03/02/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 03/02/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good afternoon, and welcome to the Daily Politics.


A coalition rift opens up over the choice of a new quango king or queen


to run the schools inspectorate. Was Michael Gove right to ask its


Labour-supporting head to leave? The Prime Minister wants a different


relationship with Europe. The French aren't keen. But, can the Foreign


Secretary persuade the new German government, or anyone else, of the


case for reform? It's a top priority for voters, and


a big political issue. But what's the truth about immigration, and is


it good or bad for us? It's a tough life as a peer of the


realm. We'll reveal the gastronomic faux pas that have the Lords and


Ladies all hot under their ermine collars.


All that in the next hour. With us today is a former diplomat


who's now on the advisory council of the pressure group Migration Watch.


Alp Mehmet, welcome to the programme.


First, this morning, to the row over who chairs the education watchdog,


Ofsted. The current chair, Labour-supporting Sally Morgan, has


not had her period of office extended, and has accused Number Ten


of interfering with the appointment, amidst rumours that she is to be


replaced by a Conservative supporter. The Liberal Democrat


Schools Minister is said to be furious, and has demanded to be


consulted over her replacement. This is what Education Secretary Michael


Gove had to say yesterday. There is a principle across


government that there should be no automatic reappointment, and after


three or four years, whatever the term is, it is appropriate to bring


in a fresh pair of eyes. Joining me now the previous chair of


Ofsted, Zenna Atkins. Is failing to reappoint Sally Morgan


politically motivated? I think Michael Gove it right in


saying a three-year appointment is not automatically renewed. The proof


of the pudding comes in seeing who replaces her and whether they go


through a fair and transparent appointment process.


If she is replaced by a Conservative donor, but that change your mind


over whether it was political not to reappoint her? If you can


demonstrate, I don't think it matters whether someone is a Labour


supporter or Conservative donor. If they have been through a fair and


open and transparent process of appointment and I genuinely the


right candidate. There are a lot of people who could serve Ofsted very


well. As long as they have a relevant background experience and


something to add, that is OK. If it is somebody left-field, simply


because they were a Conservative donor, it is not acceptable.


Isn't it curious that Michael Gove was at great pains at the weekend to


say Sally Morgan had done a fantastic job. Superlative, he said.


So why let her go? His view is it is useful to have a


fresh face at the top. Three years is quite short. Four or five years,


usually after that, it is a good idea to bring in someone new. The


same applies to most boards. But three years is a short period. There


is a difficulty in saying we extend it for one year. They thought it was


time to go out for a new appointment after her first term. You surprised


by this furore, what is your analysis of that?


It is unusual when your term of office, because I have held a number


of public appointments, it is unusual to complain at the end of


your term of office. Most of us accepts there is a need


for change and move on. There have been rumour mills. Partly, people


are worried about political appointments. This is on the tail


end of quite a few women in public office and seemingly not renewed in


their posts. I would really hate to think we are going to take a step


backwards into the 1990s when these non-departmental public bodies or


quangos are run by men. That would be very unhelpful, diversity is


vital. Does this worry use someone like


Sally Morgan is not going to be reappointed, another woman, to


another high-profile role? If this is going to be the general


trend, we have started to see this. I am not interested in women on


boards for the sake of that. We need diversity, different opinions and


experiences. All the research shows this. If we are going back to the


dreaded days I will be personally disappointed. Sir David Bell has


said Michael Gove should not surround himself with yes-men, a


criticism that while Sally Morgan may have generally backed him, now


he wants someone who will do it more robustly. That is good advice from


David Bell. It is not the issue of yes-men.


Ofsted has a unique role to play in public confidence. Unless Ofsted is


seen to be independent... It inspects the government framework.


It must be seen to be doing that without fear or favour, that is


essential. Does look like a political decision?


I am not close enough to Michael Gove to know but I suspect he is


under enough pressure now to ensure there is a proper appointment


process. You have said how important it is from a public perception that


trust isn't undermined. Do you think now that it won't be


seen as independent as it has in the past?


No, I don't fear that. There is some work that needs to be done by


Michael Gove to demonstrate to the public that the next appointment is


fair and transparent. Myself, I went through headhunters, a panel


interview, and their work to clear candidates. As long as we see a


process like that, I think the public will be satisfied.


