26:07. > :26:11.much is coming from the cost of wholesale energy, how much is coming
:26:11. > :26:16.from the wires and pipes, how much is billing and how much is taxation?
:26:16. > :26:20.Countries take very different approaches, and they are all at
:26:20. > :26:24.different places. In the UK, we are about to go into a major investment
:26:24. > :26:28.phase. Other countries may not be in that place will stop as long as we
:26:28. > :26:32.have transparency of what makes up the bills, you can discuss whether
:26:32. > :26:37.the UK is competitive will stop so it is not worthwhile to compare
:26:37. > :26:41.pre-tax costs between countries? Well, the geography matters, so if
:26:41. > :26:45.you did that, you would have to compare Norway, which has a lot of
:26:45. > :26:49.hydro, and those stations were built along time ago, so they are not
:26:49. > :26:53.paying those costs of any more, compared to a country like the UK
:26:53. > :26:56.were recently, we have built a lot of gas-fired power stations. You
:26:56. > :27:02.would have to take account of those differences. The reason for doing
:27:02. > :27:06.this, of course, is to find out whether our prices are competitive.
:27:06. > :27:12.Are we being ripped off, in other words. How do you do that most
:27:12. > :27:14.effectively? Analysing them in comparison with other countries is a
:27:14. > :27:20.good start. Many countries are exposed to very similar prices. The
:27:20. > :27:27.gas prices that feed through into our bills are regional. Coal prices
:27:27. > :27:32.are similar, and so on. But you have to take into account particular
:27:32. > :27:36.circumstances so regulators and the government have to look at how
:27:36. > :27:40.competitive the market is and look at the difference between the costs
:27:40. > :27:42.of the energy that our energy companies by on the world markets,
:27:42. > :27:46.of the energy that our energy and what happens to the final bill.
:27:46. > :27:48.Recently, the costs of the bill have been going up much faster than the
:27:48. > :27:53.Recently, the costs of the bill have costs of the energy going in. I
:27:53. > :27:57.looked at a breakdown of the bill on Wednesday, and there are lots of
:27:57. > :28:03.different things in there over and above what you pay for your energy.
:28:03. > :28:08.There are. There are distribution network costs, there are the costs
:28:08. > :28:12.of the people who bill you, and then there are the taxes. You have to
:28:12. > :28:16.disentangle a lot. But there is a case for looking at the UK market,
:28:16. > :28:20.because we have these big six companies, and I think the market is
:28:20. > :28:24.not working as well as it could. It is hard for newer companies to come
:28:24. > :28:28.in and start competing when the market is not transparent. That
:28:28. > :28:32.compared to other countries in Europe, it is much more competitive
:28:32. > :28:36.than countries where you sometimes have only one state owned provider.
:28:36. > :28:44.There, it is even harder to see if you are getting value for money.
:28:44. > :28:46.Like France? Yes, their provider is a player in the UK as well and it is
:28:46. > :28:50.mainly owned by the French state and a player in the UK as well and it is
:28:50. > :28:55.they are dominant. In that situation, which the UK used to have
:28:55. > :29:00.before the 1990s, it is difficult for a regulator to know what is
:29:00. > :29:03.going on inside their accounting, because there is no competition.
:29:04. > :29:09.Michael Brown, we are not being ripped off, are we? Well, I don't
:29:09. > :29:13.think the consumer sees it that way. The consumer says, here is the price
:29:13. > :29:18.when a particular government came into power. The Labour Party are
:29:18. > :29:21.quoting that it was about £1000 three and a half years ago and it is
:29:21. > :29:25.quoting that it was about £1000 now more. So the voter looks at a
:29:25. > :29:30.bill on year and on the following year, and when there is a spike in
:29:30. > :29:35.price, the energy company has put the bills up. When the price comes
:29:35. > :29:41.down, there is no reduction. The voter simply sees a bill from last
:29:41. > :29:45.year and this year. And they have gone up. Polly, when you look at
:29:45. > :29:51.those comparisons and you have the bare fact in front of you, it does
:29:51. > :29:57.not seem as bad. But is it worth looking at other countries when we
:29:57. > :30:03.know that bills keep going up? Gulf You have a dysfunctional market,
:30:03. > :30:07.where 98% is by six big company, it is also practically impossible and
:30:07. > :30:10.Ofgem hasn't done this well to analyse what they are doing and
:30:10. > :30:14.where their profits are coming from. They are making £4 billion a year
:30:14. > :30:20.profit, while prices have been going up 9% a year. Now, they generate the
:30:20. > :30:24.electricity horizontal, they generate it, sell it to
:30:24. > :30:29.themselves... That is the problem for new suppliers. That is why you
:30:29. > :30:36.need to brake it up. The idea what Ed Miliband is suggesting is some
:30:36. > :30:40.kind of socialism, he is going the other way, we need to fragment it
:30:40. > :30:46.more to have more effective competition. A lot of the utilities
:30:46. > :30:50.were sold very badly, in Margaret Thatcher's day and left these very
:30:50. > :30:52.big companies, we need more smaller ones.
