:00:34. > :00:40.Afternoon folks, welcome to The Daily Politics. "Extraordinarily
:00:41. > :00:43.poor", "alarmingly weak"... A committee of MPs lays into the
:00:44. > :00:47.management of the Government's flagship welfare reform, Universal
:00:48. > :00:53.Credit. But who's to blame - ministers or civil servants? Only
:00:54. > :00:56.15% of us bothered to vote for them - but a year on, have Police
:00:57. > :00:58.Commissioners made any difference? Where should more NHS money be
:00:59. > :01:19.All that in the next hour. And with spent?
:01:20. > :01:23.All that in the next hour. And with us for the duration today, a woman
:01:24. > :01:26.who once held one of the great offices of state, appointed today to
:01:27. > :01:30.one of the great offices of television, our Guest of the Day on
:01:31. > :01:42.The Daily Politics, it's former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. It is good
:01:43. > :01:47.to see you in the daylight, I normally see you late on on a
:01:48. > :01:51.Thursday night. Let's start with interest rates - we've just had a
:01:52. > :01:54.decision from the Bank of England that they are to be held at the
:01:55. > :01:58.historic low rate of half a percentage point for the 56th
:01:59. > :02:07.consecutive month. But with the economy now growing and unemployment
:02:08. > :02:08.falling, how much longer? We're joined now by City analyst David
:02:09. > :02:28.Buik. joined now by City analyst David
:02:29. > :02:33.caught between a rock and a hard place. It is only five or six months
:02:34. > :02:36.ago that he told us that he is forward guidance meant there would
:02:37. > :02:43.be no change in interest rates until 2016. Unfortunately, he did not know
:02:44. > :02:48.that the UK economy was about to pick up the cudgel and go for it. We
:02:49. > :02:55.had it confirmed on Monday by the CBI that growth will probably go to
:02:56. > :03:00.1.4% this year, 2.4% next year, 2.6% this year afterwards. And now, of
:03:01. > :03:05.course, with inflation running at 2.7% and wages only at 0.7% on an
:03:06. > :03:11.annualised basis, something has to give. So, the markets have told him,
:03:12. > :03:16.thank you very much, Mr Carney, but I'm afraid the Guild market at the
:03:17. > :03:19.short end, up to two years, indicates that we could have
:03:20. > :03:36.something of an interest rate hike as early
:03:37. > :03:40.something of an interest rate hike young people, quite rightly, to fill
:03:41. > :03:44.their boots, so to suddenly ask them to service their debts at a higher
:03:45. > :03:53.level, with less disposable income, it is not a quandary I would like to
:03:54. > :03:57.be in. Indeed, but maybe Mr Carney got misled as to how strong growth
:03:58. > :04:01.was going to be because he read the Bank of England's forecasts, which
:04:02. > :04:05.are nearly always wrong on these matters, and particularly on
:04:06. > :04:11.inflation. Point is, these forecasts of growth, even they might now be an
:04:12. > :04:16.underestimate . we could be heading for closer to 3% growth next year.
:04:17. > :04:20.That is a return to normality, so does it not follow that interest
:04:21. > :04:27.rates therefore have to return to normal? Well, personally, I think
:04:28. > :04:45.they have two. Also, so long as night follows day,
:04:46. > :04:48.they have two. Also, so long as cannot have interest rates at .5%,
:04:49. > :04:51.because you are putting a huge burden on any government, of
:04:52. > :04:56.whatever political persuasion, to deal with welfare and pensions. And
:04:57. > :05:00.that has to be addressed. But I think for the next two or three
:05:01. > :05:06.months, Mark Carney has got to be steadfast, that he wants to talk
:05:07. > :05:09.about forward guidance. Any kind of threat of any hike in interest rates
:05:10. > :05:13.over the next couple of months I suspect may be dangerous, but there
:05:14. > :05:17.is no question, if we are going to improve to the degree which you are
:05:18. > :05:21.suggesting, and I agree with, interest rates cannot remain at that
:05:22. > :05:29.level for an indefinite period of time. The Governor of the Bank of
:05:30. > :05:34.England has been an independent figure since Gordon Brown and Ed
:05:35. > :05:38.Balls made all of those changes, and he is now in a position where he
:05:39. > :05:55.could become, in the run-up to the election,
:05:56. > :05:57.could become, in the run-up to the difficult position for him. It is,
:05:58. > :06:01.but they think it is absolutely right that he maintains that
:06:02. > :06:06.independence and makes the judgment on the basis of the forward guidance
:06:07. > :06:08.that he has set out and the views of the monetary policy committee. But
:06:09. > :06:14.you are right that this is problematic. Of course, it was Ed
:06:15. > :06:18.Miliband who said, you can have growth in the economy, but actually
:06:19. > :06:22.you will still have a cost of living squeeze. Any rise in interest rates
:06:23. > :06:27.will add to that squeeze on people's mortgage repayments. You may have
:06:28. > :06:34.growth, but you have also got rising prices, and the cost of my house is
:06:35. > :06:38.going up. You could also, I suppose, have stronger growth, as David and I
:06:39. > :06:43.were talking about, between now and the election, but unemployment may
:06:44. > :06:45.not come below 7%, because in this recession, not nearly as many people
:06:46. > :07:06.lost their jobs. This recession, not nearly as many people
:07:07. > :07:10.level of employment that there are many people who would want to work
:07:11. > :07:15.more hours. That is the first problem. But also, you have to
:07:16. > :07:19.identify the conflict which comes between what Mark Carney has set out
:07:20. > :07:24.in the forward guidance, which is the unemployment cut off, for which
:07:25. > :07:29.she was much praised, incidentally, for saying, let's set this guidance
:07:30. > :07:34.clearly, and what we have already begun to hear, which is a chorus of
:07:35. > :07:38.people saying, lower inflationary pressures, at what point are
:07:39. > :07:41.interest rates going to start rising? Is it possible to have a
:07:42. > :07:46.smooth, gentle rise in interest rates? So, there is a conflict,
:07:47. > :07:49.which does put him in a very politicised position, and also plays
:07:50. > :07:53.into this whole problem of the squeeze on people's pockets. In
:07:54. > :07:56.America, where all of this originally came from, the US Federal
:07:57. > :08:18.Now it's time for our quiz. Reserve steps
:08:19. > :08:21.Now it's time for our quiz. And which of the following
:08:22. > :08:24.cost-saving suggestions has been proposed to councils by the Tax
:08:25. > :08:28.Payers' Alliance. Do they want to... A) Ask dustmen to deliver the post
:08:29. > :08:31.on their rounds? B) Graze sheep in parks to save money on lawn mowers?