Disappointment could be taken forward by the office of Public


appointments which could give it more distance and transparency. What


is your view of the criticisms levelled at Ofsted in terms of the


questions they are asking, the way they are carrying out inspections.


That preceded this row. There is an inevitability, certainly


at the time I chaired Ofsted. There were criticisms then, all the way,


because schools get worried. It is easy to say Ofsted says, therefore


we can't do this good practice. That is quite common currency. The


important thing is the inspection frameworks are seen to be fair and


robust. I see nothing to suggest the frameworks introduced by Michael


Wilshaw are anything but that. But it is used by schools as an excuse.


Does this look political from Michael Gove? Inevitably it will be


seen as political. The proof of the pudding will be who is selected, how


they perform afterwards, not just who is selected. Quite often it


seems to be the right person and we end up with a dead duck. I would


like to see someone, give them a couple of years. I am a governor of


a school in Hertfordshire. We got an outstanding report from Ofsted. I


have no problems. However, it is an area that needs to be thought


through carefully. I am sure Michael Gove is doing exactly that. Michael


Gove still gets to pick a successor. Why not? Secretaries of State have


been picking people who run... The criticism levelled is that it is


politically motivated. When I was working in Whitehall and Labour was


in office, there wasn't any shortage of political appointees in those


days. I don't think that is a valid argument. The Lib Dems are furious,


David laws is said to be furious. Is this more about coalition politics


than the independence of Ofsted? David laws would say that, wouldn't


he? He wants to attract attention. He has a reputation to build


himself. It is an opportunity for him to say something to catch the


eye and he has done just that. After a busy weekend of Oxfordshire


pub lunches with French President Francois Hollande for David Cameron,


it's the turn of William Hague to play host today, as new German


Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier is in town. The


Conservatives are trying to find some kindred spirits on the


continent, as they press ahead with renegotiating Britain's relationship


with the EU. It's proving to be a pretty tricky dating show for


Cameron and co, as they look for a partner in Europe. It didn't get off


to the best start, when the Private Members' Bill to legislate for an


in-out referendum before 2017 effectively bit the dust in the


House of Lords. Meanwhile, David Cameron was trying to win the heart


of President Hollande. But he spurned the Prime Minister's


advances, saying that EU treaty change was not a priority. The


German Chancellor Angela Merkel had been making some encouraging noises


for Mr Cameron, suggesting that even this pro-European powerhouse was


keen on the idea of reform in certain areas. But Mrs Merkel has


just entered her own marriage with new coalition partners, the solidly


pro-European Social Democrats. The new Foreign Minister, Frank Walter


Steinmeier, is as Social Democrat, and so an unlikely partner for


William Hague when they have their own date later today. So, with no


match-making success for David Cameron and William Hague in Europe,


will the Tories have any success in renegotiations? Or will any


referendum in 2017 be a question of "take me out" of the EU on the


current terms. Joining me now to discuss this is


German journalist John Jungclaussen. And Conservative MP, and member of


the Fresh Start group, Tim Loughton. Welcome to you both. How much common


ground will William Haig find with Steinmeier on the subject of the EU


reform and treaty change? The interesting question for Steinmeier


is what it is he should be engaging with. For German politicians and


much of the continent, what they hear from Britain is a lot of


hysteria. One of the sound bites which stuck with politicians in


Berlin was Britain being shackled to the court that is Europe. So there


is no positive engagement -- to the corpse. Instead of going to Europe


and saying this is what we put forward, all they have said here is


they want out. How will you carry on, the government carry on with a


negotiation, when all they have heard it hysteria, sound bites and


exit. Hopefully by persuading the general press in Germany that this


is not our typical attitude. What our group is all about representing


the majority of Conservative MPs is a positive version of Europe, which


is sustainable for the whole of Europe. The problem at the moment,


the EU is not sustainable. Germany knows that, we know that, the rest


of the nations need to work that out. If we can work out a way


forward where we can stay in the EU, where the EU can become more


sustainable. Why do the Germans only hear the test area -- hysteria? Was


it a failure of leadership by David Cameron? We are in a difficult


position. We have a coalition partner not committed to a


referendum. In a limbo. We want to speak to politicians from all the


other EU countries to show we are serious about wanting an EU which


the UK can stay in and which is sustainable in the global economy.