:30:52. > :30:57.Thank you. Now what do you, what you get, you
:30:57. > :31:01.Thank you. take prawn, Marie Rose sauce,
:31:01. > :31:06.lettuce, a political party and an extra helping of schmooze, I am
:31:06. > :31:12.talking of the prawn cocktail offensive. Made famous by Labour in
:31:12. > :31:15.the '90s. It was a strategy, orchestrated by former Labour leader
:31:15. > :31:19.John Smith who was mocked in the media, for cosying up to big
:31:19. > :31:23.business in opposition. But although it was derided by journalists and
:31:23. > :31:28.the Tory, the plan to improve relations with business seemed to
:31:28. > :31:32.work. So much so, that by the time Tony Blair became Prime Minister in
:31:32. > :31:37.1997, Labour had wooed bosses to such an extent that they were able
:31:38. > :31:40.to introduce a windfall tax on the privatised utilities without
:31:40. > :31:43.ruffling too many feathers. But after a week in which business
:31:43. > :31:47.organisations have queued up to criticise the party, it could take
:31:47. > :31:52.more than a few of these and here we r we have four beautifully presented
:31:52. > :31:59.prawn cocktail. There is no cutlery, so you have, I will spill it. You
:31:59. > :32:03.can look at them and imagine, go back in Labour's time, a few year,
:32:03. > :32:07.any way few of these to get business back on side. Does it matter? We are
:32:07. > :32:10.joined from Hull by the former chairman of Northern Foods Lord
:32:10. > :32:16.Haskins, ho was a Labour peer but sits in the Lords as a
:32:16. > :32:21.cross-bencher. Welcome to the programme. Whied did Labour make
:32:21. > :32:24.such huge efforts to get business on side? They had a record of not
:32:24. > :32:27.having good relations with business for many years before, particularly
:32:27. > :32:33.with the price controls and all the stuff that went on in the 70s under
:32:33. > :32:38.my friend Roy hattersly, it was clear the good will of business is
:32:38. > :32:43.good for assurance in the Stock Markets, and that was what we set
:32:43. > :32:48.out to achieve and did. Is it different now? Is it as nose have
:32:48. > :32:52.big business on side? I think so. One of the problems in those days is
:32:52. > :32:56.both sides have lost public credibility. The politicians have
:32:56. > :33:00.lot lost a bit and business has because of the salaries, and the
:33:00. > :33:05.banks and that sort of stuff. It still means that business is
:33:05. > :33:08.critical to the running of the economy, probably more so, and
:33:08. > :33:12.therefore, you may not like what is going on, but you jolly well work
:33:12. > :33:16.with them and live with them. What to you Mick of Ed Miliband's
:33:16. > :33:22.announcement this week, to freeze energy prices for two months The
:33:22. > :33:27.decision itself is a flawed one, because price freezes, in my view,
:33:27. > :33:29.never work, they have unintended consequence, for example, I am here
:33:29. > :33:33.never work, they have unintended in the hum berks we are trying to
:33:33. > :33:38.coke -- Humber, we are trying to coax energy companies to come here
:33:38. > :33:43.and invest. If those companies feel that the government is going to play
:33:43. > :33:46.round with markets, in the way this appears to be happening, and in the
:33:46. > :33:50.way politicians have done over the whole energy policy generally,
:33:50. > :33:54.people get reluctant to invest. We must get some degree of certainty, a
:33:54. > :33:57.lot of the problems you have mentioned should be dealt with by
:33:57. > :34:01.either the regulator, or the monopolies commission, a price
:34:01. > :34:07.freeze won't help resolve either of the problems mentioned. Stay with
:34:07. > :34:12.us, but that is the problem, you could have the price freeze for 20
:34:12. > :34:15.months after after that you are in the same situation as before? They
:34:15. > :34:21.say it's a temporary freeze, they are not saying it's a perm innocent
:34:21. > :34:23.price control mechanism. It is temporary while they discombobulate
:34:23. > :34:27.the companies and force them to temporary while they discombobulate
:34:27. > :34:31.create a better market, allowing others to come in, then they let the
