:00:38. > :00:44.Good afternoon. Welcome to The Daily Politics. Ed Miliband urges the
:00:44. > :00:50.owner of the Daily Mail to take a long, hard look at theure and
:00:50. > :00:54.practises of his -- practises of his newspaper. Two years on from the
:00:54. > :00:59.increase in tuition fees for students in England, undergraduate
:00:59. > :01:06.numbers are buoyant. Were opponents of the fee hike wrong? How are the
:01:06. > :01:11.new-slimmed-down England rules opposed by environmentalists working
:01:11. > :01:14.out? We report from the frontline battle between conversation and
:01:14. > :01:21.construction. It was the real hot topic at the Tory conference - no,
:01:21. > :01:30.not the speech, George Osborne's new haircut. We will talk fashions with
:01:30. > :01:38.Britain's top hair stylist, Kenneth Clarke.
:01:38. > :01:42.Thaw in the -- Nicky Clarke. With us is Anne Diamond and Kevin Maguire.
:01:42. > :01:48.Welcome to both of you. Let's start with the news that Big Brother Watch
:01:48. > :01:50.is taking Government comun kags Government Communication
:01:50. > :01:54.Headquarters to the European Court of Human Rights over allegations
:01:54. > :01:57.that it has been illegally intercepting and analysing millions
:01:57. > :02:09.of e-mails and other digital communications. Let's talk to Nick
:02:10. > :02:16.Pickles, from Big Brother Watch. What are you hoping to achieve. At a
:02:16. > :02:22.time when we had copper telephone cables, does the policy change? Are
:02:22. > :02:26.you hoping to get a new legislative framework which is fit for the 21st
:02:26. > :02:29.century? Absolutely. This is something the court will look at in
:02:30. > :02:36.detail. How do the checks and balances work for such an enormous
:02:36. > :02:39.amount of data when GCHQ's activities touch everyone's lives
:02:39. > :02:44.which are lived over the internet. You do accept that in today's
:02:44. > :02:49.dangerous world the line between secrecy and privacy, or non-secrecy
:02:49. > :02:53.is rather fussy? Yes. No-one is saying that spies should not spy.
:02:53. > :03:06.What we do need is a framework that reflects the different kinds of
:03:06. > :03:10.lives we live. Every Internet message is being looked at by GCHQ.
:03:10. > :03:16.It is about bringing it forward. In America, they are having public
:03:16. > :03:20.hearings with the people and they have a court process. In Britain, we
:03:20. > :03:25.have none of those things. The area is ripe for change. There'll be many
:03:25. > :03:29.who worry that actually if the balance changes too much the other
:03:29. > :03:32.way, then many of the plots which have been foiled, no doubt, some of
:03:32. > :03:36.the attacks we have heard about which have been prevented, will
:03:36. > :03:40.actually happen in the future. That is a big presumption. We simply have
:03:40. > :03:45.not had that debate here. In the US last week, there was a discussion
:03:45. > :03:48.about this. And how many cases had been prevented by the NSA's
:03:48. > :03:53.unprecedented surveillance. When pressed on, is it as high as people
:03:53. > :03:57.have been led to believe, the NSA's leadership said, no. Because this is
:03:57. > :04:01.the debate we have not had because these powers on both sides of the
:04:01. > :04:05.Atlantic have been used and developed in absolute secrecy. Now
:04:05. > :04:12.we are learning that only in the recent years the feddal court that
:04:12. > :04:18.oversees the N -- Federal Court that oversees the NSA ruled it
:04:18. > :04:22.unconstitutional because it had been kept secret from its oversight court
:04:22. > :04:26.for many months. That should not be happening. Anne Diamond, are you
:04:26. > :04:30.worried about the access that security forces might have over your
:04:30. > :04:34.personal data? Yes. I think so. Most of us are very worried about it. But
:04:34. > :04:41.we struggle with the whole concept. Again, at the same time, I know that
:04:41. > :04:48.I'm naive to think that my e-mails - if you have a credit card, a mobile
:04:48. > :04:52.phone, they are out there, with a capital "ty" know your move already.
:04:52. > :04:56.Is it silly to get too worked up about this? If we have a legal
:04:57. > :05:00.framework, at least for what we consider as acceptable and not
:05:00. > :05:05.acceptable, then you have some right of redress if you feel your privacy
:05:05. > :05:08.is being abused. So, we do need a legal framework, but at the same
:05:08. > :05:12.time, I think you have to be careful not to get too paranoid about the
:05:12. > :05:17.fact that Big Brother is already watching you. To some extent all our
:05:17. > :05:22.data is out there. We put it out there ourselves on a daily basis.
:05:22. > :05:26.Look at the developments in the Madeleine McCann case and now, after
:05:26. > :05:31.all these years the police will trawl through mobile phone records.
:05:31. > :05:34.There will not be many people who say, that will be an invasion of my
:05:34. > :05:40.privacy if they find out what happened. I am not sure those mobile
:05:40. > :05:44.phone records will be there comprehensively for them to look at.
:05:44. > :05:48.Companies know about you. With the state, you would not like somebody
:05:48. > :05:54.down the Post Office steaming open your letter to read it. So, you will
:05:54. > :05:58.not like anybody reading your e-mails, texts or reading your
:05:58. > :06:04.e-mails. Spooks have to operation within the law. If it needs
:06:04. > :06:08.updating, so be it. The great field of the GCHQ, as they sub-contract to
:06:08. > :06:12.the Americans who do it for them and then they send it back to Britain,
:06:12. > :06:18.so they get around the law, any way. What you have to be able to do, if
:06:18. > :06:23.it is used against you at any point have a purpose of appeal... You
:06:23. > :06:28.cannot stop them doing it. Yes. You can. They should act within the law.
:06:28. > :06:32.They should not be above the law. If you say they have not acted within
:06:32. > :06:37.the law? That is the allegation that comes out - the Guardian
:06:37. > :06:46.allegations. They do what they like, don't they? You should may be
:06:46. > :06:50.relaxed about it, I am not. Even if they would argue it was for a
:06:50. > :06:56.greater good to protect your security? Let them show that. If
:06:56. > :07:03.nobody is up to no good, you get a warrant, go after them, you can go
:07:03. > :07:07.back, you can look after them, but Joe and Jean public should not have
:07:07. > :07:13.their privacy invaded. Our question for today is: What creature was John
:07:13. > :07:23.Bercow compared to by a woman in Chelsea after a row about parking.
