:00:41. > :00:51.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. It's the expenses
:00:52. > :00:53.row that just won't go away. Maria Miller made a lightning-fast
:00:54. > :00:57.entrance to Cabinet this morning, with reports that senior Tories want
:00:58. > :01:00.her out on the double. So far Number ten is standing by its minister.
:01:01. > :01:03.The Lib Dems promised that all infant school pupils will have free
:01:04. > :01:05.school meals by this September. But are the schools ready? We've been
:01:06. > :01:09.investigating. Speaking of Lib Dems, I've been
:01:10. > :01:12.talking to the former minister Sarah Teather about the direction of the
:01:13. > :01:14.party and her decision to leave Westminster.
:01:15. > :01:17.Both David Cameron and Ed Miliband started off as special advisors, but
:01:18. > :01:29.to many they're overpaid and unaccountable. So just what do they
:01:30. > :01:33.really do? All that in the next hour, you lucky viewers. And with us
:01:34. > :01:36.for the whole programme today is Henry de Zoete. He was adviser to
:01:37. > :01:42.education secretary Michael Gove until last year. He now runs
:01:43. > :01:45.something called the Big Deal which is trying to persuade consumers to
:01:46. > :01:50.join together and force the energy companies to give them a better
:01:51. > :01:56.deal. The Daily Mail also once described him one of Britain's 50
:01:57. > :02:01.most powerful posh people under 30. What an accolade! He is choking!
:02:02. > :02:04.He's since got a bit older so he no longer qualifies. Welcome to the
:02:05. > :02:10.show. Let's start with Maria Miller. It's
:02:11. > :02:13.the sixth day in a row the culture secretary and her expenses have been
:02:14. > :02:17.making the front pages of the papers. Last week Mrs Miller was
:02:18. > :02:19.cleared of funding a home for her parents at taxpayers' expense but
:02:20. > :02:25.was criticised for her obstructive attitude to the inquiry. She gave a
:02:26. > :02:31.short apology to the Commons that has been described as perfunctory by
:02:32. > :02:34.Ed Miliband. She agreed to hand back ?5,800 after a larger sum
:02:35. > :02:38.recommended by an independent watchdog was overruled by a
:02:39. > :02:43.committee of MPs. Still following? Yesterday the MPs tried to raise the
:02:44. > :02:47.matter in the Commons. MP John Mann has been leading the criticism of
:02:48. > :02:51.Maria Miller and raised a point of order. What opportunities might
:02:52. > :02:56.there be for the house to have a discussion, not on the behaviour and
:02:57. > :03:02.actions of individual members, but on the principle of self-regulation
:03:03. > :03:06.of MPs by MPs? What mechanism is possible before the house rises on
:03:07. > :03:10.Thursday for us to discuss this very important issue? Not this particular
:03:11. > :03:16.case, I am not raising that at all, but the general issue of how we
:03:17. > :03:20.regulate ourselves and recognise the amount of criticism justified or
:03:21. > :03:29.otherwise which has been expressed outside. I thought I had better use
:03:30. > :03:33.this before you do. How do you solve a problem called Maria? I can say to
:03:34. > :03:36.the honourable gentleman that governments can make statements to
:03:37. > :03:41.the house when they wish. The Government has not chosen to make a
:03:42. > :03:44.statement today. It is perfectly possible that there could be
:03:45. > :03:48.exchanges on the principles of the issues that concern him and others.
:03:49. > :03:55.That could take place between now and when we rise later this week.