:34:31. > :34:35.competition and market rip, hoping you have a healthier one, I think
:34:35. > :34:40.that is not a bad strategy. If they were going to be announcing
:34:40. > :34:43.permanent price controls but Ofgem has their eye on them and the energy
:34:43. > :34:52.market has worked with some understanding, they have bidding to
:34:52. > :34:55.get from 2030 to 200040 price fixed, so prices in the energy market and
:34:55. > :35:02.the government, that sort of trilateral agreement is going to be
:35:02. > :35:07.there. Is the Labour Party looking anti-business? A little bit. I think
:35:07. > :35:10.there is no doubt about that. You could argue that the Blair
:35:10. > :35:15.government cosied up to business rather too much, and rather admired
:35:15. > :35:20.some of the shortcomings of business which we now disapprove of. I think
:35:20. > :35:25.the Labour Party has to be very careful that it doesn't appear to be
:35:25. > :35:29.having a go just for the sake of it, because of issues which are nothing
:35:29. > :35:33.to do with energy, the fact that business people are considered to be
:35:33. > :35:35.fat cats, I am sure they are, that shouldn't be a reason for having an
:35:36. > :35:40.fat cats, I am sure they are, that energy freeze, if as Polly says
:35:40. > :35:43.there is going to be a new policy, I don't see how an energy freeze is
:35:43. > :35:47.going to help make that policy. That will take several years to develop,
:35:47. > :35:52.if we have one. In the meanwhile, I don't want all the potential invest
:35:52. > :35:56.Norse my part of the world -- investors in my part of the world
:35:56. > :35:58.waiting for what will come out. What do you think will be the
:35:58. > :36:03.consequences for your region, do you think that Ed Miliband is at risk of
:36:03. > :36:04.undoing much of the good work as you see et, that Labour had done with
:36:05. > :36:11.undoing much of the good work as you business, even if they cosiesed --
:36:11. > :36:15.cosied up too much? I hope not. I talk to a lot of the Labour MPs and
:36:15. > :36:21.I think they understand the importance of working with big
:36:21. > :36:25.investors, but these signs don't look very good. They are populist
:36:25. > :36:29.investors, but these signs don't and I think probably business
:36:29. > :36:32.dismiss them as being satisfying the party member, rather than actually
:36:32. > :36:37.dealing with the fundamental issues of the economy. What do you think,
:36:37. > :36:42.ho the Tories going to respond to in in whatever your view is, about the
:36:42. > :36:46.price freeze and the so-called land grab he proposed for developers who
:36:46. > :36:50.don't start building when they own grab he proposed for developers who
:36:50. > :36:55.the land, what will the Tories say about the risk of looking as if they
:36:55. > :37:02.are on the side of big business invested interests. I suspect if
:37:02. > :37:06.there are price rises, the first thing that any Government Energy
:37:06. > :37:11.Minister will say, Greg Barker or any of his colleagues will say this
:37:11. > :37:15.is the energy company's preparing for a Labour government. While we
:37:15. > :37:19.would love to do something about that we can't. You have a Fays of
:37:19. > :37:26.seeing there is going to be a spike in energy price before the
:37:26. > :37:30.glenningion, but in general terms, I think that while technically
:37:30. > :37:33.everything that Lord Haskins has said, I completely agree with, I
:37:33. > :37:38.have a suspicion when it comes to the ordinary voter, not just Labour
:37:38. > :37:43.voters, Tory midlet class, the squeezed middle that Ed Miliband is
:37:43. > :37:48.after, I suspect that he is on the side of the Angel, where Tony Blair
:37:48. > :37:53.and Peter Mandelson are at ing ing Ed Miliband. I suspect he won't have
:37:53. > :37:57.sleepless nights, in the eyes of the voter there's is a trawl of votes to
:37:57. > :38:01.be Garnered because of the banks and everything that has happened. Let me
:38:01. > :38:07.put that to Lord Haskins. That is what Ed Miliband and his crowd are
:38:07. > :38:12.banking on, isn't it. Yes, but responding successfully to populist
:38:12. > :38:18.opinion, anybody can do that. But it is about whose side is are you on?