:08:32. > :08:35.C) Use children's sand pits to grit the roads? D) Encourage badgers to
:08:36. > :08:37.put up municipal goal posts? At the end of the show, Jacqui will give us
:08:38. > :08:46.the correct answer. Universal Credit was supposed to be
:08:47. > :08:50.the Government's big plan to restructure our unwieldy benefits
:08:51. > :08:54.system and save us money. A lot of money. But the Government's flagship
:08:55. > :08:57.reform is, in fact, guilty of "shocking" failures in management
:08:58. > :09:03.which have already wasted at least ?140 million. The savaging has come
:09:04. > :09:06.from Parliament's Public Accounts Committee, which has voiced doubts
:09:07. > :09:07.about whether Iain Duncan Smith's project can still be
:09:08. > :09:28.the programme has been described as extraordinarily poor, oversight
:09:29. > :09:31.alarmingly weak, and ?425 million of expenditure to date likely to be
:09:32. > :09:35.written off, according to your report, so how did it happen? I
:09:36. > :09:41.think they have been driven by a political imperative to meet
:09:42. > :09:45.deadlines, date deadlines, and I think that is a mistake. It is a
:09:46. > :09:49.very compact programme, one which has cross-party support, so there is
:09:50. > :09:54.no argument about the policy direction, but it is very
:09:55. > :09:59.compensated, and they simply should not have been driven by timelines.
:10:00. > :10:02.Secondly, they thought it was a little IT project, and actually,
:10:03. > :10:07.this is a big transformation, winning six benefits into one,
:10:08. > :10:11.trying to change the way in which you work, to make work pay, which
:10:12. > :10:15.takes a lot of thought. Thirdly, there has been this culture of
:10:16. > :10:35.optimism in the Department for Work there has been this culture of
:10:36. > :10:39.it is only testing a single person, without children, dying for only one
:10:40. > :10:46.of the benefits, job-seekers allowance. -- going for. You are
:10:47. > :10:49.describing it as a disaster, is it a disaster? I think it is, at the
:10:50. > :10:55.moment, it is an unmitigated disaster. Is it Solver Jubal? Yes.
:10:56. > :10:59.If they stop having these would killers time deadlines... Which ones
:11:00. > :11:11.are you talking about, is it 2017? Yes. It would be much better if they
:11:12. > :11:16.stopped thinking about, it has got to be in by 2017, and started
:11:17. > :11:20.thinking, how can we implement this properly? The second thing is, they
:11:21. > :11:26.have got to face up to the money they have wasted so far. It is not
:11:27. > :11:43.the ?420 million, but they have spent
:11:44. > :11:46.the ?420 million, but they have muddle through and pretend that they
:11:47. > :11:52.can use some of that in the short-term. I would say, let's scrap
:11:53. > :11:57.a useless IT system we have got and start again. And thirdly, they have
:11:58. > :12:00.just got to say, this is a big transformation, we are going to
:12:01. > :12:04.monitor it public, we are going to take responsibility from the top,
:12:05. > :12:08.and if things start going wrong, we are going to intervene quickly to
:12:09. > :12:14.put things right. Who is to blame? I think it is from the top down.
:12:15. > :12:19.Ministers? Top down. I think it is everybody involved, both at the
:12:20. > :12:23.administration and at the top of the Department for Work and Pensions. I
:12:24. > :12:27.am not into scapegoating individuals, they have got to think
:12:28. > :12:29.through what they have got to do. This is an important flagship
:12:30. > :12:33.programme for the government, and they have got to get it right. There
:12:34. > :12:35.are reports in the papers claiming that members of your committee were
:12:36. > :12:53.put under pressure that members of your committee were
:12:54. > :12:56.is extremely critical of the Department and the government, and
:12:57. > :13:02.it was unanimously agreed by all the members of my committee.
:13:03. > :13:12.We asked the Department for Work and Pensions for an interview, but
:13:13. > :13:15.no-one was available. But we are joined by the former Home Office
:13:16. > :13:21.Minister Nick Herbert, and Jacqui Smith is still with us. Why can't
:13:22. > :13:27.they get this right? You have got to sub rate -- to separate the response
:13:28. > :13:36.of the tea from the operational arrangements. The policy is
:13:37. > :13:39.agreed... She said that. Yes, and it is agreed cross-party, so there is
:13:40. > :13:43.not a policy failure, there has clearly been an operational failure.
:13:44. > :13:45.This is the second major project which has exposed, I think, failings
:13:46. > :14:04.in relation to which has exposed, I think, failings
:14:05. > :14:06.this? Actually, we have a sort of system of untouchables who run these
:14:07. > :14:13.departments, the permanent secretaries, who remain in place
:14:14. > :14:17.irrespective of these kind of failures. We have seen this in other
:14:18. > :14:21.departments as well. So you are blaming the civil service, the
:14:22. > :14:25.permanent secretary, for this? What I am saying is that we have got a
:14:26. > :14:29.big rubble of accountability here. In the end, ministers are held
:14:30. > :14:33.accountable for things. In reality, ministers cannot be held responsible
:14:34. > :14:36.for these operational things when they have got the policy right. What
:14:37. > :14:42.do you say to that, Jacqui Smith, because this is about delivery isn't
:14:43. > :15:12.it? Should we be blaming civil servants more squarely?