In the next five years, the GDP of the EU will be 60% A level what it


was back in the 1990s. Does the German government accept that, the


need for negotiation and reform? I am sure Steinmeier doubts. And the


SPD? Secretly, certainly. And publicly? We do not know. Steinmeier


gave an interesting big speech as Foreign Minister on Friday. He


announced his determination to conduct a more engaging, proactive


German foreign policy. But that also indicates there might be greater


engagement with Britain. If you talk about the difficulties of the


Conservative party in the coalition government to talk about the issues,


the whole thing seems to be a nationwide diplomatic failure


because, what you hear from the Labour Party is nothing that vacuous


sentences about wanting to work within Europe. But they haven't


committed to a referendum. The public debate not just across Europe


but in Britain is dominated by this. What should the starting point for


William Hague be? ) give me examples of what he should say. Ultimately we


want the UK to stay in the EU. At the moment it is unsustainable.


Let's see what the EU should be looking like for the next 20, 30


years and not be shackled by the concept of ever closer union. That


is dead and buried. What have you got in common? Angela Merkel says


she understands the need for reform but no one is interested in treaty


change. The banking union involves treaty change. Is there a


willingness to have major treaty change in Germany? No, there is not.


Germans want banking union. We are not part of that. Two thirds of the


population will be subject to banking union. That can only happen


with treaty change. We need to make sure there is no disconnection


between those in the EU and those outside of it. There is a bridge to


be built. If John is saying the Germans do not want treaty change,


on some of the issues I have here and the most recent example is


freedom of movement of people, that is a cornerstone of the EU. Is that


up for negotiation? Research has identified things which do not


involve treaty change. 71% of the GDP of the EU is in services. Any


3.5% is into EU country trade. That is crazy. We joined the EU for a


single market. Have you spoken to German MPs about that? There is an


idea that the single market is something that German politics would


wholeheartedly embrace. That is why we help this big conference last


month. Business leaders came to the conference where we were talking


politics. We were talking about the detail of how we could reform. There


was consensus across the 28 nations that Europe cannot go on as it is.


Germany is not signed up to renegotiating desk? No. There is


every chance of that happening. If we do not get reform of social and


Labour laws, if we do not get better, robust financial management


of economies, Germany will have to bail out the 77% youth unemployment


rate. It is not sustainable. To be fair to Tim, of course, there is a


need for Europe to change. We should not pretend that the idea in Europe


is prevailing that Europe can continue as it is. There will have


to be changes. To what extent they can be incremental and on the muddle


through basis, or have to be enshrined in a new treaty within the


next two years, which is the way Europe has tended to organise itself


over the last few decades, that is another matter. There is movement.