:03:56. > :03:59.The speaker, John Bercow. Maria Miller is still being backed by the
:04:00. > :04:03.Prime Minister, but Tory MPs have not exactly been vocal in their
:04:04. > :04:08.support. According to the Daily Telegraph this morning, the chairman
:04:09. > :04:11.of the 1922 committee of backbench Conservatives, Graham Brady, met
:04:12. > :04:16.David Cameron to tell him he has to go. And last night on ITV, the
:04:17. > :04:22.employment minister Esther McVey had this to say. As to what happened,
:04:23. > :04:27.you are quite right, the fundamental allegation, which an opposition MP
:04:28. > :04:31.brought against her, that was dismissed by an independent
:04:32. > :04:35.commissioner. But there were two things that she had to do, pay it
:04:36. > :04:42.back and make an apology. That was done. I can honestly say that is not
:04:43. > :04:47.how I would have made an apology but different people have different
:04:48. > :04:51.styles and do things in different ways. Very revealing. Esther McVey
:04:52. > :05:00.speaking last night. Yesterday we learned that Speaker John Bercow has
:05:01. > :05:04.allowed a question on possible changes to the way complaints about
:05:05. > :05:09.MPs are handled following this row. Carole Walker joins us now. What
:05:10. > :05:13.will that mean? We are waiting to hear from the leader of the house
:05:14. > :05:18.exactly what will happen but you are right. John Mann, who raised the
:05:19. > :05:21.issue just a moment ago, he has succeeded in forcing Andrew Lansley
:05:22. > :05:28.to come to the House and talk about what is going to happen to this
:05:29. > :05:32.system is investigated Maria Miller. Their concern is that this standards
:05:33. > :05:38.committee, which is made up of MPs, with a few lay members, although
:05:39. > :05:41.they do not have a vote. This committee overruled the independent
:05:42. > :05:47.commissioner, to reduce the amount that Maria Miller had to repay. She
:05:48. > :05:52.is having to repay about ?6,000. The independent commissioner originally
:05:53. > :05:56.suggested around ?40,000. This has led to a lot of concerns that MPs
:05:57. > :06:01.are marking their own homework. Yesterday the Prime Minister said he
:06:02. > :06:06.was open to suggestions about how this should change. It is worth
:06:07. > :06:09.noting there is now a different situation in place for investigating
:06:10. > :06:15.complaints about MPs expenses. There is a new independent compliance
:06:16. > :06:19.office but complaints about MPs on other issues and allegations of
:06:20. > :06:24.misbehaviour are still dealt with by this standards committee. We are
:06:25. > :06:27.expecting to hear from the Leader of the House in an hour, who will
:06:28. > :06:32.signal whether or not the Government is prepared to back changes to make
:06:33. > :06:39.this system more independent. Though the system may change, we don't
:06:40. > :06:42.know, but MPs may not be allowed to judge how other Members of
:06:43. > :06:47.Parliament have behaved. What does that mean for Maria Miller? Is it a
:06:48. > :06:52.device to distract from her or does she still looked in a precarious
:06:53. > :06:57.situation? Maria Miller's case has been dealt with. She has agreed to
:06:58. > :07:00.pay back the money and has made that apology, which many people,
:07:01. > :07:05.including one of her fellow ministers, were not happy about.
:07:06. > :07:10.There is no doubt that she is still under pressure. Talking to
:07:11. > :07:14.Conservative MPs, there is a sense that the mood is hardening against
:07:15. > :07:18.her. I think a lot of MPs are celebrated that they are out and
:07:19. > :07:22.about and campaigning ahead of the local and European elections. They
:07:23. > :07:26.want to be talking about the economy, lifting the tax threshold,
:07:27. > :07:30.changes to benefits and so on. Instead they are being asked again
:07:31. > :07:35.and again about MP expenses and Maria Miller. I think that has led a
:07:36. > :07:39.lot of Conservative MPs to question why, for the sake of the damage she
:07:40. > :07:49.is doing to the rest of the party, she doesn't fall on her sword. It
:07:50. > :07:52.has to be said that at the moment she seems to be digging in her heels
:07:53. > :07:54.and the Prime Minister is standing by her. The urgent question is at
:07:55. > :07:57.12:30pm, I believe. Thank you. Henry, she has been accused of
:07:58. > :08:01.handling this badly, Maria Miller. If you had been her adviser, would
:08:02. > :08:05.you say she has handled it badly and how should she have done it
:08:06. > :08:13.differently? I am quite glad these things are not my problem anymore! I
:08:14. > :08:17.think there could potentially be some concerns raised about the
:08:18. > :08:22.nature of the apology and maybe the full sum of it. But I don't think
:08:23. > :08:26.she could really have done much more at the moment and the truth is that
:08:27. > :08:31.it is in the hands of the Prime Minister and we have to see what he
:08:32. > :08:34.does. There has been some focus on the role of her special adviser and
:08:35. > :08:38.a conversation she had with journalists that the Daily
:08:39. > :08:42.Telegraph, where the issue of the Leveson Inquiry and press regulation
:08:43. > :08:46.was raised. Did she overstepped the mark? I don't know the ins and outs
:08:47. > :08:49.of that. There were accusations flying about that what she did and
:08:50. > :08:54.didn't mean so it is difficult for me to say specifically if that is
:08:55. > :09:00.right or not. I note the special adviser Angie is a lovely person and
:09:01. > :09:05.a adviser. -- I know the special adviser and she is a lovely person.