:38:18. > :38:22.That is the divide Ed Miliband is trying to create, and, you know,
:38:22. > :38:26.maybe Michael Brown is right. It won't just be populist but people
:38:26. > :38:31.will think there is a battle going on. Clearly there is a division,
:38:31. > :38:35.public opinion has a low regard for business, but political leaders, I
:38:35. > :38:41.know they have to get votes but they have to take account of the broader
:38:42. > :38:45.economy, and the broader economy requires long-term planning,
:38:45. > :38:50.understanding of the problems and not knee-jerk re ing is --
:38:50. > :38:53.reactions. ? You have the British chambers of commerce and the
:38:53. > :38:58.Confederation of British Industry united in their criticism and fury
:38:58. > :39:03.at most of the announcement, because I spoke to them, that Ed Miliband
:39:03. > :39:06.made. That is not good. Those are Conservative run organisations and
:39:06. > :39:10.they always are. But the interesting thing is when you refer pack to 97
:39:10. > :39:13.they always are. But the interesting big business came round not because
:39:13. > :39:17.of the prawn cocktail, they saw this was going to be the Government. It
:39:17. > :39:18.was chicken and egg the other way round, so they deal with Governments
:39:18. > :39:21.when they think they are going to round, so they deal with Governments
:39:21. > :39:26.take over, the other important thing to say is business has changed a
:39:26. > :39:31.great deal since then and perception of it big manufacturing, that is all
:39:31. > :39:35.on one side. The big global economies that have been ripping off
:39:35. > :39:39.the tax system. Ed Miliband has carefully said, you know, there is
:39:39. > :39:43.onening about the large global corporations who are often not
:39:43. > :39:47.paying, you know, their taxes, versus small business, Federation of
:39:47. > :39:50.Small Business support the idea, that small business, who actually
:39:50. > :39:54.employ many more people than the big corporation, and I do think there
:39:54. > :39:59.has been a shift in attitude, what do we do about very large companies
:39:59. > :40:04.that take over large parts of this country, and have no accountability
:40:04. > :40:10.to the Government, to the taxpayer, to the citizens or anyone else. I
:40:10. > :40:14.agree with that and something has to be done, but knee-jerk reaction to
:40:14. > :40:20.this aren't going to bring them into line. All they will do is put up
:40:20. > :40:25.people's defences and we end one a polarisation of attitudes on an
:40:25. > :40:32.issue which is of great public concern for all involved. Labour
:40:32. > :40:38.can't afford to alienate them for a reason. Labour is broke, can you
:40:38. > :40:44.tell meme any CEO that is about to drop a couple of million into the
:40:44. > :40:48.Labour Party coffers. There used to be lots and maybe some will come
:40:48. > :40:53.back. I think it is chicken and egg, when people see, if Labour continues
:40:53. > :40:57.to do well and be ahead in the polls and it looks as if they are going to
:40:57. > :41:02.win, but money is less important these day, the election campaign is
:41:02. > :41:06.much more about the TV camp, the TV debates and campaigns than it is
:41:06. > :41:11.about big posters so Labour will have less money: I think it is true
:41:11. > :41:14.if it is obvious, it isn't at the moment, if it is obvious that Ed
:41:15. > :41:19.Miliband is going to be the next Prime Minister, as it was obvious
:41:19. > :41:23.two or three years before I lost my seat in 1997 in humper side, I do
:41:23. > :41:28.think that the money follows the party into Government. I don't think
:41:28. > :41:32.that Ed Miliband should have sleepless nights at the moment about
:41:32. > :41:37.the fact he he has ruffled the feathers in the energy industry.? He
:41:38. > :41:43.is going to reroom to. It Maybe it will be matter less an. He may not
:41:43. > :41:50.have enough money to get his tube fare in. It will be expensive. Tony
:41:50. > :41:52.Blair would have won the 1997 election without spending anybody's
:41:52. > :41:58.money. Thank you for joining us today.