What the Germans do not hear is this concrete engagement. How is this


conversation going to go? It will not go very well, will it? What


everyone seems to have forgotten is the most important factor and that


is the people. The people in Germany, the Netherlands and


Austria, even France. Free movement was designed for a very different


animal than the one we have got now. You need treaty change. That does


not seem to be on the table. It was not completely ruled out by


President Francois Hollande last week. In Germany, the Christian


Democrats and the CSU, their sister party, are much keener than perhaps


the Social Democrats are. I think there will be increasing pressure on


the politicians to address this issue. Is it all going to be done


and dusted, this renegotiation, by 2017? I doubt it. That is the basis


by which David Cameron has said the people of Britain can have a


referendum on which to decide the future of Europe on the renegotiated


settlement. The fact is, if you look at the time scale, to me, I may be


completely wrong, but it does not seem possible to get everything in


place. Not by the 17th. Eventually it will happen. You think you could


do incremental steps but you could not radically renegotiate things


around the movement of people, around policing and crime. These are


the areas which need to be looked at. Nothing like the prospect of a


referendum focuses the mind 's. We have a Conservative government


committed to that referendum and all the other nations of Europe will


have to take the British position much more seriously and sit down


around the table. There is a clear window between 2015 and 2017. You


cannot do this in two years. If there has not been a successful


renegotiation on the basis of some of your points, which way will you


vote? If we have not achieved what we need to for proper reform of


Europe, I will vote Labour. It is right that people have that


opportunity. That is an honest, straightforward answer to that


question. They care not enough to sign up to an idea where Britain has


all the rights of EU members without being an actual member. It is not


just what we want, it is what Europe needs to be sustainable. Immigration


- it's the one of the most important issues for voters along with the


economy and, unsurprisingly, politicians take it very seriously


indeed. But for something which generates such heat, there's


surprisingly little light on the actual facts and figures. It often


seems that one person's flood is another's trickle, and both sides of


the argument throw stats at each other with gay abandon. So, is it


possible to get hard and fast data on the number of people coming into


the country and what exactly do we mean by immigration anyway?


Immigration, it seems everyone has a view. Do we really know what we are


talking about? Is it legal, illegal? Perhaps, more to the point, does


anyone honestly know how many migrants are in the country? The


only two countries I know of where I reckon they have a pretty good idea


of how many migrants go in and come out and stay there illegally, on


North Korea and, in the same breath, Australia. In one case there


was a particular type of government. In the other case, it is a large


island and everyone is clocked in and out. According to the Office for


National Statistics comment net migration was 182,000. That is plus


or -35,000. The actual number could be anything from 147,000 to 217,000.


If the official number crunchers do not know the answer, how can we


expect anyone else to? That is based on the passenger survey which, it is


claimed for it is not accurate enough. The best way of doing it is


a population register. A number of countries have a population


register. As soon as you mention the motion of compiling a register of


population in the UK, people start thinking about ID cards and


invasions of privacy. It becomes politically impossible. It is not


just this government that has struggled with the numbers. In


2004, Labour claimed there would be 13,000 immigrants from Poland and


other European countries. In 2010, net migration peaked at 250,000. Is


there a better way of dealing with this? The debate that needs to be


handled in a way which gets to the facts. What sort of migration do we


want to see? What are the best mechanics we can put in place? Very


reportedly, how can we have a system that is good for the country but


which people perceive as being fair. There has to be a compromise between


the polarised views. The compromise is to look at individual migration


streams. That is Labour, asylum, students, family. Look at what we


want from each of those migration streams. Where the compromise might


be sought. There is nothing new about immigration and nothing new


about it being controversial. What is new is how much we do not know


about who is coming to the country and why. Joining us now is the


Labour MP, Diane Abbott. The Oxford University migration Department has


said we cannot make accurate predictions about the number of


Bulgarians and Romanians who come to the UK. They know full well that you


have to make a judgment. Our judgment has been based on a number


of factors. It is not a wild guess. There is no scientific way of


establishing what the precise numbers will be. For example, those


who have already come over the last five years, comparing income levels


between Romania, bog area and the United Kingdom. -- bog area. Have


they been like that for the last few years? There have been something


like 30,000. That is at a time when there were constraints on those


coming here. No one said, we certainly have not said, everyone


was waiting on the border to come here on 31st of December. It was not


what we were saying. Some of the tabloids may have been saying that.


We said, over five years, on average, there would be between


30000 and 70,000 a year coming here. A central figure of 50,000. I firmly


stick by that. You do not think that will be disproven? Exactly the same


thing was said when in 2004 the other Eastern Europeans came in.


Everyone said, you are wrong, only a few thousand will come in. Between


five and 13,000. In the end, it was a lot more than that. We believe


that will happen again this time around. According to a poll


conducted by YouGov, the majority think that immigration has been bad


for the British economy. Why do they think that? Historically, whenever


you have an economic downturn, people are hurting. They look for


scapegoats and scapegoats are always immigrants, or others. It is a


historical, political phenomenon. The fact is, the same polling


company wildly over estimate. The problem with immigration, there are


two things which make it to Google to bandy figures. Innovation has


always been a euphemism. -- difficult to bandy figures. Some


people might be refugees and asylum seekers. My son is a


third-generation British national. Do you think people have not become


more sophisticated that views on immigration have been influenced by


what happened when many Polish people came to this country. If you


read about the history of immigration, what they say about


Eastern European is what they said about the Irish in the 19th century.