:07:23. > :07:28.Was it A, a Toad? B, a chicken. C a weasel or D, a worm?
:07:28. > :07:30.At the ends of the show Anne and Kevin will give us the correct
:07:30. > :07:35.At the ends of the show Anne and answer and the noise I hope for the
:07:35. > :07:39.correct animal! This has been the week that Ed Miliband took on the
:07:39. > :07:44.Daily Mail. It all started when the Daily Mail printed an article
:07:44. > :07:47.claiming that his father hated Britain. The Labour leader
:07:47. > :07:52.complained about the headline and the picture of his father's grave
:07:52. > :07:58.stone which appeared on the online version, with the caption "grave
:07:58. > :08:02.socialist." The paper removed the photograph and gave Mr Miliband the
:08:02. > :08:05.right to reply in Thursday's edition. But provoked the leader by
:08:05. > :08:13.right to reply in Thursday's saying they stood by every word they
:08:13. > :08:19.published and the headline. A Mail on Sunday reporter had gatecrashed a
:08:19. > :08:25.private memorial service for Mr Miliband's uncle N a letter to the
:08:25. > :08:28.paper's own, a letter said that crosses the line of common decency
:08:28. > :08:35.and called him to reflect on the nature of his newspapers. The editor
:08:35. > :08:41.of the paper has unreservedly apologised for the episode. Speaking
:08:41. > :08:46.on BBC breakfast the Labour leader made clear he thinks the paper needs
:08:46. > :08:52.to go further. It is an important step that he has apologised for
:08:52. > :08:57.gatecrashing my uncle's memorial service. I aif had my say now. The
:08:57. > :09:01.ball -- I've had my say now. The ball is in their court. They need to
:09:01. > :09:05.look at the practises of their newspapers to ask why these sort of
:09:05. > :09:09.things are happening. It says something about the way they
:09:09. > :09:12.operate, these newspapers. I hope they will do that. Ed Miliband
:09:12. > :09:20.speaking there. We can expect a lot more of this next week, as the prif
:09:20. > :09:27.I have council will -- Privy Council will discuss a new press regulator.
:09:27. > :09:32.We have been joined by Neil Wallace, form former executive from News of
:09:32. > :09:36.the World. You may argue it is justified because of the influence
:09:36. > :09:39.Ed Miliband said he had on him. What about the headline? If I had been
:09:39. > :09:45.the editor, I don't think I would have put that headline on it. No!
:09:45. > :09:53.Why not? I don't think it necessarily reflected the tone and
:09:53. > :09:58.the point of the article. The reason the BBC is still pumping away at
:09:58. > :10:06.this story today, almost a week later, is because Ed Miliband is
:10:06. > :10:11.touring the newspaper offices and TV studios, beating the drum and
:10:11. > :10:16.desperately keeping it alive. Ed Miliband had a perfectly valid point
:10:16. > :10:20.to make and when he defended his father, I absolutely thought that
:10:21. > :10:29.was completely understandable. Why he is still harking on about it,
:10:29. > :10:33.when even the Mail aren't running anything more about this now, I
:10:33. > :10:38.think takes us probably into the next part of the discussion... Which
:10:38. > :10:43.we will come on to. It is political. We are not the only ones discussing
:10:43. > :10:47.it and the Labour leader has been talking about it. You didn't think
:10:47. > :10:59.the headline was appropriate. What about the photograph - and the
:10:59. > :11:02.caption - "Grave social list."? It is important, Kevin works at the
:11:02. > :11:08.Mirror and Kevin will know the same thing, that there is, particularly
:11:08. > :11:14.at the Mail a complete separation between the Mail website and the
:11:14. > :11:19.Mail newspaper itself. The website would have been provided with a
:11:19. > :11:24.copy, but they will have e-Februaryingively edited it --
:11:24. > :11:29.effectively edited themselves. They were right to remove it. Just like
:11:29. > :11:33.the Mail on Sunday, to someone like me and again, I am sure these two
:11:33. > :11:40.guys as well were astonished by the idea of a Mail journalist turning up
:11:40. > :11:44.at the memorial service. It was a bad, terrible decision. But you know
:11:44. > :11:48.what, mistakes get make. You make mistakes, the BBC makes mistakes.
:11:48. > :11:54.These things happen. And they did apologise and move quickly after
:11:54. > :11:57.that. What about Ed Miliband's point about the culture and practises?
:11:57. > :12:01.This is what he's talking about this morning, that actual they need to do
:12:02. > :12:07.more, the Mail? This to me, as the week has gone on, is plainly the nub
:12:07. > :12:13.of what Ed Miliband and the Labour Party and their sort of spokesmen
:12:13. > :12:23.like Campbell - this is really about - this is about lef son now. This is
:12:23. > :12:27.-- Leveson now. This is not about a strongly arguable piece that was in
:12:27. > :12:33.last Saturday's Daily Mail. This is about the future of press regulation
:12:33. > :12:38.now. They are using this as a way to try to set the agenda in a negative
:12:38. > :12:42.way. And the newspapers have not helped themselves. Do you think
:12:42. > :12:48.though that that was also the motivation, partly behind the
:12:48. > :12:52.original article about Ralph Miliband by the Mail - you don't
:12:52. > :12:58.think the timing of it... I think what you are missing, with respect,
:12:58. > :13:03.is the fact we had just had a Labour Party Conference, in which a certain
:13:03. > :13:12.Ed Miliband had talked about socialism. He used the word,
:13:12. > :13:17."socialism" repeatedly. They were back to socialism. All stuff going
:13:17. > :13:22.back. He referred constantdly, in that time, to -- constantly in that
:13:22. > :13:28.time to the influence of his father, who was a socialist thinker. There
:13:28. > :13:33.is an agenda there that Ed Miliband has replied robustly.