:15:13. > :15:16.it? Should we be blaming civil -- welfare reform programme. Nick,
:15:17. > :15:21.come on, you have been a minister, this is the type of project where
:15:22. > :15:25.you would expect senior ministers, perhaps weekly, to sit down with the
:15:26. > :15:30.team and convince me that progress is going right. Either the senior
:15:31. > :15:33.ministers were not doing that, which is an abdication of responsibility,
:15:34. > :15:36.or the will was being pulled over their eyes. Either way it's a
:15:37. > :15:44.ministerial failure. -- bubble was being pulled. -- the wall was being
:15:45. > :15:47.pulled. Perhaps Margaret Hodge had not appreciated the enormity of the
:15:48. > :15:51.task if you are merging a separate benefit payment system into one, and
:15:52. > :15:58.putting a timeline was always going to lead to disaster, says Margaret
:15:59. > :16:02.Hodge. I disagree with Jacqui Smith's points. But who advises the
:16:03. > :16:22.civil service? It is open to save that they do not think
:16:23. > :16:25.civil service? It is open to save is the operational leaders are never
:16:26. > :16:29.touched when these things go wrong. In the end, that's a failure of
:16:30. > :16:35.accountability and you will get a repetition of problems. It is a
:16:36. > :16:40.systemic weakness. I agree civil servants should not be untouched,
:16:41. > :16:45.but as a minister, surely you don't believe that as an estate you say
:16:46. > :16:53.this is the policy, deliberate and come back and tell me when you've
:16:54. > :16:55.done it -- as a minister. The political pressure was enormous.
:16:56. > :17:02.There was an awful lot at stake here. Do you feel that there was a
:17:03. > :17:06.feeling, an atmosphere that they have to do this come what may, and
:17:07. > :17:13.we have to tell the ministers that, if that is what happened. That is
:17:14. > :17:16.speculation. Back row white but that is the claim. It is always --.
:17:17. > :17:36.speculation. Back row white but that civil service. That is what
:17:37. > :17:41.ministers inherit. Let's move on from the blame game. Do you think it
:17:42. > :17:44.can work? Will it actually work? There is talk of a lot of
:17:45. > :17:48.nervousness at the top of government that the universal credit will never
:17:49. > :17:58.get online within a reasonable time frame. There are two questions, can
:17:59. > :18:03.it work, and the timetable. There is still a cross-party consensus. But
:18:04. > :18:06.do you think it can work? Yes, I think it can be made to work, but we
:18:07. > :18:11.have to look without blaming. We have to look at what skills and
:18:12. > :18:16.capabilities we have in the civil service to deliver major projects.
:18:17. > :18:19.Do you think it should be made to work? It's a policy that ministers
:18:20. > :18:23.over years have thought is a good idea. Many have looked at the
:18:24. > :18:25.difficulties of implementation and the cost and then backed off. That
:18:26. > :18:26.does not the cost and then backed off. That
:18:27. > :18:50.piloting deceit if in effect it can work -- to see if it can work. Or is
:18:51. > :18:53.it too much of a struggle. , let's see.
:18:54. > :18:58.Now, curb your enthusiasm. It's almost a year since literally
:18:59. > :19:02.several of you struggled out on a cold Autumn day to elect Police and
:19:03. > :19:06.Crime Commissioners. It was one of the lowest turnouts in British
:19:07. > :19:09.electoral history. So, a year on, have the commissioners made such an
:19:10. > :19:12.impression that you're regretting your decision to sit on your hands,
:19:13. > :19:19.or has their performance left you feeling totally vindicated? Here's
:19:20. > :19:22.Jo-Co! That's right, Andrew. Turnout at the Police Commissioner elections
:19:23. > :19:29.last November was a paltry 15.1%. There are currently 16 Conservative
:19:30. > :19:32.PCCs, 13 Labour and 12 Independents. Taken together, PCCs are responsible
:19:33. > :19:53.for ?8 billion of spending on police in England and Wales.
:19:54. > :19:56.for ?8 billion of spending on police ?70,000 each. And the Chairman of
:19:57. > :19:59.the Home Affairs Select Committee Keith Vaz has expressed concern that
:20:00. > :20:02.PCCs were able to remove chief constables with little scrutiny, and
:20:03. > :20:05.has warned against the dangers of "maverick decision making". Well,
:20:06. > :20:08.earlier this morning, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, gave a
:20:09. > :20:16.speech on the future of police commissioners. The first test of a
:20:17. > :20:20.commissioner's visibility and accountability was the elections in
:20:21. > :20:26.November. Let's be honest, at 15%, the turnout was disappointing. It
:20:27. > :20:30.still meant that more than 5 million people voted for PCCs, more than 5
:20:31. > :20:33.million votes than any police authority ever received, but we
:20:34. > :20:37.should clearly want the turnout to be higher in the future. I think we
:20:38. > :20:42.have every reason to believe that turnout will be higher. First of
:20:43. > :20:45.all, the elections will be held in May, not November. They will be held
:20:46. > :21:03.at the May, not November. They will be held
:21:04. > :21:16.round, the role of PCCs will be better understood by the public.