The narrative is always the same. I disagree very strongly on that. It


is not to do with race. What has changed hugely in my time in this


country is that people no longer look at people like Diane and me and


say, there is a foreigner. That does not happen any more. You only need


to look at football, cricket and any other sporting team to know this is


about the volume and the speed with which it is happening. That is not


in the interests of anyone, including those already here. Maybe


that is true in London. When you are outside of London and he ask someone


what they mean by immigrants, they mean Muslims were people who go to a


mosque. It is a very emotive subject. Immigration is not now, and


whether you are talking about the Jews in the 20th century, it has


never been about facts. Why did Labour feel it should apologise? I


do not know. We did indeed get that big a wrong on the polls. Wildly


wrong. We had no border controls. It was nonsense. Did too many people


come over? I have filing cabinets are people under a Labour government


who waited years and years to bring husbands, wives and children. It was


the Labour administration, I did not approve of it, which took away money


from immigrants and gave them vouchers instead. We did not have an


open door. The figures about the Polish were wrong but it was not an


open door. That is a myth. Finer grid things happened which made it


considerably easier for people to come here. -- things did happen. In


the first year alone, the public man -- Public Accounts Committee said


people who were students actually came here to work.


You see things differently. What I seek is the people who didn't get


in. Should we be encouraging more immigration?


The thing about migration, is not about saying we want more or less.


In the EU, we have free movement. Underlying all this is economic


trends. James Dyson has launched a scathing attack on immigration


policy accusing ministers of turning away bright foreign engineers which


the UK desperately needs. This is a nonsense. If you look at the numbers


coming here to study at university, they went out last year despite the


immigration policies, and the year before they went up. Apart from


that, there is an opportunity, Dyson can bring in as many people he likes


as long as he pays them enough. We should be training our own people


anyway. We can't turn to cheap labour to bring people in. Isn't


that the point? It is low-paid people in this country who have


suffered more than other parts of the population, because until now


they have been undercut. These other people 's labour is bent to be


sticking up for. This is the oldest story in the book. The point is...


People talk about this as if Eastern Europeans are paying themselves low


wages, and employers are innocent bystanders. We need to enforce a


minimum wage, reinforce the gang masters legislation, and trade union


rights and freedoms. We should not stigmatise migrants. If you want to


reduce immigration, you would have to leave the EU. First of all, on


that point, I would hate to give the impression I was trying to


stigmatise migrants. I don't do that. When we talk about the numbers


coming into this country, half a million people a year are coming in.


Simply a case of bringing that number down, not stopping it.


Time to get our regular Monday update from the Westminster press


corps on the big stories of the week. Let's talk to Emily Ashton of


the Sun. And Andrew Grice of the Independent.


Andrew, coalition tensions seem to have exploded to the surface, the


Lib Dems gunning for Michael Gove. Education was an area where the


coalition parties cooperated well at the start. In the last few months,


we have seen significant differences. The Lib Dems are not


happy about unqualified teachers in classrooms and have attacked that.


Now, they are livid Michael Gove has not given Sally Morgan a second


three-year term. How significant do you see this? In the real world, I


don't think people are talking about Baroness Morgan. The Lib Dems are


getting cross because they want to differentiate themselves from the


Tories in the run-up to the election. David Laws is miffed he


wasn't consulted. In reality, what does it matter to real people? When


Labour were in power, there were a lot of Labour people at the head of


quangos then. The Tory MP selection row now. Meetings are taking place


as we speak over Tim Yeo. They want local party members to be


accountable, there have been criticisms over the workrate of Tim


Yeo. There is a crucial ballot today. Local party members want to


make sure they have got an MP totally committed to that area which


is a good thing for politics. Is this a sign of The Times, people


holding their MPs to account if they don't do their constituency work? It


is interesting how Tim Yeo and and Macintosh are both chairs of


committees which takes up a lot of time. In the run-up to the election,


constituency work becomes more important. Backbenchers will be


thinking about this. What about labour reforms? The Labour Party


could be poorer as a result of changing its relationship with the


unions, is it a price worth paying? I think it is. Some people around


Miliband are comparing this to the decision by Tony Blair to scrap


clause 4. It is a historic change, union members who want to contribute


to funds will have to opt in rather than opting out. That is a


significant change. It could be followed in a few years by other


changes to the union power base within the Labour Party, their 50%


vote at the annual conference, 11 of the 33 seats on the national


executive committee. This is the start of a process. This may not be


of great interest to the public but could it be, further down the line?