:41:58. > :42:00.The National Association of Probation Officers announced
:42:00. > :42:04.yesterday that they are going to ballot for industrial action oaf the
:42:04. > :42:07.Justice Secretary's plans to allow charities and private companies to
:42:07. > :42:10.carry out some of their work with payment by results. The Ministry of
:42:10. > :42:11.carry out some of their work with Justice say the reforms
:42:11. > :42:15.carry out some of their work with necessary to break a cycle of
:42:15. > :42:18.offending, particularly of those reloosed after a sentence of less
:42:18. > :42:23.than a year. Giles has been looking at how the changes will work.
:42:23. > :42:26.Chris Grayling is determined to changes how prisoner, particularly
:42:26. > :42:30.those sentenced to under a year are dealt with when they leave prison.
:42:31. > :42:35.He wants to shake-up probation, allow voluntary group, charities and
:42:35. > :42:39.private companies to operate as probation supervisors an mentor,
:42:39. > :42:46.paying them if reoffending is reduced. Important aims given over
:42:46. > :42:51.50% those sentenced for under a year go on the refend costing the economy
:42:51. > :42:57.£13 billion annually. The Probation Service think it is untested,
:42:57. > :43:01.unproven, threatens public safety and is being forced through too fast
:43:01. > :43:04.People won't take responsibilties and often serious further offences
:43:04. > :43:08.and serious harm cases come from that group of offender, that group
:43:08. > :43:11.of clients, we believe that will increase the risk to community
:43:11. > :43:14.safety and that is paramount on the increase the risk to community
:43:14. > :43:18.campaign of resistance to what Chris Grayling is saying. The charity the
:43:18. > :43:24.St Giles Trust works with 16,000 people a year in communities and
:43:24. > :43:27.prisons. They see some of the most persistent low to medium risk
:43:27. > :43:32.prisons. They see some of the most offenders and have a record of
:43:32. > :43:38.success, 44% of staff are ex-offender, in some projectst 0% of
:43:38. > :43:43.the team have served time. Ebony thinks that is what makes them a
:43:43. > :43:47.success and why taxpayers shouldn't be afraid of people like her doing
:43:48. > :43:53.the work. They shouldn't be worried. I see young people involved in gangs
:43:54. > :43:58.and potential doctors and nurse, our future. In ters of where I am coming
:43:58. > :44:01.from, I have been to Crown Courts and often I go with my young people,
:44:01. > :44:06.and I know what it is like to stand up in that dock and not only that, I
:44:06. > :44:13.know what it is is like to go in and not come out. Some have pointed out
:44:13. > :44:18.big companies like Serco and G4S could bid for contracts ing others
:44:18. > :44:22.say if reoffending comes down does it matter who is providing the
:44:22. > :44:25.service? It can make better results for both the client, for the less
:44:25. > :44:29.service? It can make better results future victims of crime, and also
:44:29. > :44:33.for the taxpayer in terms of savings, it has been frustrating,
:44:33. > :44:39.because we are not mainstream, you know, what we do, the new and
:44:39. > :44:43.radical stuff isn't part of the solution yet. Therefore we follow is
:44:43. > :44:50.a time and place for change. I think that is -- that time has come. There
:44:50. > :44:54.is less money round, offending rates remain stubbornly high and we know
:44:54. > :45:00.for those serving less than one year there is a desperate need. What with
:45:00. > :45:03.are seeing is we can do the job of meeting peep, short-term custodial
:45:03. > :45:06.are seeing is we can do the job of offenders at the gate better than
:45:06. > :45:10.anybody and where necessary we will work in partnership with provider,
:45:10. > :45:17.so we have never argues against that. What we are against... We have
:45:17. > :45:19.tackled to bring down to lowest since 2006.