:21:17. > :21:21.Nick Herbert is a former policing Minister, so we're getting twice the
:21:22. > :21:24.value here. And we're joined from Kent by the county's Independent
:21:25. > :21:28.Police and Crime Commissioner, Ann Barnes. What has been your biggest
:21:29. > :21:33.success this year? The biggest success I have had is making the job
:21:34. > :21:37.my own. And actually commissioning an independent review to look at
:21:38. > :21:41.crime recording in Kent. It is a matter of trust, and I did ask for
:21:42. > :21:45.an independent review of that because I needed the people of Kent
:21:46. > :21:50.and myself to be sure we can trust the crime figures, so that was using
:21:51. > :21:53.my new powers. How much are we paying you for that? You are paying
:21:54. > :22:12.the ?85,000. paying you for that? You are paying
:22:13. > :22:17.to lots of local people and I'm able to react to local problems. It's
:22:18. > :22:23.still hard to see what we are getting the money. Have you cut
:22:24. > :22:26.crime in the county? Unfortunately crime in Kent is slightly going up
:22:27. > :22:30.compared to last year, which is a real disappointment. But the force
:22:31. > :22:33.has lost a fifth of the workforce and is trying to do the same as it
:22:34. > :22:38.did last year and the year before but with 20% fewer officers on the
:22:39. > :22:41.street and in the staff. That is difficult. It will be more
:22:42. > :22:45.challenging when the budgets are cut even more. Crime is going down
:22:46. > :22:51.everywhere else, and they have all had a cut in the police force as
:22:52. > :22:55.well. So if crime is rising in your patch, that would not suggest we are
:22:56. > :23:02.getting mal -- value for money from your ?85,000 a year. You need to
:23:03. > :23:04.look at other places. It's going up in other places as well. You have to
:23:05. > :23:22.remember in other places as well. You have to
:23:23. > :23:26.will tell you that the force is creaking. And he uses that
:23:27. > :23:32.expression himself. The thin blue line is a very thin one. They all
:23:33. > :23:38.say that. Have you found another youth crime commissioners to replace
:23:39. > :23:42.Paris Brown? I have 15 on the long list and I am short listing
:23:43. > :23:50.tomorrow. And that is run ?15,000 salary? How big is the budget? The
:23:51. > :23:57.budget is ?317 million. For your own office and staff? ?1.5 million, the
:23:58. > :24:03.same as last year. Quite a lot of money. Are you enjoying the job? I
:24:04. > :24:06.am absolutely loving it. It is challenging, exhilarating and it has
:24:07. > :24:09.made me realise more than ever that you really have to talk a lot to
:24:10. > :24:14.local people, because at the end of the day it is what local people want
:24:15. > :24:14.that matters. Jacqui Smith, former Home Secretary,
:24:15. > :24:33.that matters. Jacqui Smith, former I did. I accepted the problem of the
:24:34. > :24:37.old police authority is not being very visible and directly
:24:38. > :24:44.accountable -- police authorities. I argued at the time that the problem
:24:45. > :24:47.with trying to put one person with responsibility for a police force
:24:48. > :24:50.the size of Kent, or even larger than that, was that that person
:24:51. > :24:55.would not be able to have the impact you would want a directly elected
:24:56. > :24:58.person to have. To a certain extent, I've been proved right. Why is it
:24:59. > :25:05.that and Barnes wants a youth commissioner? Why do various other
:25:06. > :25:08.commissioners tried to appoint in dubious way a range of people to
:25:09. > :25:12.help them? It's precisely because that one person is not able to
:25:13. > :25:16.deliver the accountability and scrutiny that they would want to do,
:25:17. > :25:21.which is why the sort of ideas I tried to developers Home Secretary
:25:22. > :25:22.may be had an element of accountability, but more than one
:25:23. > :25:43.person in each force -- accountability, but more than one
:25:44. > :25:48.them have between them hired almost 450 staff since taking office. A bit
:25:49. > :25:51.of empire building going on here. A couple of things. There's no reason
:25:52. > :25:56.why the system would cost more money because the police authorities have
:25:57. > :25:58.been abolished. The key here is transparency. They have to account
:25:59. > :26:03.for how much money they will take out of the policing budget for their
:26:04. > :26:07.own activities. They will be held responsible for that. We did not put
:26:08. > :26:10.an artificial limit on it. We said that you answer to the local
:26:11. > :26:15.community for what you are doing. You have to be careful about direct
:26:16. > :26:19.comparisons. Some of the PCCs have taken on responsibilities that are
:26:20. > :26:24.things the police force were doing, and one of those will be complaints
:26:25. > :26:27.going to the PCCs, that wouldn't have gone to the authority because
:26:28. > :26:32.they were anonymous. Let's deal with the cost issue. That is a very small
:26:33. > :26:51.part of the overall policing budget and there will be some
:26:52. > :26:55.could go back over, but they do now. We know 75% of the local population
:26:56. > :26:58.know about their police and crime commission and by the next election
:26:59. > :27:03.will be higher. Then that person is held to account for delivering
:27:04. > :27:06.effective policing in the area and they hold the police force to
:27:07. > :27:08.account. I think that direct accountability we have seen in
:27:09. > :27:13.London with the mayor is something people will not want to turn the
:27:14. > :27:17.clock back on. There seems to be a bit of cronyism going on. At least
:27:18. > :27:24.ten of the appointments that they make are going to political or
:27:25. > :27:29.personal contacts. Firstly, one of the things I put through as minister
:27:30. > :27:31.was that they are not allowed to be political positions. We made them
:27:32. > :27:38.all so they were not allowed to be. Secondly, the key is transparency.