:09:06. > :09:09.It could come back to haunt her in terms of relations, especially with
:09:10. > :09:17.the press. If Maria Miller makes it to the Eastern recess, do you think
:09:18. > :09:22.she will survive until the next reshuffle which comes up after the
:09:23. > :09:26.European elections? If I was the adviser, I would be holding out for
:09:27. > :09:31.the recess, because that is when the pressure lifts off and the
:09:32. > :09:35.Westminster bubble calms down. The pressure loosens and MPs disappear
:09:36. > :09:38.back to their constituencies. They are not walking round Westminster,
:09:39. > :09:42.talking to each other and bumping into journalists and making the
:09:43. > :09:47.whole thing an issue again. I think if she can get to recess, she will
:09:48. > :09:51.be in a better place. Do you think she can expect to be reshuffled
:09:52. > :09:54.after the European elections? I think that will depend on how the
:09:55. > :09:59.Prime Minister is feeling about everything. We will leave that
:10:00. > :10:03.there. It is now time for the daily quiz. For those of you that have not
:10:04. > :10:07.seen Game Of Thrones, it is about a lot of morally ambiguous and corrupt
:10:08. > :10:18.characters locked in a cut-throat battle for power and influence.
:10:19. > :10:20.Sound familiar? For some reason this reminds the planning minister Nick
:10:21. > :10:22.Boles of Westminster, surprise surprise. And on Twitter yesterday
:10:23. > :10:24.he speculated which MP would best play the character Daenerys
:10:25. > :10:30.Targaryen, who can walk through fire and is the mother of some dragons.
:10:31. > :10:36.So who did he think should play the role? Nadine Dorries, Stella Creasy,
:10:37. > :10:41.Esther McVey, Liz Truss? And at the end of the show, Henry will give us
:10:42. > :10:46.the correct answer. Do you watch Game Of Thrones? Not yet. Everybody
:10:47. > :10:50.is telling me to watch it but I can't quite bring myself to. That is
:10:51. > :10:56.what the box set is for. You may remember one of the big
:10:57. > :11:01.announcements from last year's conference that all primary school
:11:02. > :11:07.children should get free school meals from next year. It made the
:11:08. > :11:10.headlines but as many as 2700 schools in England are not ready to
:11:11. > :11:14.start serving. Many need to upgrade their kitchens and others do not
:11:15. > :11:18.have a kitchen. Alex is the reporter behind the search and Tobacco
:11:19. > :11:23.research, so let's have a look. The time for these pupils and a
:11:24. > :11:27.welcome break from lessons. In Dorset, most children bring their
:11:28. > :11:31.lunch from home and eat in the classroom. From September, these
:11:32. > :11:36.packed lunches should be replaced by a hot meal provided for free for all
:11:37. > :11:40.pupils in their first free school years but that will not happen here.