It is the effect, will be unions have less influence? We had Len


McCluskey saying it was music to his is these reforms were coming in. --


to his ears. Labour will get to contemplate this.


It sounds to me as if the unions will not lose much influence at


all. They will have less influence. The sort of party Ed Miliband is


envisaging is one where you have 200,000 members, ordinary members of


the party, which already exists. He was to attract 100,000 registered


supporters who don't want to be full members but would pay a small sum


and take part in local selections. And perhaps 100,000 trade union


affiliated members. That would not mean the unions dominating the


party, the ordinary members would. They would become a true one member


one vote party. Let's return to education because,


Michael Gove's been making a speech this morning - he wants the state


schools to offer the same quality of education available to private


school pupils. More great schools, more great teachers, more pupils


achieving great results. The conclusion is English state


education is no longer bog-standard, it is getting better and better.


When Channel four make documentaries about great competences, academies,


in Essex and Yorkshire, when BBC Three makes heroes at tough, young


teachers. When even tattler publishes a guide to the best state


schools because they are better than independent schools, you know the


tectonic plates have started to shift.


I've been joined by Labour's Seema Malhotra. Ian Swales for the Liberal


Democrats. And the Conservative MP Chris Skidmore who is on the


Education Select Committee. Welcome to all of you. We have heard


reports, David Laws is so furious with Michael Gove. Why doesn't he


say so himself? I think he more or less has said it


himself. What we want to see is independent scrutiny of the


education system through Ofsted. We don't want someone in there who is


in there for political reasons. Why do think that independence will be


lost? We don't know. The real test is who


Michael Gove will appoint into this role. The suspicion is it will be


somebody who is a donor to the Tory party and we feel that make up their


independence. You weren't unhappy with a Labour supporting chair?


We have to look at the experience of people and Sally Morgan has massive


experience and has done a really good job. David Laws is miffed


because he wasn't consulted even though here's Schools Minister. Is


this a serious coalition bust up? It is a disagreement over this issue.


As your reports have said, we are in strong agreement on education with


Michael Gove, and support anything he is trying to do. Is there any


support for winning votes over this row? I do not think this is


particularly party political, we are just trying to do the right thing


for education. What is your reaction that the Lib Dems are so angry? It


is your reaction that the Lib Dems are so angry? It isn't great if


you're coalition partners who have by and large been pretty


supportive, now it has all gone in the wind? It is a distraction from


the main speech on education today where Michael Gove will set out his


clear plans. Lengthening the school day. Increasing standards by making


sure what is available to private schools is available to state


schools. Sally Morgan has not been sacked, her contract has not been


renewed. The Lib Dem donor Paul Marshall will be chairing the


selection committee. That will make you happy? Let's see what the result


is. We need education screwed -- we need independent scrutiny of


education. Your point that you want to offer state school pupils the


same as on offer in private schools. An extended school day to allow


pupils to attend homework clubs in school. Clear messages when it comes


to subject choice, discipline. To ensure that education is the engine


of sociability. The too long we have had a clear divide between the state


and private sectors. We need to go further to ensure every pupil,


particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, get chances in life.


How much more is spent in a private school? That gap is closing. When


you take a pupil in Tower Hamlets, ?8,900 per pupil per year. In a


private school, ?50,000. Let us broadly say double. Why not just put


the money death? We have done. The pupil premium has made sure there is


directly targeted funds going to the poorest pupils. We have increased


the pupil premium up to ?1400 per pupil. So we are moving the money


towards greater standards. Education takes up ?70 billion of public


money. We are ensuring we have structures and standards in place.


If it's not just about the money and you want to emulate private


schools, they have twice as much money per head to play with. Not


everywhere. When you look in areas like tower hamlets, they have three


times money they have in South Gloucestershire. The private schools


have twice as much money per pupil to spend than in state schools. You


are asking state schools to do an awful lot with less money. That is a


false argument. When you look at private schools, selective grammar


schools, they have higher standards. They are also offering subject


choices. Things that not all schools are offering. Making that are


available. Providing support, continuing professional development.