:13:33. > :13:37.Now, as he crossed the line into trying to use this as a potential
:13:37. > :13:42.stick to beat the press with when it comes to press regulation? I am not
:13:42. > :13:47.sure he has crossed a line. He has a knife to the general election. He
:13:47. > :13:50.thinks if he can push back the Mail now, make them feel guilty about it,
:13:50. > :13:54.if they come for me during the campaign, people will know they have
:13:54. > :14:00.a political agenda. The Mail can be a miserable and bullying paper at
:14:01. > :14:14.times. They made an error of that headline. The piece did did not
:14:14. > :14:19.reflect Ralph Miliband. Then the Mail on Sunday would run separately,
:14:19. > :14:26.it has to be said, gatecrashes his memorial service for his uncle. It
:14:26. > :14:31.is uncredible. There is a lot of anger in other newspapers that the
:14:31. > :14:35.Mail are not helping the course for independent regulation, as against
:14:35. > :14:39.statutory regulation. I think it is tough to blame this on Ed Miliband
:14:39. > :14:43.at the moment. You say the Daily Mail made a mistake and owned up for
:14:43. > :14:48.it and then they did it again and said sorry again. Then the Mail on
:14:48. > :14:53.Sunday gate crashed the memorial service. This is the way, we all
:14:53. > :14:56.know this, this is the way some newspapers play the game. It is
:14:56. > :15:04.cruel and it continues the whole story.
:15:04. > :15:15.This is just the cynical opportunities of hacked off hacks
:15:15. > :15:23.who want to jump on this. But that is all it was. They have apologised
:15:23. > :15:31.the two things. They have apologised for the online version. Which again,
:15:31. > :15:38.Anne, it is not the paper. It is still the Daily Mail. They use those
:15:38. > :15:48.things as an excuse as well. You are hacked off. Now I am not. Anne, you
:15:48. > :15:59.have written the the Daily Mail? I have written for lots of papers. I
:15:59. > :16:10.will only write what I will write for it. I will not write what others
:16:10. > :16:14.want. So you won't take its money? I certainly will, I am a journalist,
:16:14. > :16:24.if I do a job, I will have the money. You are attacking the basic
:16:24. > :16:28.ethos of the paper... I am saying, I am a journalist and I write for lots
:16:28. > :16:30.of different outlets, I just wish we could look at the crack this and
:16:30. > :16:38.of different outlets, I just wish we morals of some of our newspapers. By
:16:38. > :16:44.thought that is what the Leveson Inquiry was for. Let's look at what
:16:45. > :16:49.is going to be proposed and discussed. This will dominate, it
:16:49. > :16:57.will overshadow what is said next week. The independent press
:16:57. > :17:01.organisations is a watered-down version of Parliament's plans.
:17:01. > :17:11.Former editors will be allowed to serve on the panel, Parliament could
:17:11. > :17:16.not block or disapprove. I love the independence of you saying it is a
:17:16. > :17:21.seriously watered down version. It is a different version of how people
:17:21. > :17:25.believe that the newspapers of this country should be regulated. They
:17:25. > :17:33.don't believe they should be regulated by politicians. It is not
:17:33. > :17:44.about the BBC agenda. It is the consensus. A consensus of who? It is
:17:44. > :17:49.my point, if you let me say it. It is the consensus from every
:17:49. > :17:57.newspaper in this country, from the Guardian with its circulation of
:17:57. > :18:01.15,002 the Sun newspaper of 23 million. The only opposition is in
:18:01. > :18:08.Prince, the Guardian has issues, the Independent cannot make up its mind.
:18:08. > :18:16.Do you think it will inspire public confidence? It is very easy to knock
:18:16. > :18:21.public confidence, yes. The newspaper industry has shot itself
:18:21. > :18:27.in the foot to a certain extent. We have 320 years of press freedom in
:18:27. > :18:33.this country. It is a principle in the end. The Americans are being
:18:33. > :18:43.horror -- horrified at what is being proposed in Britain. The Times has
:18:43. > :18:48.said it will have a chilling effect on free speech. But what has
:18:48. > :18:52.happened over the past few days, I agree, it has made it harder to sell
:18:52. > :19:02.to the public. Nothing being proposed would have prevented the
:19:02. > :19:09.Daily Mail printing that article? No, where the Daily Mail went wrong,
:19:09. > :19:14.they gave Ed Miliband the right to reply and then they machined him
:19:15. > :19:18.down. You are saying in America it is having a chilling effect in the
:19:18. > :19:24.terms of freedom of speech, but the freedom of speech would have still
:19:24. > :19:31.been undermined wouldn't it? , yet it would have got in, but it is how
:19:31. > :19:34.it would have been handled. Where was Ed Miliband, where was the left,
:19:34. > :19:41.where was the Guardian went after Mrs Thatcher died, the BBC and other
:19:41. > :19:49.people were running articles and coverage of, " the witch is dead".
:19:49. > :20:07.Where were they when the sun and the daughter were absolutely horrified.
:20:07. > :20:13.Hacked Off, did they make an error? What is known as the pizza night? I
:20:13. > :20:19.understand on the pizza night there were regular phone calls may to the
:20:19. > :20:24.editors. If it is not true, they were wrong not to include the press.
:20:24. > :20:29.We are all very proud of a free press, so respect the fact they have
:20:29. > :20:34.a right to their say. But they don't have a right to any longer, is to do
:20:34. > :20:45.what they want, behave the way they want. They do need some sort of
:20:45. > :20:49.regulation. I agree. I am about the human rights act, everybody has a
:20:49. > :20:59.right to oversee. Should an editor be sitting on what is formed in the
:20:59. > :21:06.future? If you are a former editor, if you can get people on there who
:21:06. > :21:14.have experience, but still not involved in newspapers. Can this be
:21:14. > :21:20.evolved without the agreement of the press and can it operate properly
:21:20. > :21:27.because the newspapers will not sign up to it? That is absolutely true.
:21:27. > :21:34.The idea in this democracy of ours that you can Compal thousands of
:21:34. > :21:38.local newspapers, who will be devastated by this. It will destroy
:21:38. > :21:44.the local paper in your town, my town. They will be torn apart by
:21:44. > :21:52.some of these suggestions. They will not be able to support it. It will
:21:52. > :21:56.destroy them. The biggest papers of the ball walks of democracy. The
:21:56. > :22:04.regional papers know they will be taken to the wall. The Sunderland
:22:04. > :22:08.Echo needs to survive, this could kill it. Thank you all very much.
:22:08. > :22:11.Tuition fees have been one of the hottest political topics of recent
:22:11. > :22:14.years - don't take my word for it, ask any passing Lib Dem. Last year,
:22:14. > :22:20.student applications fell by almost 60,000 as the maximum charge rose to
:22:20. > :22:23.£9,000 per annum. But what do the numbers look like this year and
:22:24. > :22:35.where does the debate go next? Here's David.