:27:39. > :27:41.You say it is on the register and they have to declare the
:27:42. > :28:01.appointments. It didn't stop them doing it. I
:28:02. > :28:05.appointments. It didn't stop them Has this person being useful? Have
:28:06. > :28:08.they done the job of holding the police to account? And then they can
:28:09. > :28:16.be chucked out. That was not the case with the police authority. Let
:28:17. > :28:22.me go back to and Barnes -- and Barnes. Have you appointed any
:28:23. > :28:28.friends, colleagues, cronies? I don't have a deputy or any assistant
:28:29. > :28:32.at all. So you have not indulged in any cronyism? I appointed to people
:28:33. > :28:34.to help me with the campaign on a short-term basis but they are not
:28:35. > :28:41.with me. I needed their skills right at the beginning. Do people in Kent
:28:42. > :28:45.know who you are? I think they do. I have comments of community
:28:46. > :28:48.engagement programme. Last month I spoke to about 1500 people at
:28:49. > :28:53.various events, just even in the street. I go out in my second-hand
:28:54. > :29:11.camper van in the street every weekend, which is
:29:12. > :29:13.camper van in the street every police authority I have on average a
:29:14. > :29:16.handful of correspondence per week. Since I have been a commissioner
:29:17. > :29:24.I've had 9000 correspondence. That is one good statistic at least. When
:29:25. > :29:30.the Plebgate issue moved to the West Midlands and blew up about Andrew
:29:31. > :29:33.Mitchell, your equivalent in the West Midlands seemed to become a
:29:34. > :29:38.spokesman for the police and to take the side of the police. Who do you
:29:39. > :29:47.represent? Are you there to represent the people, or are you
:29:48. > :29:51.speaking up the police? I am there to represent the people of Kent. I
:29:52. > :29:55.think Plebgate and Hillsborough has planted a seed in the minds of
:29:56. > :29:59.people that perhaps the police should not be investigating
:30:00. > :30:03.themselves any more, which is why I did my own independent report at the
:30:04. > :30:21.beginning. For high-profile difficulties and complaints, I think
:30:22. > :30:25.beginning. For high-profile learn something from that. Do you
:30:26. > :30:30.think Labour should keep this going, have another round of elections, see
:30:31. > :30:35.what happens? I think we should be trying to get more democracy into
:30:36. > :30:41.the system. So... You see, you want a shortened answer. You have not
:30:42. > :30:43.answered my question, should Labour keep this going through another
:30:44. > :30:49.round of elections? In terms of the timing, it is likely that the next
:30:50. > :30:52.set of elections will happen before a new initiative comes under way,
:30:53. > :30:57.but my argument is, do not do away with it, find more ways of holding
:30:58. > :31:01.the police more effectively to account. Do not do away with it,
:31:02. > :31:13.that is the key. Thank for giving us a double whammy.
:31:14. > :31:35.But NHS England is considering changing the funding formula, which
:31:36. > :31:38.could lead to deprived areas losing out to people with large numbers of
:31:39. > :31:44.elderly people. Mark Denten reports from Sunderland. This is a place
:31:45. > :31:46.which is used to facing problems like high unemployment and
:31:47. > :31:50.anti-social behaviour. These have been challenges for years in
:31:51. > :31:55.Pennywell. If you live in this area, you are more likely to die earlier.
:31:56. > :32:04.Life expectancy is three years less than the average for women, and five
:32:05. > :32:07.years less for men. Certainly, there are high levels of cardiovascular
:32:08. > :32:12.disease, which is heart disease, and respiratory disease, principally
:32:13. > :32:16.from smoking, but also because of the history of heavy industrial
:32:17. > :32:22.diseases. There are also concerns around high levels of obesity. Those
:32:23. > :32:41.are based on poor diet. But despite those problems, could
:32:42. > :32:45.are based on poor diet. But despite That could leave a hole in the
:32:46. > :32:51.Health Service funding for the North. Sunderland could lose ?41
:32:52. > :32:56.million, Newcastle, ?15 million on Cumbria could lose more than ?60
:32:57. > :32:59.million. Inevitably, commissioning groups will have to look at cutting
:33:00. > :33:05.some of the provision that they give now. That may well mean some of the
:33:06. > :33:10.hospital services, or it could be some of the community services, such
:33:11. > :33:20.as obesity clinics, smoking clinics. That may well have an
:33:21. > :33:25.impact on people's health. But they see things rather differently 70
:33:26. > :33:30.miles away. Just over there is the North Yorkshire market town of
:33:31. > :33:32.Hawes. One in four people in this area are pensioners, so their
:33:33. > :33:50.doctors have to travel long distances to get to
:33:51. > :33:54.doctors have to travel long So, the doctors have got a lot of if
:33:55. > :33:59.they were to put the emphasis on age, and it should benefit the
:34:00. > :34:04.practice enormously, and help to put us on a secure financial footing.
:34:05. > :34:08.North Yorkshire is a very popular place for people to grow old. As we
:34:09. > :34:12.live longer, people who are elderly have more complex health and social
:34:13. > :34:17.needs, and this has to be reflected in a higher health care budget.
:34:18. > :34:20.There is still time for town and country to make their case. NHS
:34:21. > :34:24.England will make a final decision next month. The funding challenge is
:34:25. > :34:30.to give areas with very different health needs a fair deal. And we are
:34:31. > :34:34.joined by viewers in Scotland, who have been watching or listening to
:34:35. > :34:42.First Minister's Questions from Holyrood. With me now is the Labour
:34:43. > :35:00.MP for Newcastle East, Nick Brown, and the Liberal Democrat
:35:01. > :35:03.MP for Newcastle East, Nick Brown, poor health outcomes. The
:35:04. > :35:08.Conservative Party neither proposal is to alter that so that money
:35:09. > :35:14.shifts from people who are poor and who die young towards communities
:35:15. > :35:20.where the well, elderly live. What is wrong with looking at age? If you
:35:21. > :35:24.think about the burden age puts on the NHS, if you have a rural
:35:25. > :35:27.population, for example, with a large number of elderly people, are
:35:28. > :35:32.they not going to be the ones putting more pressure on NHS
:35:33. > :35:34.services? I am not arguing that health care should be taken away
:35:35. > :35:39.from anyone, I am defending my constituency, and those who, because
:35:40. > :35:43.of the industrial heritage of the area, have a lower life
:35:44. > :35:48.expectancies. My constituents would like to live to a healthy old age,
:35:49. > :35:49.but they don't, they die younger. But there are Conservative MPs
:35:50. > :36:11.saying, this is not fair, money from the poor, those who have
:36:12. > :36:14.the least successful health outcomes, and spend it on people who
:36:15. > :36:21.are relatively better off. What do you say to that? Nick is absolutely
:36:22. > :36:26.right. We need to take away from the fog of political dispute all of
:36:27. > :36:37.this. Just as under previous governments, in fact since the
:36:38. > :36:39.1970s, when methods to independently establish the advisory committee on
:36:40. > :36:43.resource allocation, for example, which then advises government as to
:36:44. > :36:48.how the funding formula should be manipulative overtime, the main
:36:49. > :36:52.thing is to take it out of the hands of politicians, and that is largely
:36:53. > :36:57.what this government is doing, as the previous government did as well.