:11:41. > :11:43.The kitchen and dining hall are too small to serve and feed the pupils
:11:44. > :11:48.and there is not enough money to make the changes needed. We need
:11:49. > :11:52.facilities and certainly schools like us and others in the area need
:11:53. > :11:56.people to serve the food. We are talking about children as young as
:11:57. > :12:01.four walking around with trays of food and we need to be vigilant and
:12:02. > :12:04.that costs money. Instead children will get prepacked sandwiches
:12:05. > :12:09.delivered in. It is not quite what Nick Clegg promised when he launched
:12:10. > :12:12.the policy for English schools last autumn. All families with
:12:13. > :12:16.schoolchildren at primary school in those first crucial three years at
:12:17. > :12:21.infant school, we are going to give everybody, all of the children, a
:12:22. > :12:25.hot and healthy meal at lunchtime. Most headteachers support the idea
:12:26. > :12:29.and investment in children's health, but they say the scheme has been
:12:30. > :12:33.rushed through and puts pressure on some schools. Primary schools are
:12:34. > :12:38.very singular places. Although implementing free school meals would
:12:39. > :12:43.be effortless in many contexts, in some contexts, it provides a
:12:44. > :12:46.significant challenge and in some an insuperable challenge given the
:12:47. > :12:58.existing resources. We asked every council in England about schools in
:12:59. > :13:00.their area. At least 2700 need to upgrade their kitchens, which is
:13:01. > :13:02.anything from a new oven to total refurbishment. That is one third of
:13:03. > :13:06.those assessed. 1700 have no kitchen at all. Meals could be delivered by
:13:07. > :13:11.external companies or nearby schools. Some teachers say they will
:13:12. > :13:17.have to stagger sittings and extend lunchtimes to fit more pupils into
:13:18. > :13:20.smaller halls. ?150 million of funding has been allocated for
:13:21. > :13:24.schools to improve dining halls and kitchens. But the money has been
:13:25. > :13:29.allocated according to how many pupils are in each area, not on what
:13:30. > :13:34.the school needs. So some regions have more than they require and in
:13:35. > :13:40.others the funding falls short. The Government has enlisted the help of
:13:41. > :13:42.experts like members of the lead association for catering in
:13:43. > :13:49.education to help schools, especially small ones, struggling to
:13:50. > :13:53.implement the policy. We are offering support to schools with the
:13:54. > :13:57.help line that we are running. We are supporting schools that various
:13:58. > :14:01.different levels, depending on how much support they need. Whether it
:14:02. > :14:05.is a phone call and pointing them in the right direction or somebody
:14:06. > :14:11.coming in and working with them to find solutions. Come September, all
:14:12. > :14:15.eligible children have to be offered a free meal, even if an interim
:14:16. > :14:23.solution means damages for some instead of the promised hot lunch.
:14:24. > :14:27.-- sandwiches. We asked very nicely to speak to a minister from the
:14:28. > :14:31.Department for Education and nobody was available. Instead we are joined
:14:32. > :14:36.by Malcolm Bruce, I am delighted to say, and Henry deceived, who was an
:14:37. > :14:46.adviser at the education department. Free hot school meals were promised
:14:47. > :14:51.and it is not going to happen. The objective is it will happen. There
:14:52. > :14:56.may be some interim phase in, but that is the objective. The BBC
:14:57. > :14:59.report is entirely consistent with the Department's own information
:15:00. > :15:04.about the situation, for which they provided the money. Accept that some
:15:05. > :15:07.schools are going to get pre-packaged sandwiches from
:15:08. > :15:14.September, not a hot school meal, that wasn't what was promised. That
:15:15. > :15:16.is still his stated objective. It might not be in certain
:15:17. > :15:19.circumstances, although the department tell me they are pretty
:15:20. > :15:25.confident most places will be able to do it by a variety of different
:15:26. > :15:28.needs. Upgrading Kitchens, it could be a minor upgrade. Outside catering
:15:29. > :15:33.possibilities as well. The objective is to ensure every school provides a
:15:34. > :15:38.free meal to every child, a hot meal. You think all the upgrades can
:15:39. > :15:41.be done by September best remark I take your point that some of the
:15:42. > :15:46.changes may be minor, but if you are having to put in a whole new kitchen
:15:47. > :15:51.or upgraded, that is going to take a long time. Enough from my own
:15:52. > :15:54.constituency, where school meal provision has changed over time,
:15:55. > :15:59.some schools have Kitchens, some don't. Some cook for other schools
:16:00. > :16:04.and ship them between them, some use outside catering. There are a
:16:05. > :16:18.variety of ways to do it. It can be done. It wasn't really through
:16:19. > :16:20.properly in terms of the concept to delivery. I think it was. This
:16:21. > :16:23.policy has been in the making for five years. Pilot schemes were done.
:16:24. > :16:25.This isn't just about free school meals. This is about ensuring that
:16:26. > :16:27.children who currently don't get proper nutrition will get it. It
:16:28. > :16:30.also ensures a much better educational output. That's why it's
:16:31. > :16:34.the Department of education that doing it. It's coming out of the
:16:35. > :16:38.education budget because there's an education benefit, which is proven.