:22:35. > :22:44.The University of Greenwich. A traditional setting with modern
:22:44. > :22:46.values. Fees cost between six and £9,000 a year and student numbers
:22:46. > :22:52.are booming. The critics said paying up to 9000 a year in tuition fees
:22:52. > :22:58.would like the generation of would-be students. This year, the
:22:58. > :23:03.stats don't bear that out. Numbers are back up. Everything on campus is
:23:03. > :23:09.sunny, right? It seems students do appear to have grasped how tuition
:23:09. > :23:14.fees work. One thing universities and the government have succeeded in
:23:14. > :23:19.communicating is students don't have to pay upfront. You only pay when
:23:19. > :23:25.you graduate, earning over a certain limits. I think that financial
:23:25. > :23:29.parsec -- package is better understood and students are applying
:23:29. > :23:36.again to go to university in the same numbers as before. It is not
:23:36. > :23:38.just about fees, the National union of students say English members
:23:38. > :23:47.still have to find more than £7,500 a year in living costs. There is an
:23:47. > :23:49.issue with the cost of living. The government supplies money to
:23:49. > :23:55.students but it is not reflecting the growing cost of people having to
:23:55. > :23:59.feed themselves and having to travel to university and back again. It is
:23:59. > :24:06.looked at in terms of how much money students how to live. If students
:24:06. > :24:12.can follow -- swallow £9,000 a year in student fees, why not a bit more?
:24:12. > :24:18.There is a risk of universities thinking, or at least the government
:24:18. > :24:23.thinking, if £9,000 has not deterred too many people, why can't we put it
:24:23. > :24:26.up? There have got to be groups of students not coming to university
:24:26. > :24:33.because they fear the fee is not too much. The higher you go, the more
:24:33. > :24:38.people it will turn away. Turns out, Alex might be right to be worried. I
:24:38. > :24:45.don't think there is any appetite to rise that now. But year on year,
:24:45. > :24:47.that will have a real impact on the financial sustainability of
:24:47. > :24:55.universities. From the students view, the fees may have tripled, but
:24:55. > :25:00.the income from student loans has replaced direct government funding.
:25:00. > :25:04.So they have not seen an increase, so long term there is a question
:25:04. > :25:11.about whether or not the £9,000 is sustainable. Which means that while
:25:11. > :25:16.the heat may have gone out of student funding for now, sooner or
:25:16. > :25:19.later the cost of learning might be back to bite another generation of
:25:19. > :25:21.universities, politicians and students.
:25:21. > :25:24.David Thompson reporting. And we've been joined by Toni Pearce, the
:25:24. > :25:28.president of the National Union of Students, and by Wendy Piatt, the
:25:28. > :25:38.chief executive of the Russell Group of top universities. Welcome to the
:25:38. > :25:42.programme. Toni, the number of students going to university has
:25:42. > :25:46.returned to the same levels before the £9,000 fees were brought in. Do
:25:46. > :25:53.you think higher education is in a good state? I am really glad people
:25:53. > :25:57.are still going to university. It is a good thing. But you have to look
:25:57. > :26:02.deeper into those statistics is. We have seen a 14% drop in the number
:26:02. > :26:08.of mature students going into higher education and a 40% drop of people
:26:08. > :26:14.going to pop time study. We cannot say this has not had an impact. --
:26:14. > :26:21.part-time study. Sticking to the undergraduate levels, the NUS
:26:21. > :26:25.campaigned against tuition fees. You said students from disadvantaged
:26:25. > :26:32.backgrounds would be put off from applying to university. That has not
:26:33. > :26:37.happened has it? Students need to support themselves because they are
:26:37. > :26:41.from disadvantaged backgrounds. But the fees have not put them off
:26:41. > :26:46.coming? No, but we don't know what the long-term effects will be. It is
:26:46. > :26:49.not surprisingly but have continued to go to university when there are
:26:49. > :26:57.millions of unemployed at the moment. What about your position?
:26:57. > :27:01.There were people who claimed there was scaremongering going on and
:27:01. > :27:03.there was an initial fall because many students believed they would
:27:03. > :27:11.still have to pay those fees upfront? I think there is some
:27:11. > :27:17.confusion about the system, but the NUS has been in the business of
:27:17. > :27:22.explaining that to students. I would never want to see people being put
:27:22. > :27:29.off from going into higher education and I don't think that is what the
:27:29. > :27:32.NUS was doing. But you accept it has not had the damaging effect you said
:27:32. > :27:37.it would, or certainly not yet rushed to mark we have not begun to
:27:37. > :27:42.see the impact it might have particularly in the economic
:27:42. > :27:48.situation we are in. Do you accept that? Applications are almost
:27:48. > :27:54.back-up, but we are in special circumstances. Toni I be right,
:27:54. > :27:59.people might begin to university because there is no other option? It
:27:59. > :28:03.is not just the numbers who have recovered, but students from
:28:03. > :28:08.disadvantaged backgrounds have increased more in their numbers. I
:28:08. > :28:13.am very pleased why it, but I am not surprised. We have always said, and
:28:13. > :28:18.the evidence shows this clearly, finance is not the key barrier to
:28:18. > :28:25.getting disadvantaged students to go to university. There is the issue of
:28:25. > :28:31.the cost of living? Let me get onto that. It is about the achievement
:28:31. > :28:34.school, that is the biggest barrier. If we can focus on addressing that,
:28:34. > :28:38.we would solve this problem of getting more disadvantaged students
:28:38. > :28:49.to go to university, which is what we want. What do you say to that,
:28:49. > :28:52.Toni? I don't think it is possible to save those students who can
:28:52. > :28:57.afford to get private tuition and go to private schools are more
:28:57. > :29:02.intelligent or deserved to go to university more. There is a problem
:29:02. > :29:08.with social mobility in the UK. But it is not the fees that have put
:29:09. > :29:12.them off? You cannot just look at the higher education system in
:29:12. > :29:18.isolation, but it does have a responsibility to do something. On
:29:18. > :29:23.the cost of living, that is becoming a greater issue the students at
:29:23. > :29:28.university or thinking of going? It is good we have managed to explain
:29:28. > :29:33.the fee situation and we are moving off that. Most people understand you
:29:33. > :29:39.pay nothing up front. You only pay back when you are earning £21,000.