:36:58. > :37:01.But this is a question about need. The NHS funding formula says there
:37:02. > :37:02.should be equal access and need should also be made equal.
:37:03. > :37:23.should be equal access and need factor, because we are the poorest
:37:24. > :37:28.in terms of the wages and the GDP that we receive, and that was used
:37:29. > :37:30.as a method by which allocation was established which actually put as
:37:31. > :37:36.very low down the funding league table. Certainly, having a top-heavy
:37:37. > :37:39.age distribution, if you like, does not help. But it is certainly
:37:40. > :37:45.something which needs to be kept under review. At the end of the day.
:37:46. > :37:47.It should be directed towards achieving the best possible health
:37:48. > :37:52.outcomes across the country as a whole. We are talking about cost
:37:53. > :37:57.here, Nick Brown, and thereafter I like resources, so if you are
:37:58. > :38:01.looking at the funding formula, and at how much each area costs the NHS,
:38:02. > :38:05.your constituency may be poorer than somewhere else, in Cambridgeshire or
:38:06. > :38:10.Hampshire, for example, but actually, they cost more, so should
:38:11. > :38:11.the funding not match that, rather than saying it is
:38:12. > :38:34.expressed in terms of life expectancy, across the piece, my
:38:35. > :38:40.constituents died three years earlier than Andrew's. That is not
:38:41. > :38:44.right. Right, but per capita, another MP has said, if you are
:38:45. > :38:49.going to be ill, better to be ill in Hackney, where they will spend ?100
:38:50. > :38:54.more per head on you, than to be ill in Herefordshire. If I said to a
:38:55. > :38:58.citizen in Hackney, where would you rather live, they would move to
:38:59. > :39:02.Herefordshire, and if you said the same thing the other way round, you
:39:03. > :39:06.would not get the same response. It is very difficult for MPs living in
:39:07. > :39:12.these areas which have a very different make-up of constituents,
:39:13. > :39:16.to see what would be fair? Yes, but I think there is very clear evidence
:39:17. > :39:20.that what would happen if this formula were to be put into place
:39:21. > :39:21.would be a shift of resources, as Nick has said, from those people who
:39:22. > :39:41.have the greatest Nick has said, from those people who
:39:42. > :39:45.?40 per head. In Hampshire, your healthy life expectancies is 68. You
:39:46. > :39:50.are going to be gaining money. Of course, older people need health
:39:51. > :39:53.care, but the first issue is, have you got the health care and the
:39:54. > :39:57.resources to actually get you to be old in the first place off what do
:39:58. > :40:05.you say to that? Obviously, you need to distribute the resources very. --
:40:06. > :40:08.fairy. -- fairly. But the question is, who is making the decision? If
:40:09. > :40:12.you put it in the hands of politicians, there is always a risk
:40:13. > :40:19.that there could be tweaks to achieve political advantage. Of
:40:20. > :40:26.course, people in Nick's constituency should be advancing...
:40:27. > :40:29.It is taking money from the poor areas, which by and large are
:40:30. > :40:31.represented by Labour members of Parliament, and shifting it to the
:40:32. > :40:50.wealthier areas, Parliament, and shifting it to the
:40:51. > :40:55.hood in reverse. The key issue is that you need to take the ultimate
:40:56. > :40:58.decision and evaluation out of the hands of politicians, which is where
:40:59. > :41:05.NHS England, and the advisory committee, has to take an objective
:41:06. > :41:09.view. Thank you for coming in. There is a rumour doing the rounds at the
:41:10. > :41:13.moment that Ed Balls and Chuka Umunna went to some fancy do last
:41:14. > :41:22.night. I was not invited. And apparently, their hosts, business
:41:23. > :41:26.people, got them a ?800 bottle of wine. Do you believe that, Jacqui
:41:27. > :41:33.Smith? I was not there! . But could you believe it? So, if you are
:41:34. > :41:38.watching, U2, let us know, we will put the record straight. We have had
:41:39. > :41:41.it confirmed by BBC Wales that the Welsh government paid ?48,000 for a
:41:42. > :41:59.windmill, or a turbine, Welsh government paid ?48,000 for a
:42:00. > :42:02.bottle of wine. We move on. It has got them thinking! If you are
:42:03. > :42:06.looking for a school place for your child, it can sometimes feel like
:42:07. > :42:15.you need to go to school yourself to navigate the application process.