:16:39. > :16:42.Do you think it was well thought through? I think there was a problem
:16:43. > :16:47.with implementation of this policy and how the policy came about. I was
:16:48. > :16:50.in the Department for Education in the run-up to the announcement. We
:16:51. > :16:55.didn't know anything about it until just a few hours before it was
:16:56. > :17:01.announced at the Liberal Democrat Conference. What that meant was the
:17:02. > :17:05.kind of hard, detailed work that needs to be done, for when you're
:17:06. > :17:10.doing something of such importance, a national roll-out, the hard graft
:17:11. > :17:14.wasn't there. I think that has been proven by the fact that there has
:17:15. > :17:17.been changes in the position of what can be done and what can't be done,
:17:18. > :17:21.when they had to announce more capital funding, the fact it was
:17:22. > :17:24.announced on a per capita basis. That was done because they didn't
:17:25. > :17:37.have enough time to find out which schools did or didn't have Kitchens.
:17:38. > :17:40.I'm not saying the policy is a bad one. The review that led to the
:17:41. > :17:42.policy was set up by Michael Gove, he is very supportive of the policy,
:17:43. > :17:46.but there were issues around in fermentation. Do you accept that? I
:17:47. > :17:50.don't. The pilot schemes were well tested and the benefit of the policy
:17:51. > :17:55.was proven. The roll-out has been determined according to needs. It
:17:56. > :17:59.was a surprise for the rest of the department in that it was announced
:18:00. > :18:02.with any consultation. Good political announcement sometimes
:18:03. > :18:07.have to be a surprise to get the impact. This was a Liberal Democrat
:18:08. > :18:12.policy. Maybe they thought that you, as they accused the Conservatives,
:18:13. > :18:16.would steal the policy or steal credit for it. There's an
:18:17. > :18:19.interesting dynamic at play in the coalition in particular, and also
:18:20. > :18:24.around party conferences and announcement that happen there.
:18:25. > :18:27.Michael Gove's team had a rule we wouldn't make announcements at party
:18:28. > :18:31.conference because sometimes they were difficult to get right, you are
:18:32. > :18:35.in a bubble away from Westminster, you are not with the department, you
:18:36. > :18:40.can't do the work that needs to be done. But these things happen. But
:18:41. > :18:44.that wasn't just to be Department. We heard that schools have been
:18:45. > :18:48.taken by surprise. The pilot is one thing, rolling it out on the
:18:49. > :18:52.universal bases is quite another. Surely that was a mistake, because
:18:53. > :18:56.now you got schools who have not only got the right facilities, but
:18:57. > :18:59.they are talking about having more teachers at lunchtime, you can't
:19:00. > :19:04.have kids holding the hot trays of food without help, staggering the
:19:05. > :19:10.lunch break, it will have to start at 11:30am to get them through to
:19:11. > :19:13.2pm. If you go back decades, a hot school meal was the normal
:19:14. > :19:17.provision. We moved away from that for a whole variety of reasons. What
:19:18. > :19:20.the policy demonstrates is the consequence of that will stop
:19:21. > :19:25.children from pourer families are not getting good nutrition, and the
:19:26. > :19:29.educational performance of poor children have been undermined. It is
:19:30. > :19:33.a good policy. If there are hiccups they should be accepted and dealt
:19:34. > :19:36.with, but it's not an argument for rubbishing or denigrating the
:19:37. > :19:42.policy, which is a good, sound education policy. I think people
:19:43. > :19:46.were questioning how it was actually presented and not enough thought had
:19:47. > :19:54.gone into it. How do you get over a problem where a school with a
:19:55. > :19:56.certain number of teachers just won't have enough people to
:19:57. > :19:58.facilitate this? Yellow matter what those teachers doing when the
:19:59. > :20:01.children are having lunch at the moment? The responsibility of the
:20:02. > :20:07.school, children still have to be that. I do find that a slight red
:20:08. > :20:12.herring, because I'm sure schools can manage this by reorganising the
:20:13. > :20:21.day. Do you agree they will be able to cope with it, that these problems
:20:22. > :20:24.are merely hiccups? Or do you think those are legitimate concerns, how
:20:25. > :20:29.you deal with it when it's happening at lunch times? I do think they are
:20:30. > :20:32.legitimate concerns. We've heard from people on the ground to spot
:20:33. > :20:36.problems. It's fantastic the department is reaching out to them,
:20:37. > :20:39.but there are other issues abound as policy which I don't think were
:20:40. > :20:46.thought through properly. Like what happens around the Pupil Premium?