:45:19. > :45:21.Already, the union is looking to vote with its feet and begin
:45:22. > :46:54.Already, the union is looking to industrial action. Mr Grayling won't
:46:54. > :46:58.get his reforms without a fight. For prisoners with a sentence of less
:46:58. > :47:07.than one year, it is not 1% of them that reoffend, it is 60%. There are
:47:07. > :47:10.some bits of our public sector, often those around criminal
:47:10. > :47:22.justice, which have been poorly performing for a while. Do use
:47:22. > :47:25.accent that some organisations are arguing that the payment model will
:47:25. > :47:31.put off some charities bidding for these contracts? Probably in some
:47:31. > :47:34.cases, because if you are a small charity, you have not got a big bank
:47:35. > :47:38.account and it is difficult to step in when you will not get paid for a
:47:38. > :47:43.number of years. On the other hand, in other areas of the welfare state,
:47:43. > :47:47.we are seeing big companies marry up with those companies like the St
:47:47. > :47:52.Giles trust. This is part of the new landscape of policy. But some people
:47:52. > :47:58.fear that the reality is that it will only be the big companies that
:47:58. > :48:01.will apply, like G4S and Serco. Is that the sort of privatisation you
:48:01. > :48:06.would like to see? The organisations which should win contracts should be
:48:06. > :48:11.the ones best able to do it. I would not exclude anybody. But it would be
:48:11. > :48:19.putting smaller organisations at a disadvantage. What do you say on the
:48:19. > :48:28.principle, Polly? In the in-house magazine for Serco in 2009, you
:48:28. > :48:31.wrote in favour of this idea? In favour of different people being
:48:31. > :48:35.able to provide things. Nobody could look at the St Giles trust and not
:48:35. > :48:39.say, what a good thing. There are many who could come in and have a
:48:39. > :48:44.good experience. But this was how the work programme again, with the
:48:44. > :48:47.idea that we were shown examples of excellent charities doing really
:48:47. > :48:49.good back to work programmes. And they were used by the big companies
:48:49. > :48:54.good back to work programmes. And at was what -- as what was called
:48:54. > :48:59.big candy. In the end, the whole programme was carved up a big
:48:59. > :49:04.companies. The smaller companies were squeezed out. The big companies
:49:04. > :49:09.would then cream off the most money and give the tough Charis -- tough
:49:09. > :49:13.cases to the charities. Is that an argument not to do it? You have to
:49:13. > :49:18.be careful to do it where you have got the skills and the people. The
:49:18. > :49:21.St Giles trust, of course, should be doing it. But the idea that you
:49:21. > :49:26.should have a wholesale roll-out of this, it will be the big dump unease
:49:26. > :49:30.that do it. You should have it where you have got excellent providers,
:49:30. > :49:37.and not do it as a monolithic sell-off to the lowest bidder. Chris
:49:38. > :49:42.Grayling has called in the City of London police to investigate alleged
:49:42. > :49:43.fraud by Serco staff working on a major contract to transport
:49:43. > :49:48.prisoners to and from courts across major contract to transport
:49:48. > :49:51.London and East Anglia. Nine people who worked for a company paid by the
:49:51. > :49:55.government for finding jobs for the unemployed have been charged with 60
:49:55. > :49:59.offences of fraud and forgery. If you have the sort of setup that
:49:59. > :50:03.Polly has outlined, and those are the major players, are you confident
:50:03. > :50:10.that that will provide a good service? I am, because this issue of
:50:10. > :50:16.private sector involvement in public services is controversial, of
:50:16. > :50:20.course, and some examples you have mentioned, another one is G4S not
:50:20. > :50:24.delivering entirely on the Olympics. Against that, what is not often
:50:24. > :50:27.heard is the hundreds if not thousands of contracts being on
:50:27. > :50:31.successfully. Of course we don't hear about them, because they don't
:50:31. > :50:35.create news, but they are happening. If we look at the military, which
:50:35. > :50:39.works hand in glove with companies in everything that it does apart
:50:39. > :50:44.from the actual front line soldiering, it is a positive
:50:44. > :50:48.relationship. This is an idea whose time should have come a long time