:42:16. > :42:20.Anyway, a new website launched in the capital this morning aims to
:42:21. > :42:24.take the mystery out of it all. Giles met the creators of the London
:42:25. > :42:30.Schools Atlas to find out more. So, what are we looking at, what is this
:42:31. > :42:34.schools Atlas? It is an online, interact to map of every school in
:42:35. > :42:39.London, at primary and secondary school level, allowing people to
:42:40. > :42:44.browse to a particular area of London, and then to use the
:42:45. > :42:48.drop-down list to select a school. It will show where the children that
:42:49. > :42:50.go to that school actually live in London. So, you get an impression of
:42:51. > :43:13.the catchment area. What is London. So, you get an impression of
:43:14. > :43:14.live. You want the public to be able to use this, so what is the driver,
:43:15. > :43:14.you want people to to use this, so what is the driver,
:43:15. > :43:17.choice? Yes, data is power. People need information, objective
:43:18. > :43:23.information, to reach decisions, and this is exactly what the GLA should
:43:24. > :43:26.be doing, providing that data, providing those things which will
:43:27. > :43:57.enable people to make a decision, and Is to certain school. I going to
:43:58. > :44:01.understand what this is telling me? The challenge at the moment for
:44:02. > :44:19.parents is that all of this information,
:44:20. > :44:24.parents is that all of this now. Welcome. Who is this for,
:44:25. > :44:28.primarily? Parents or government? All sorts of people. Parents but
:44:29. > :44:35.also people who want to set up free schools. It's for the planners. You
:44:36. > :44:40.have to think about where schools might be needed. It sounds like it
:44:41. > :44:44.might be more useful, I might suggest, for government, who have to
:44:45. > :44:48.look at pressure on places. Parents are normally just looking at the
:44:49. > :44:52.Ofsted results. They are looking at where they might want to send their
:44:53. > :44:55.children to school. The idea that parents send them to the local
:44:56. > :44:59.school in London is not quite true. You can see from the atlas that lots
:45:00. > :45:03.of parents will look quite widely and look at schools in other
:45:04. > :45:06.boroughs. Mainly cause of the results. They will look at the
:45:07. > :45:10.school with the best results. They will say that is where they will try
:45:11. > :45:12.and get them into. It is useful for them to know how much demand will
:45:13. > :45:31.grow them to know how much demand will
:45:32. > :45:36.beyond the boundaries? At secondary school, that is where it happens
:45:37. > :45:39.most, it is about 20% that go to a school that is not in the borough
:45:40. > :45:44.they are living in. Quite a high number compared to other parts of
:45:45. > :45:48.the UK. Is this more about London? Is this tool going to help parents
:45:49. > :45:52.in London where there is a lot of pressure and they are more mobile in
:45:53. > :45:55.terms of sending kids because of that better transport? We are the
:45:56. > :45:59.Greater London authority, which is why it is a London atlas. We have
:46:00. > :46:04.children coming from outside the city coming into schools as well.
:46:05. > :46:08.House prices are a huge factor in dictating the education choices in
:46:09. > :46:14.London. Is it fair that some parents are able and can afford to choose
:46:15. > :46:18.where to send their kids because they can move to the expensive areas
:46:19. > :46:20.around the best state schools? The reality is there is all sorts of
:46:21. > :46:40.choice in the system already. reality is there is all sorts of
:46:41. > :46:43.forced to spend a fortune on independent school fees or moving
:46:44. > :46:48.house. And the schools in their area are good. The tool like this is
:46:49. > :46:51.important. If free schools and academies look at where there is a
:46:52. > :46:56.need for places and the need for good schools, they are more likely
:46:57. > :46:59.to set up there. At the moment, the information is too obscure. It's not
:47:00. > :47:07.available to them to do it and we hope this allows them to do it.
:47:08. > :47:11.Isn't the reality about who can afford to move around London? If you
:47:12. > :47:14.want to send your job and to state schools, parents will move to the
:47:15. > :47:19.areas where there are the best schools, and price out a lot of
:47:20. > :47:23.families who can't afford to do it? I think this map is a good idea.
:47:24. > :47:26.Anything that gives parents more information is good. It was
:47:27. > :47:30.something I did is an education minister and it is a good
:47:31. > :47:48.initiative. But I agree with you that in an odd
:47:49. > :47:51.initiative. But I agree with you people to look further afield, but a
:47:52. > :47:55.Labour politician will say that you should go to the school up the
:47:56. > :47:59.road? If that is a good school, the standards will it improve. That is
:48:00. > :48:02.your characterisation of a Labour politician. This Labour politician
:48:03. > :48:05.thinks parents should have a choice of good schools and acted to ensure
:48:06. > :48:12.that would happen when I was education minister. If it helps
:48:13. > :48:17.people to help that -- if it helps people to think about what best
:48:18. > :48:23.suits their child, that's fine. My problem is that I'm less optimistic
:48:24. > :48:32.that this will cause a big growth of free schools and academies and solve
:48:33. > :48:35.the problem of a lack of places. Simply providing information will
:48:36. > :48:40.not solve the problem. It needs a plan, frankly, and it needs more
:48:41. > :49:00.action than either the government, and it isn't the
:49:01. > :49:04.action than either the government, everything either. You do want some
:49:05. > :49:06.plan of the places. That is the purpose of the tool, to work out
:49:07. > :49:14.where the gaps are and where schools are needed. PricewaterhouseCoopers
:49:15. > :49:18.have brought out a clear correlation between house prices and decent
:49:19. > :49:22.state schools around them. A second way of buying your education,
:49:23. > :49:23.really. The other way is to just pay fees.
:49:24. > :49:27.Now, until relatively recently we didn't even know their names. We
:49:28. > :49:31.certainly didn't know what they looked like. But this afternoon
:49:32. > :49:34.history will be made when the three heads of the intelligence services
:49:35. > :49:37.appear in public before a parliamentary committee. There will
:49:38. > :49:40.be a two-minute delay on the TV feed in case Iain Lobban, the Director of
:49:41. > :49:43.GCHQ, Andrew Parker, Director General of MI5 or John Sawers, the
:49:44. > :49:50.Chief of MI6, divulge any national secrets. I can't believe they would
:49:51. > :50:10.do that. secrets. I can't believe they would
:50:11. > :50:12.the chief of MI6 looks like because we've seen pictures of him in his
:50:13. > :50:18.swimming trunks. His wife posted them at the time he was about to be
:50:19. > :50:22.appointed. It caused a huge row and they had to be taken down in a
:50:23. > :50:26.hurry. He is quite a familiar figure, John Sawyers, because he was
:50:27. > :50:29.a Foreign Office man for a long time before we took the job. But coming
:50:30. > :50:35.out of the shadows, as they are, is a real milestone. This is never
:50:36. > :50:39.happened before. The free intelligence chiefs, who prefer to
:50:40. > :50:44.stay in the shadows, will appear not only in public -- free intelligence
:50:45. > :50:49.chiefs. They also appear on television. They will be talking
:50:50. > :50:53.about bugging President Obama's phone? Of course not. They will be
:50:54. > :50:59.talking about current operations. They will be pressed hard by the
:51:00. > :51:00.committee of MPs, I hope, as do just what is the extent of their
:51:01. > :51:19.surveillance operations, generically?