:29:39. > :29:44.Even then you only pay a proportion of your income. It is nothing like a
:29:44. > :29:49.loan from a bank or a mortgage. Martin Lewis has been suggesting we
:29:49. > :29:56.change the lane because it is not the same as a normal loan. In terms
:29:56. > :30:01.of the cost of living, my university can appreciate it is tough for some
:30:01. > :30:07.students. It was tough in my day, I ended up getting lots of jobs as
:30:07. > :30:11.well. But I universities give considerable bursaries. My third of
:30:11. > :30:15.all students who go to a Russell group university qualify for an
:30:15. > :30:18.additional bursary and that is on top of what the government gives
:30:18. > :30:23.you. We are desperate people understand that will stop you get
:30:23. > :30:30.quite a bit of help on top of what the government gives. But the chair
:30:30. > :30:33.of your organisation said in May that £9,000 fees will constrain
:30:33. > :30:42.quality. When will you push up the fees? Sofrgets the fee will decrease
:30:42. > :30:49.over the next few years. It depends, for a lot of subjects that Russell
:30:50. > :30:55.Group universities provide, chemistry, physics - engineering,
:30:55. > :31:02.they are expensive and £9,000 goes nowhere near paying for those
:31:02. > :31:09.subjects. I bet you make money on politics or something. I've heard
:31:09. > :31:14.working class kids talking about they don't want £40,000 debts, then
:31:14. > :31:20.your cost of living. Maybe they are just talking about it as an excuse.
:31:20. > :31:26.I accept, aspirations is part of it. And the figures show pupils... From
:31:26. > :31:31.the very bottom. If you don't qualify because your parent are
:31:31. > :31:37.earning in the £20,000s early £30,000 they get caught. You look up
:31:37. > :31:41.the income scale. The higher you are up the income scale, the more likely
:31:42. > :31:47.you are to go to university. I cannot believe that putting up the
:31:47. > :31:52.price of a football match, put up beans, you are less likely to buy
:31:52. > :32:03.them... It is true that high unemployment is a recruit recruiting
:32:03. > :32:06.Sergeant for universities. The threat of debt does put some people
:32:06. > :32:11.off. I agree with you. It is not the same
:32:11. > :32:15.as buying a tin of beans or package holiday. That is why I don't think
:32:15. > :32:18.you have to pay a fee for it because it is not transactional. One of the
:32:18. > :32:22.really big problems with this system is you turn it into something you
:32:22. > :32:27.can say is similar to a football match and we know that, we still
:32:27. > :32:30.know that. People from the most advantaged backgrounds are much more
:32:30. > :32:36.likely to go to university than those from a disadvantaged... That
:32:36. > :32:39.is not about money. For various reasons, unfortunately they are
:32:39. > :32:44.outperforming... Let's look ahead. There will be a fee that fees will
:32:45. > :32:50.have to go up because public funding is not going to, I am sure, it will
:32:50. > :32:55.not fill the gap in the next few years, so £9,000 will not be the
:32:55. > :33:01.upper limit. All universities charge the same. I have four sons at the
:33:01. > :33:05.moment, two of whom have gone through university and two who are
:33:05. > :33:09.going through. Only the first one through at £3,000 a year. I worry
:33:09. > :33:14.that it is like worrying about whether the Government's help to buy
:33:15. > :33:19.scheme will cause a housing bubble, 10-15 years down the line. I worry
:33:19. > :33:22.about the way we are encouraging youngsters to look at finance. It is
:33:23. > :33:26.not a loan, it is different because you pay it back differently. We are
:33:26. > :33:31.encouraging them to leefr university with massive debt. Then, if they
:33:31. > :33:35.want to think of going on the housing ladder, get the Government's
:33:35. > :33:42.help to buy scheme, which gives them more pretend debt. Everything will
:33:42. > :33:50.be pretend debt... What will happen in 25 years' time? It is like a tax.
:33:50. > :33:55.A tax, can you award... About 40% of graduates will not pay the full loan
:33:55. > :34:02.back. How is the Government going to afford it? This is the irony. It is
:34:02. > :34:06.so generous from the Government. The system will collapse. When? Probably
:34:06. > :34:11.not that far away because so many people are not paying it back or
:34:11. > :34:16.they are paying it back rather slowly because wages are going down
:34:16. > :34:20.not up. Maybe the Russell Group, they ought to go up to whatever. I
:34:20. > :34:24.don't know what you want - £40,000? I don't know if you will cap your
:34:24. > :34:29.subjects and then you will only get kids who have the bank of mum and
:34:29. > :34:35.dad to help them out. What is your answer though to that scenario? You
:34:35. > :34:40.ask when it will collapse. In the early 2030s, it is estimated
:34:40. > :34:44.there'll be a £94 billion cost on the state for this system now. And
:34:44. > :34:48.let's be really clear, the people who will be paying that off are me
:34:48. > :34:53.and my generation. Then when it falls apart. Not only are we paying
:34:53. > :34:58.for it now, we will pay for it then. Who will pay for it? You cannot
:34:58. > :35:04.complain it is too generous and that the state is subsidising you too
:35:04. > :35:12.much. This is the irony. The public funding for yuan is on a par with
:35:12. > :35:18.chilly. Whereby if we compete with India, Brazil, China, any of the
:35:18. > :35:21.emerging... And public funding... We have to undergo a culture change. It
:35:21. > :35:25.is like we heard Americans talking about when they had a baby they
:35:25. > :35:29.would start a college fund. We'll have to become that sort of society
:35:29. > :35:34.in order to send any of our kids to university. It is really important
:35:34. > :35:38.to get the message across that going to university is absolutely
:35:38. > :35:43.affordable. Yes, it may be tough and you do need perhaps to have a job
:35:43. > :35:47.and work really hard... How are you supposed to find a job now? You
:35:48. > :35:51.benefit from that investment. If you don't, then you don't have to pay
:35:51. > :35:57.anything back. If it doesn't work out for you.
:35:57. > :36:01.Thank you very much. Last year, the Government replaced
:36:01. > :36:05.over 1,000 pages of planning guidance for England with a slimmer
:36:06. > :36:09.50 pages - thank goodness, including a presumption in favour of
:36:09. > :36:13.sustainable development, which minister said would boost the
:36:13. > :36:17.economy. At the time, it prompted a vociferous campaign by conservation
:36:17. > :36:20.groups who claimed the changes threatened England's countryside.