Are you signed up to those reforms? What we have seen is politicisation


of the chair of Ofsted. Why has it been politicised? There were heads


of public bodies who have been Labour. The question of merit has


always been there in relation to public appointments. What is behind


some of the reforms and why he is said to Baroness Morgan that she was


laid and that is the reason she was not reappointed. The reports are


that that is what was said. There is something more fundamental about


reforms and what you need in order to drive up standards in schools.


What we all know and what research has shown is that improving school


standards starts with qualified teachers in the classroom. Michael


Gove has not yet answered the accusation that not having qualified


teachers in the classroom has the potential to reduce this. If you


want to tackle behaviour and look at increasing opportunities for wider


learning within school, which we all support, if you want to look at


increasing outcomes, what you need is a way to improve school standards


through quality teaching. We will pick up your point on quality. You


are worried about the politicisation of appointments using the chair of


Ofsted as an example. Do you accept that when Labour is in power it


stuffed Labour supporting people as heads of all sorts of quangos? We


have a graft to show you. You can see the red line chewing the time


Labour was in office compared with the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.


The Graaf speaks for itself. Even now it is only just coming down, and


that is three years after the Coalition Government came in in


2010. The issue is about merit. Do you access there were a lot more


Labour appointments? What we have always believed in what Labour is


asking for is increasing diversity and having talent through increasing


number of women, ethnic minorities, to get those voices in and enrich


the debate which is a challenge. You are in danger of being criticised in


getting rid of someone Michael Gove says is marvellous her job and


replacing her. Her contract ran out. People watching this will think, we


have the left leaning glitterati, Primrose sect, who believe they are


born to quango. That is unacceptable. We need to move away


from people who think they can waltz into six-figure salaried jobs. What


this is about is Michael Gove reducing the voices that may be a


challenge to him. It is a real question about whether or not people


voices will be heard within the system and he will really be able to


listen to what can go wrong. Do you agree in terms of the general


reforms? Better discipline and more discipline in schools? Do you


support a longer school day? I do. I also agree we want to see qualified


teachers in schools. Schools should not be run for profit. Within the


coalition, we have been battling to make sure the school system works


effectively. I also believe the point about quangos, I would like to


see a lot less tribalism all round. There are lots of people out on the


street who are not aligned to any political party, who have great


merits. The problem about qualified teachers will not go away. The


Liberal Democrats and Labour will fight you on this. How do you define


a good teacher? Slapping a badge and saying, you have qualified teacher


status, does not make you a good teacher. 15,000 people have this


status and they are appalling teachers. They need to be removed


from the classroom. You have missed the point. Teaching is a far more


complex job and being able to deliver. You need to establish


better techniques for managing behaviour. How you manage it in a


positive way. How you deal with children who could be from all sorts


of backgrounds. Children who go to school hungry in the mornings. There


are increases in food banks. We have been working with the teaching


profession on trying to seek continual development. Every


profession is looking at developer and opportunities for their own


members. I want to challenge the point from Chris about why it is


irrelevant to be talking about food banks. If children are going to


school hungry, they tend to be more aggressive, tend to need calming


down. What you need to look at holistically is the welfare of


children will stop -- the welfare of children. Teachers need to have


experience and training to deal with a whole range of issues for


children. I agree about the wider issues of children. We have


introduced the pupil premium and free school meals for younger


children. We know that educational attainment is linked to resources,


particularly in deprived areas, and also to being welfare. We totally


support that. Is alienating the teaching profession really the way


to go? I disagree. As a result of the reforms, changes in PGCE, we are


having new, young teachers coming into schools. Four times as many


graduates will start than in 2010. We are actually revolutionising and


bringing in excellent, young teachers. Tomorrow, Labour 's NEC


will meet to approve plans to reform Labour's relationship with the trade


unions. A review commissioned by Ed Miliband is proposing abolishing the


Electoral College that gives unions a third of the vote in leadership


contests and introducing one member, one vote. Union members will be able


to decide whether to donate to the party which would give them the


right to participate in any leadership ballot. Here's how the


General Secretary of the GMB union reacted to the changes on


yesterday's Sunday Politics. It is certainly a big, bold move,


certainly in terms of the electoral college. That elected him in the


first place. Everybody really admits that has needed reforming for some


time. And moving to a one member, one vote situation. That seems to me


to be a sensible idea. I know some people are upset about it, mostly


MPs, who will lose their golden share. It really is nonsense that


one MP should have the same voting strength as 1000 party members. Are


you upset about it? It seems the real losers are Labour MPs. It is a


really exciting change. My vote should be the same as any other


members in the party. What this change will do, I believe, will


route these reforms, route the party much more in with the British


people, in which workers who are members of unions, and who actually


have not had an individual relationship with the Labour Party.