:51:20. > :51:24.surveillance operations, will tell us something we don't
:51:25. > :51:27.already know? I think it will. -- I think they will. It will be a
:51:28. > :51:32.fascinating insight into the world of spies. They will talk about how
:51:33. > :51:36.they recruit. We will hear about the growing threats, cyber terrorism,
:51:37. > :51:39.the persistent threat to the UK and its interests. That we have heard
:51:40. > :51:45.before. But we will hear more about the methods and challenges faces --
:51:46. > :51:48.facing them. These people are generally not terribly exciting.
:51:49. > :51:57.They are not show men, not like you, the gift of the gab that you have.
:51:58. > :51:59.Don't expect scintillating television or angry exchanges. But
:52:00. > :52:05.if the committee do their job, they should get some interesting answers
:52:06. > :52:09.about Edward Snowden. If you were on the committee, and I wish you were,
:52:10. > :52:10.because we'd get decent questions, what is the one question above all
:52:11. > :52:30.because we'd get decent questions, partner in the face at the end of
:52:31. > :52:37.your career and say you never broke the law? Will you be going along or
:52:38. > :52:40.will you watch it on the telly? My co-correspondence will be there. He
:52:41. > :52:44.will be warming the seat, so he will be stuck inside. He will hopefully
:52:45. > :52:47.ask questions himself. I don't think he will get the opportunity,
:52:48. > :52:53.actually. I will be reporting live from here. Thank you for joining us,
:52:54. > :53:00.because I know it is a busy day for you. A good idea? I think it is.
:53:01. > :53:04.It's an idea we talked about when I was Home Secretary, so it's been a
:53:05. > :53:08.long time in the making. One of the reasons it's taken quite a long time
:53:09. > :53:11.to come to fruition is because there is some worry, and it will be
:53:12. > :53:17.interesting to see if it's justified, that what might happen,
:53:18. > :53:18.of course, is that although it is in public people are quite restrained
:53:19. > :53:40.about what they say, and public people are quite restrained
:53:41. > :53:45.powers? I don't think it is the same as the Congressional court? The
:53:46. > :53:49.powers are strengthening. They can do more investigations and go into
:53:50. > :53:52.the agencies. Personally, I think the quality of people on the
:53:53. > :53:56.committee is actually very high. I know there are some people who say,
:53:57. > :54:02.look, it's chaired by a former Foreign Secretary, Hazel blears, who
:54:03. > :54:06.had responsibility for security and the Home Office is on it as well.
:54:07. > :54:11.Somehow that means they won't ask difficult questions, but it does
:54:12. > :54:16.mean that they know where to ask the questions and the way in which
:54:17. > :54:21.thinks function -- thinks function, so it is a big opportunity. We have
:54:22. > :54:25.learned that the ECB has cut its interest rate, which is a surprise,
:54:26. > :54:28.from 0.5, and you didn't think it could get any lower? It is now
:54:29. > :54:47.0.25%. could get any lower? It is now
:54:48. > :54:51.the head of the ECB. They appear daily in our newspapers
:54:52. > :54:55.and have lampooned politicians and prime ministers for generations. I'm
:54:56. > :54:57.talking of political cartoons which can capture in a flash a
:54:58. > :55:02.politician's character or a key event. In a moment, we'll be talking
:55:03. > :55:06.to the Jim Benson, the editor of a new book on political cartoons. But
:55:07. > :55:09.first, let's take a look at the world of politics through the eyes
:55:10. > :55:58.of some of the countries leading cartoonists.
:55:59. > :56:02.Tim Benson, is here now. 186 cartoons in the book, thousands to
:56:03. > :56:09.choose from over a year. Added to the decision? I tried to cover the
:56:10. > :56:12.whole year -- how did you make the decision? I tried to cover the major
:56:13. > :56:18.events of the year. Every single cartoonist in this country is
:56:19. > :56:24.featured in the book, and there is some wonderful material. This is the
:56:25. > :56:29.first anthology. I think we have one of Boris Johnson. Let's see if we
:56:30. > :56:37.can see that,. That is a great silhouette. What makes it a great
:56:38. > :56:43.cartoon? It is fantastically drawn. It portrays not such a conjugated
:56:44. > :56:49.political issue, but in a simple, visual manner -- conjugated. It is a
:56:50. > :56:50.visual metaphor. Here we have Boris Johnson
:56:51. > :57:20.visual metaphor. Here we have Boris isn't it? And it is a play on the
:57:21. > :57:24.great escape. Steve McQueen style. Andrew Mitchell liked this so much
:57:25. > :57:27.he bought it from me. The death of Margaret Thatcher created a lot of
:57:28. > :57:35.cartoons as well. We have one of these to show you. This is from the
:57:36. > :57:42.Daily Mail. Mac does a visual gag, making a joke from the news, and
:57:43. > :57:50.this is on the protesters who turned their back on Mrs Thatcher. I see.
:57:51. > :57:55.Very clever. We have run out of time. What is the title of the book?
:57:56. > :57:58.The best of Britain's political cartoons, 2013. It looks great. I
:57:59. > :58:20.will get one. There's
:58:21. > :58:24.post, sheep grazing? I think it's the sheep. Clever old you excavation
:58:25. > :58:33.mark we need to go while they are still working. I will be back on BBC
:58:34. > :58:36.One tonight for this week. With comedian Shazia Mirza, architect
:58:37. > :58:39.George Clarke, plus Quentin Letts, Michael Portillo, Alan Johnson and
:58:40. > :58:43.Miranda Green. And I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big
:58:44. > :58:48.political stories of the day. Do join me then. Bye bye.