:36:20. > :36:23.One year on, how have the changes affected planning decisions? Our
:36:24. > :36:29.south-east political reporter has been looking at a test case in Kent,
:36:29. > :36:39.where plans to widen an A-road will mean the loss of some ancient
:36:39. > :36:43.woodland. Majestic and awe-inspiring. This
:36:43. > :36:47.wood hand has taken more than 400 year -- woodland has taken more than
:36:47. > :36:52.400 years to mature. Now it may signal the fate of other ancient
:36:52. > :36:57.wood lands around the country because 22 acres of these woods may
:36:57. > :37:02.have to make way for this... The decision on widening this stretch of
:37:02. > :37:06.the A 21 between Tonbridge and Pembury is being seen as a landmark
:37:06. > :37:10.ruling on the Government's planning policy reforms, which set out a
:37:10. > :37:14.presumption in favour of sustainable development. We are concerned that
:37:14. > :37:17.this will set a precedent for other schemes, where there are other
:37:17. > :37:22.options, the destruction is avoidable. So, we don't want to see
:37:22. > :37:27.too many decisions coming out that lead people down this route to think
:37:27. > :37:31.the easy option is to destroy the ancient woodland. We are worried it
:37:32. > :37:38.is a soft target because of this focus on the national planning
:37:39. > :37:44.policy. Conservationists say nothing can make up for destroying the
:37:44. > :37:49.woodland habitat as it has taken centuries to evolve. Those in favour
:37:49. > :37:52.of the road expansion believe it is a necessary sacrifice as it could
:37:52. > :37:56.bring £400 million of economic benefits. What we need to look at is
:37:56. > :38:02.what we have at the moment. There is a very, very strong case for dualing
:38:02. > :38:07.the A 21 on this four-mile stretch. Congestion is a significant problem.
:38:07. > :38:10.In itself, that is a barrier to economic activity and future
:38:11. > :38:15.economic development. This fight is not just a matter of
:38:15. > :38:19.protecting the environment. There is an argument that wood lands
:38:19. > :38:26.themselves bring their own economic benefits. There were 30 million
:38:26. > :38:32.visits to wood lands and forests in the south-east last year.
:38:32. > :38:37.Natural England estimates that £180 million was spent during those
:38:37. > :38:45.visits. Here in the southeast we have four
:38:45. > :38:49.times more ancient woodland than the national average. There is a growing
:38:49. > :38:55.concern about other ancient wood lands. In Maidstone this month
:38:55. > :38:59.resident residents met to discuss risks to a dozen other sites in the
:38:59. > :39:03.borough. I think we are going to lose a lot of the green space. It is
:39:03. > :39:09.supposed to be the garden of England, Kent. We are just worried
:39:09. > :39:14.that all our green spaces are being swal lowed up. The final decision
:39:14. > :39:18.over the A 21 expansion is due in the next few months. In the mean
:39:18. > :39:23.time, campaigners say the fate of the country's ancient wood lands
:39:23. > :39:27.hangs in the balance. Will the Government's planning reforms mean
:39:27. > :39:31.economic interests will always take priority over the environment
:39:31. > :39:37.however rare and irreplaceable it may be?
:39:37. > :39:45.And we have been joined by James Stevens, strategic planner at the
:39:45. > :39:51.home builders' federation and Shaun Spiers from the Campaign To Protect
:39:51. > :39:56.Rural England. James Stevens, one year on, have the Government's
:39:56. > :40:00.planning reforms made a difference? It is a system bedding in. While we
:40:00. > :40:05.have been very pleased to see certain measures put in place about
:40:05. > :40:09.a greater attention towards delive raibility and greater attention to
:40:09. > :40:13.the viability of the sites that local authorities are putting
:40:13. > :40:18.forward for development, I - it is starting to actually, I think, make
:40:18. > :40:23.local authorities think very carefully about meeting their object
:40:23. > :40:25.objective, assessing the need for housing and doing proper
:40:25. > :40:30.calculations and bringing forward sites that they can deliver within
:40:30. > :40:33.the next five years to ensure those planning objectives are being
:40:33. > :40:37.secured. So, you will be able to build more and it is easier? I think
:40:37. > :40:40.it is helping the industry to provide more. Compared to the
:40:41. > :40:46.previous planning regime of the last Government, which tended to but a
:40:46. > :40:49.great emphasis on the development of brownfield sites, even when some of
:40:49. > :40:53.those sites were not economically viable, it was difficult for house
:40:53. > :40:58.builder toss bring those sites forward. The greater attention on
:40:58. > :41:02.deliverability under the new regime, with local authorities giving much
:41:02. > :41:07.more attention to viability is starting to yield results, with
:41:07. > :41:12.sites coming forward. We saw that reform could affect ancient woodland
:41:12. > :41:16.by the A 21. Does that set a precedent for other projects? And
:41:16. > :41:22.there'll be more green space lost? I think there is a big question about
:41:22. > :41:26.how the wider southeast and Greater London actually meets its
:41:26. > :41:30.development needs. Particularly how it meets housing needs. It would
:41:30. > :41:33.have to lose more green space? Rationally, realistically, the only
:41:33. > :41:41.way that London and the southeast will meet the needs is by
:41:41. > :41:46.surrunneding some green -- surrending green field sites. There
:41:46. > :41:52.is, some politicians argue, there is a housing crisis? We would argue
:41:52. > :41:56.there. And we have to build some on green space. There is suitable
:41:56. > :42:00.brownfield land sufficient for one million new homes. Look first at the
:42:00. > :42:05.brownfield land. The reforms work well for James's members. They will
:42:05. > :42:09.build a number of houses they can sell profitability and it has made
:42:09. > :42:13.it easier for them to build on green field sites rather than brownfield
:42:13. > :42:16.sites. They will not build more houses because it is weaker, they
:42:16. > :42:21.will build more when the economy gets stronger. Let's look at the
:42:21. > :42:25.brownfield site issue. Everyone says why don't you build more on
:42:25. > :42:29.brownfield sites, you say there were policies put forward that were not
:42:29. > :42:33.appropriate. Is that really true? Brownfield sites in the southeast
:42:33. > :42:36.and London will come forward. It is probably brownfield development is
:42:36. > :42:38.not a problem in London. In the southeast, brownfield sites will
:42:38. > :42:42.come forward. They will not necessarily come forward in the next
:42:42. > :42:48.five to ten years. Local authorities need to have a mixed portfolio of
:42:48. > :42:53.sites. It is about sustaining delivery, not about saying we will
:42:53. > :42:57.ignore brownfield sites. It is being realistic over the next five to ten
:42:57. > :43:00.years. Otherwise we will lose the opportunities. Inertia will hold
:43:00. > :43:05.back the much-needed development. We need to build everywhere, to build
:43:05. > :43:11.200,000 new homes a year in London alone, we have to build pretty well
:43:11. > :43:18.everywhere. Who will build nem? Two-thirds are build -- build them?