This is about strengthening and reforming the links between the


trade unions and Labour. Someone like me, I think it is right, I


should have one vote rather than a vote as a member of Parliament,


about the trade union member, a vote of the Fabian Society member and a


boat as an individual. But he will have less safe. -- a vote. -- but


you will have less say. It is about saying, if you want politics that is


engaging so many people quite unique in way in which you are opening the


doors and increasing access. I was speaking to a Conservative MP who


said that if you can make this work, it will have implications for us


all. We will come on to the effects on other parties. Criticism has


always been about union influence whether leadership elections or


conferences, or whether it is policy platforms. Actually, that will not


change. That is why he is looking so relaxed in talking about these


changes. His power will not be reduced, it? Unions represent


millions of working people. These criticisms have been levelled at


Labour, saying they have too much influence. The Labour Party has


changed. It has changed over the last 100 years. To say you are


allowing collective affiliation of units but changing the way in which


individuals can have a greater say has be reformed in line with what we


have today. You keep going on about Ed Miliband and the Labour Party


being controlled by union barons. You cannot say that any more. Len


McCluskey said, this is music to my ears. Ed Miliband will love it as


well. He was elected by the unions in the first place. Why not say, for


every person who is a member of the Labour Party, they get one vote? Why


should unionists get an extra vote for ?3? I am on the policy board and


I do not know of any donors who have influence. In comparison to the


unions, who really have Labour 's arms twisted behind their back... I


get a very good strapline but it is not the reality. Lib Dems looked at


this with mild amusement. We have always had one member, one vote for


the leader. The devil is in the detail on the union issue. Union


leaders are quite relaxed about it. If they organise well, they only


have to get one in ten members to affiliate, have a bigger say in who


the next leader of the next Labour Party -- of the Labour Party is. On


funding, it poses a problem. Whether it is right or not, that is for


others to judge. Whether you are routinely Labour Party more firmly


in the minds of working people, financially, it is going to cause


problems. This is a choice and a risk. The majority of funding


already comes from individual members. If you want to do the right


thing, sometimes you have to take a small hit. Over a period of time, we


will see these changes making the Labour Party a stronger and more


sustainable party. It is that there are a more democratic party. Now, it


is a hard life in the House of Lords, although they enjoy tax-payer


subsided restaurant and bars. It seems dining standards are slipping.


A rather mischievous FOI request has revealed peers' complaints about


catering in the Upper Chamber. They were seriously unimpressed by the


quality of a new coffee machine. As one wrote, you could not have


calculated a move more likely to spread ill will. Another complained


a 15 minutes wait to be seated lost some of the finesse of the afternoon


and, sadly, meant his guests didn't have enough time to eat the


beautiful cake selection. But some concerns were more prosaic - and


pedantic. A note requested canteen staff to stop asking whether we want


butter on jacket potatoes when what they mean is marge. Your response? I


think the whole thing should be taken into the private sector. This


whole debate around subsidies and is therefore not go away until we


remove taxpayer funding for the catering service. The thing is, we


have eventually got to come to some further reform. Should they be


complaining? It is all about lowering the costs of the way the


Houses of Parliament work. As a new MP, I was quite surprised with some


of what I saw. I have already been lots of changes. It is a strong


argument in the House of Lords. There is a real concern about some


of the points that were raised. It does make the House of Lords look


quite out of touch, particularly with what the country is going


through, in terms of some of those complaints. The staff across the


House of Commons and the House of Lords work incredibly hard and a


huge amount of pressure. We need to separate some of these issues out


and give them credit for what they do. I think the food is very good in


the House of Lords. Thank you to all my guests. The one o'clock news is


starting over on BBC One now. Bye-bye.


Download Subtitles