03/02/2014 Daily Politics

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.