:43:18. > :43:24.Two-thirds are built by the big ones. If you look at the annual
:43:24. > :43:28.reports of James's members they are looking at increasing profitability
:43:28. > :43:31.per site. They will not build 250,000 houses. They will build a
:43:31. > :43:34.number of houses they can sell profitably. If policy directs it to
:43:34. > :43:39.towns and cities, they will build there. If what is happening now is
:43:39. > :43:42.they are allowed to go in to the countryside, they will go into the
:43:42. > :43:48.countryside. They are in denial about it. That is Ed Miliband saying
:43:48. > :43:52.use it or lose it. They have to make a profit. It is about recognising
:43:52. > :43:56.that and actually having a balance. Brownfield sites will come forward.
:43:56. > :44:01.There might be a question of the need for more Government subsidy to
:44:02. > :44:07.enable more sites to come forward, particularly in the in order. A lot
:44:07. > :44:11.of delivery in the past of brownfield sites were predicated on
:44:11. > :44:18.large amounts of Government subsidy. In order to actually provide about
:44:18. > :44:25.200,000 homes a year, with I is what the being aimed at, we need to be
:44:25. > :44:30.pragmatic about that and it is about providing a mixed portfolio of
:44:30. > :44:31.sites. Should economic interests trump environmental ones when it
:44:31. > :44:45.comes to this issue? We do need houses. It is about as
:44:45. > :44:52.moaning about the price of petrol but we like our cars. Maybe if we
:44:52. > :44:57.could force developers perhaps to ensure they have this balance of the
:44:57. > :45:03.portfolio. Armed they already required to do that? Have a balanced
:45:03. > :45:12.portfolio building on brown field sites, building on new stocks? It
:45:12. > :45:15.has gone. I was in Manchester last week at the Conservative conference.
:45:15. > :45:24.I started working there 15 years ago and what a transformation. You have
:45:24. > :45:33.local authorities identifying Brownfield sites. Some people are
:45:33. > :45:36.saying it is not a viable, so the house-builders are saying, build on
:45:36. > :45:43.Greenfield. Giving back to local communities, do you agree with
:45:43. > :45:54.that? It would be good if it was happening. There should be a use it
:45:54. > :45:59.or lose it. Land grabbing? There should be some compensation, but you
:45:59. > :46:04.have to use that land. It will be cheaper to build on a farmer 's
:46:04. > :46:09.field than decontaminate some industrial land, I understand that.
:46:09. > :46:16.If the land was decontaminated, the houses are built and we don't lose a
:46:16. > :46:21.farmer 's field. I think the land banking question is a red herring.
:46:21. > :46:28.We need to be providing 200 thousand homes a year. Local authorities, it
:46:28. > :46:35.is a principle of planning, technical think local authorities
:46:35. > :46:42.have to maintain. We need a land bank of about 1 million homes. The
:46:42. > :46:49.idea the industry is withholding land from development is not the
:46:49. > :46:57.case at all. There are some sites lying empty for a long time will
:46:57. > :47:01.stop and wait for values to go up or drive up opposing sides by buying
:47:01. > :47:08.the land around it and not using it. Half of the sites they say are being
:47:08. > :47:13.banked are in the process of being billed out. 250,000 of those units
:47:13. > :47:20.are in the process of being built out. There is plenty of good
:47:20. > :47:31.Brownfield land in London. At least 400,000. Sustainability? There is no
:47:31. > :47:37.problem building site in London because people will come and pay the
:47:37. > :47:44.prices. Latest estimates by London councils suggest they need to
:47:44. > :47:54.provide 53,000 homes a year. London only has the capacity for 40,000 a
:47:54. > :48:00.year. So to me London's needs... And also, international investors. Hair
:48:00. > :48:06.today, gone tomorrow. It certainly was the George Osborne this week as
:48:06. > :48:11.he unveiled his new look at the Tory party conference. There might have
:48:11. > :48:14.been no U-turn on the economy, but his hairstyle has done an abrupt
:48:14. > :48:17.turnaround and it was the talk of Manchester. We will find out his
:48:17. > :48:20.secret, but first let's look at a Manchester. We will find out his
:48:20. > :49:04.few other political bonnets. And we've been joined by top hair
:49:04. > :49:14.stylist, Nicky Clarke. Welcome to the Daily Politics. It is good to be
:49:14. > :49:21.here. What did you think of George Osborne's new hairstyle? Did you
:49:21. > :49:26.notice? You could not help notice. Maybe he will grow into it. I love
:49:26. > :49:33.the way we are doing the heavyweight pieces. These are the popular bits
:49:33. > :49:40.of the programme. Appearances seem to be crucial in describing yourself
:49:40. > :49:43.as a politician. There has been the suggestions he is preparing for his
:49:43. > :49:48.role as taking over from the Prime Minister. All of the jokes,
:49:48. > :49:54.recession proof and things like that. Anybody who has been slightly
:49:54. > :50:04.losing their hair, they know it is best to have a tucked in haircut.
:50:04. > :50:13.This is what it looks like before. Does it make him look more
:50:13. > :50:19.approachable? It is fine both ways. Because he is blessed with having
:50:19. > :50:28.dark hair, it does have a tendency of looking like a wig. Yours is all
:50:28. > :50:37.genuine? Mine is real, yes. It makes him look distinguished. Do you not
:50:37. > :50:39.like it? George Osborne could not have had flat hair when the economy
:50:39. > :50:46.like it? George Osborne could not was flat. Do you look at things like
:50:46. > :50:52.that? Yes you do, you notice. There are some politicians who look a bit
:50:52. > :50:58.like public school, never had to bother with my hair. It just looks
:50:58. > :51:04.awful. What is your opinion of Boris Johnson's her? No one cuts his hair.
:51:04. > :51:11.It is wonderful, isn't it? Would you Johnson's her? No one cuts his hair.