:50:48. > :50:55.ago, I think. As you say, the Labour government was thinking about it a
:50:55. > :50:59.decade ago. It horrified me to learn recently that if you are in prison
:50:59. > :51:03.for less than one year, the current state provided probation service
:51:03. > :51:08.does not provide you with anything. You leave prison with £46 in your
:51:08. > :51:13.pocket, and there is no mentoring or support. Chris Grayling is desperate
:51:13. > :51:19.to find some mechanism beyond the probation service to ensure that
:51:19. > :51:22.there is mentoring for that group of people, who tend to be the
:51:22. > :51:27.reoffenders. By definition on they are probably young, and have no
:51:27. > :51:31.support. I also learnt that apparently, probation officers
:51:32. > :51:37.personally, who do a fantastic job, spend no more than 20% of their time
:51:37. > :51:43.in many cases on face time with their clients. That is because of
:51:44. > :51:49.the bureaucratic nature of the service as it currently is
:51:49. > :51:53.constructed. But that is part of the things anyone who runs the service
:51:53. > :51:58.will have to do. Would you prefer to see the probation service run this?
:51:59. > :52:03.I would like to see a partnership. That is what the previous government
:52:03. > :52:11.and the current government intend to do. The current probation service is
:52:11. > :52:15.outstanding, but it is stretched. I think there is a more efficient way
:52:15. > :52:23.of doing it, subject to the caveat that Polly mentioned. The service is
:52:23. > :52:26.desperately stretched. You said the crucial thing. These are the people
:52:26. > :52:32.you want to give most treatment to, and they get very little. They have
:52:32. > :52:37.been squeezed and squeezed, and the probation service as well is a poor
:52:37. > :52:41.service because it has not got the resources it needs. By putting it
:52:41. > :52:47.out like this, you don't provide extra services. But you might be
:52:47. > :52:57.able to run it more efficiently. There is no reason to think so. I
:52:58. > :53:01.agree that in an ideal world, it is a pity that Chris Grayling's
:53:01. > :53:07.predecessor Ken Clarke was not able from the word go to have a pilot. It
:53:07. > :53:11.has taken us up until 2013 before they have been able to do it. I
:53:11. > :53:18.suppose they have run out of time, but a pilot would have been an ideal
:53:18. > :53:22.start. Prisons have been one under private management. They do better
:53:22. > :53:25.on reoffending and are generally better managed. They have had some
:53:25. > :53:29.terrible reports recently. But on better managed. They have had some
:53:29. > :53:35.average, they are better. If the government wants to do this, fair
:53:35. > :53:38.play to them. Bawdy humour, grumpy northerners and a pavement brawl.
:53:38. > :53:46.It must be a week at the British seaside.
:53:46. > :53:50.Big news this week. Labour's end of the pier show in Brighton, with Ed
:53:50. > :54:01.Miliband showing unexpected gift for comic timing. She said, I was an
:54:01. > :54:06.action hero. Why are you laughing? I can't think either. Meanwhile, the
:54:06. > :54:10.other aid took a pop at David Cameron's holiday shortcomings. I
:54:10. > :54:16.thought for a prime minister, it was a surprisingly small town. Talking
:54:16. > :54:23.of balls, John Prescott used one of ours to make clear what he thinks
:54:23. > :54:27.about HS2. Why cancel it? They are using the north to say you can have
:54:27. > :54:32.20 minutes on a bloody train to Birmingham. Mind you, Lord Prescott
:54:32. > :54:36.was out punched on the programme by Iain Dale, publisher of Damian
:54:36. > :54:40.McBride's spin and tell memoir. Tough on protest, tougher on the
:54:40. > :54:49.causes of protest. Next week, the Tories in Manchester. What is the
:54:49. > :54:54.worst that could happen? Michael Brown, it was a proper
:54:54. > :54:59.scrap, wasn't it, but it did land Iain Dale, the publisher, in
:54:59. > :55:08.trouble. And Ian should have known better. He is a gentle soul, but I
:55:08. > :55:11.always have one absolute rule. 18 years in Parliament, five general
:55:11. > :55:17.elections - the voter is always right, whatever they are throwing at
:55:17. > :55:24.you. Whatever eggs, whatever dogs are tempted to bite you, there is
:55:24. > :55:28.only one loser if you have a for a car with somebody who is a voter.
:55:28. > :55:32.The clear. I am sorry at what happened to you happened, but let
:55:32. > :55:39.that be a lesson. Do you agree, Polly? There has been a police
:55:39. > :55:43.caution, is that fair? I do think so. But it is funny that Iain Dale
:55:43. > :55:47.was actually protecting Damian McBride, who was the one in front of
:55:47. > :55:51.the cameras at the time, because Iain Dale owns the publishing
:55:51. > :55:56.company that is publishing Damian McBride. He wanted the guy out of
:55:56. > :56:04.the shot, but it is a funny turn of events. It did give us some rather
:56:04. > :56:08.good pictures will stop moving on to Boris. We can't not mention him
:56:08. > :56:12.ahead of the Conservative Party conference. He has said that he
:56:12. > :56:19.missed the House of Commons when the Syria debate was going on, an
:56:19. > :56:24.implication that he is heading back into Parliament? Well, he is
:56:24. > :56:25.trapped, isn't he? In the sense that he is guaranteed to be mayor of
:56:25. > :56:33.London until 2016. I suppose if he is guaranteed to be mayor of
:56:33. > :56:37.somebody vacated a seat in London in 2015... What would he do? He could
:56:37. > :56:41.just about get away with being a member of Parliament. Ken
:56:41. > :56:45.Livingstone was a member of Parliament for his first year as
:56:45. > :56:53.London mayor. He did not immediately give up. So he could run
:56:53. > :56:57.concurrently? Supposing the people of Croydon, were they seeking a new
:56:57. > :57:02.MP for Richard Ottaway's consistency, let's say they were to
:57:02. > :57:05.select him as their candidate for 2015 and he were to become the
:57:05. > :57:07.number of Parliament and have the dual mandate for one year, he could
:57:07. > :57:12.get away with it. If he is not in dual mandate for one year, he could
:57:12. > :57:15.the House of Commons after 2015 and therefore not in the House of
:57:15. > :57:18.Commons until the expiry of his mayoral term, he is not a player if
:57:18. > :57:23.anything should go wrong with David Cameron. But he has always reserved
:57:23. > :57:28.that right. It is a football analogy, do you believe him when he
:57:28. > :57:32.says he will serve all the way to the end? You can't believe anything
:57:32. > :57:39.he says. He just goes, I did not really mean it. And he gets
:57:39. > :57:43.forgiven. But it does show the extent to which they think they are
:57:43. > :57:47.not going to win the next election, the Conservatives. They will be keen
:57:47. > :57:51.to have Boris as a possible contender. Or is David Cameron less
:57:51. > :57:57.worried about interventions and a contender. Or is David Cameron less
:57:57. > :58:02.few loose comments from Boris Johnson ahead of this conference? I
:58:02. > :58:08.don't think David Cameron is worried. I meant for after the
:58:08. > :58:11.election. It shows that they are not expecting to win, and they want
:58:11. > :58:17.Boris in there so that when Cameron loses, he is a contender. I would
:58:17. > :58:21.put a bet on Croydon, where there was a vacancy. The retiring member
:58:21. > :58:24.of Parliament, which got away, is standing down. And would London
:58:25. > :58:28.object to the fact that their mayor also has a voice in the House of
:58:28. > :58:33.Commons for 12 months? I would not have thought so. He could get away
:58:33. > :58:39.with that. Are you trying to tell something? As Polly says, Boris
:58:39. > :58:42.writes all the rules. It would only be overlapping for one year, and he
:58:42. > :58:46.would be able to say to the people of Croydon and London, I have only
:58:46. > :58:51.got one war year of my mayoral term to serve, and I can speak for those
:58:51. > :58:55.12 months for the people of Croydon. You heard it here first. Thank you
:58:55. > :58:58.to both of you for being guests of the day. That is it from us.
:58:58. > :59:02.Bye-bye.