:51:11. > :51:20.like to get your hands on his? It is great he does his own thing. It is
:51:20. > :51:26.deliberate. He actually does this... With his hair. David Cameron
:51:26. > :51:32.has a huge bald patch when he looks down. I suspect when he is in the
:51:32. > :51:38.shower his hair is all the way down his back and he weaves it round.
:51:38. > :51:45.What we have learnt is we don't want to be emulating the Bobby Charlton
:51:45. > :51:49.of this world with the comb over. So the idea of cutting it short is a
:51:49. > :51:55.good thing to do. What about embracing baldness? Let's have a
:51:55. > :52:05.look at some. Chuka Umunna, who is very young. It helps having a great
:52:05. > :52:13.shaped head. Also having darker skin also helps. The same if you were to
:52:14. > :52:21.take that on maybe... Here we go. There is William Hague. It is better
:52:21. > :52:29.than it was when he was 12 years old. It suits him. If he had those
:52:30. > :52:34.hair is long, he would look like Arthur Scargill or Bobby Charlton.
:52:34. > :52:46.What about a Prime Minister who does not have hair, Anne Diamond? Who was
:52:46. > :52:54.the last one? Do you think people who think about that? Have we really
:52:54. > :52:58.come to that? Not entirely. You see the politician first before you hear
:52:58. > :53:02.them. I would rather they wore a better suit. Then they think they
:53:02. > :53:17.are trying too hard wearing something that is to stylish. Let's
:53:17. > :53:24.looking at these politicians. Is that Lord Lucan? Have we found him?
:53:24. > :53:31.There is David Heath. What do you think about beards and moustaches.
:53:31. > :53:37.He looks very left wing. You think it does immediately pointed in a
:53:37. > :53:42.certain political direction? You cannot help it. In the old days,
:53:42. > :53:49.Michael foot wore the donkey jacket. It is certainly denoting that kind
:53:49. > :53:54.of hair, that style of dress. It was eight car coat from Harrods. It is
:53:54. > :54:02.in the people 's history Museum in Manchester. What about a moustache.
:54:02. > :54:08.There aren't many around? They took them off in the new Labour era.
:54:08. > :54:13.Alistair Darling, they all went. Is it too left wing? It is amazing how
:54:13. > :54:17.much of the socialist party did have. Through the 80s, it wasn't the
:54:17. > :54:24.right wing politicians that had them. They would be looking like
:54:24. > :54:30.they were part of the gentry. Someone says, nope profit cannot
:54:30. > :54:37.succeed without a beard. Another person said, you cannot
:54:37. > :54:41.trust a politician with a beard. Where would you find Nigel Farage,
:54:41. > :54:45.Boris Johnson and Elvis all at the same event? At the Tory Party
:54:45. > :54:56.Conference of course! Here's the week in 60 seconds.
:54:56. > :55:02.It is the Tory party conference in Manchester, so what on earth is he
:55:02. > :55:09.doing here? I am here to have a dropper debate. Perhaps someone you
:55:09. > :55:17.would expect to be at any blue gathering is this man. Not that he
:55:17. > :55:23.would be up to any mischief. When he was Prime Minister... On Wednesday
:55:23. > :55:28.it was David Cameron's keynote speech and an intriguing offer the
:55:28. > :55:34.Ed Miliband. You keep your shirt on, I will keep the lights on. Away from
:55:34. > :55:38.Manchester, Ed Miliband was in a battle with the Daily Mail claiming
:55:38. > :55:43.his father hated Britain. But the Daily Mail did say sorry when it was
:55:43. > :55:49.reported one of their reporters gate-crashed a memorial for the
:55:49. > :55:55.Labour leader's uncle. No conference would be complete with out an
:55:55. > :56:03.appearance from this man. Not Alastair Campbell, but Elvis.
:56:03. > :56:12.Anything to get on television. Now, let's look ahead. When do we think
:56:12. > :56:19.the reshuffle is will be happening? This coming week, some ministers
:56:19. > :56:24.said nervously Tuesday Wednesday, others said Thursday. Does Ed
:56:24. > :56:29.Miliband go before or after? I think sensibly he goes after. Put your
:56:29. > :56:33.players against the team in government, rather than try and do
:56:33. > :56:37.it the other way round. Everyone is thinking about it. David Cameron
:56:37. > :56:44.sees reshuffles as a sign of weakness. He kept his team together
:56:44. > :56:48.for quite a while. It is difficult with a coalition because of the
:56:48. > :56:53.numbers of ministers. You move one out, it is hard to move another one
:56:53. > :56:59.in. At this stage, could it be seen as a sign of weakness. His message
:56:59. > :57:06.is, we are doing everything right. He has 80 posts to play with. You
:57:06. > :57:12.want the next generation. Going to the next general election saying, we
:57:12. > :57:19.want to be refreshed. The ones who get the sack... Are the ones whose
:57:19. > :57:28.names we cannot remember. Andy Burnham? Will he be moved? There is
:57:28. > :57:31.thought of that, he does not want to go. He is putting up a rearguard
:57:31. > :57:38.action. I think he has done very well. Jeremy Hunt, they have thrown
:57:38. > :57:41.the kitchen sink at him and he is still standing. But some of the
:57:41. > :57:47.older ones, they will be looking for new things to do by the end of next
:57:47. > :57:49.week. Anybody you would like to see go on David Cameron's site? You said
:57:49. > :57:55.week. Anybody you would like to see you said it was a sign of weakness.
:57:55. > :57:58.Bearing in mind the election is 18 months away, would this be the team
:57:58. > :58:04.to take you into that general election? Given what else he has
:58:04. > :58:08.got, I don't know. He might go for the thing, he is doing everything
:58:08. > :58:19.right at the moment, all he has got to do is continue. Maria Miller,
:58:19. > :58:25.Culture Secretary? Who knows, she can't get on a bus and nobody would
:58:25. > :58:29.recognise her. We need good women. There's just time before we go to
:58:29. > :58:32.find out the answer to our quiz. The question was what creature was
:58:32. > :58:45.Speaker John Bercow compared to by a mum in Chelsea after a row about
:58:45. > :58:51.parking? Was it: Answer: A weasel. That's all for today. Thanks to Anne
:58:51. > :58:55.Diamond, Kevin Maguire and all my guests. Andrew will be back on BBC
:58:55. > :58:58.One on Sunday with the Sunday Politics from 11:00am, and I'll be
:58:58. > :59:01.here on BBC Two with more Daily Politics on Monday at midday. Have a
:59:01. > :59:02.good weekend. Goodbye.