:20:47. > :20:49.Also, that's how you measure kids on free school meals, that's how you
:20:50. > :20:52.put out the Pupil Premium. If you are a head teacher you need to know
:20:53. > :20:56.which of your kids are on free school meals and getting them, so
:20:57. > :21:02.you can see the performance of those children and make sure you advance
:21:03. > :21:06.it. Those issues... Getting away from means testing in this context
:21:07. > :21:10.is a good thing. Means testing is difficult. What is happening now is
:21:11. > :21:13.children from poor families sometimes don't qualify for free
:21:14. > :21:17.school meals. The problem is the cost of the free school meals would
:21:18. > :21:21.make them qualified if it came before rather than after. What you
:21:22. > :21:25.are doing is making sure that children who currently don't get
:21:26. > :21:29.school meals to get them. I accept that the criteria for the Pupil
:21:30. > :21:43.Premium, but I'm certain there are ways of administering that. This
:21:44. > :21:45.will all come together, it's about providing support for all children,
:21:46. > :21:48.not just to get them better fed but better educated. Will it affect the
:21:49. > :21:50.Pupil Premium? There are some schools who will claim they really
:21:51. > :21:53.need that for some of them all poor pupils. Will they lose out if they
:21:54. > :21:56.can't identify those pupils in the first instance as a result of this
:21:57. > :21:59.policy? Of the policy is every child is getting a hot meal, you don't
:22:00. > :22:04.know who is on free school meals and who isn't. You, as a parent, sign up
:22:05. > :22:08.your child to do it. One of the incentives is the fact there is a
:22:09. > :22:12.free school meals. Therefore why would you tell the school, there is
:22:13. > :22:18.a lot of stigma with those issues, if you are meeting that criteria?
:22:19. > :22:20.You wouldn't. It is the stigma that discourages people from applying for
:22:21. > :22:25.free school meals, and as a consequence cuts them off from the
:22:26. > :22:38.Pupil Premium. I think there's a real case to ensure we do better and
:22:39. > :22:40.reach more of the kids by doing I think we are improving the
:22:41. > :22:42.performance right across the board. Let's deal with any problems that
:22:43. > :22:45.may be, but that's not undermine this very good policy to improve
:22:46. > :22:47.educational output. What about the other point that was made in the
:22:48. > :22:50.film? Because was allocated on the basis of pupil numbers and not need,
:22:51. > :22:53.you will have money going to some schools where they don't need it.
:22:54. > :22:56.They have the facilities and are ready to go. Whereas the will be
:22:57. > :23:01.other schools who need a full kitchen upgrade who could do with
:23:02. > :23:06.more money. It would be possible it seems to me that you can negotiate
:23:07. > :23:09.across the piece. Those schools that don't need money will make it
:23:10. > :23:12.available to those who do. If those issues do exist, it should be
:23:13. > :23:17.possible to reorganise the funding in a way that we deliver the right
:23:18. > :23:21.result. Former special adviser to Michael Gove, clearly not you,
:23:22. > :23:27.described it as a gimmick. You don't think that's the case? I don't think
:23:28. > :23:31.it was me. The issue for us, they were trying to do things that were
:23:32. > :23:35.improving children's lives, making sure education is better. There's a
:23:36. > :23:39.debate over whether this policy will do that. Michael Gove thinks that is
:23:40. > :23:44.the case, but we have to get the implementation issues right to be
:23:45. > :23:49.able to deliver it. We were told we couldn't raise the tax threshold to
:23:50. > :23:52.?10,000, we raised it. Things can be done. Coalition adds value to policy
:23:53. > :23:55.delivery. With rising energy bills, politicians are keen to encourage
:23:56. > :23:58.people to switch providers if it will save them money. And to help,
:23:59. > :24:01.the energy regulator Ofgem has brought in new rules which it says
:24:02. > :24:06.will ban confusing and complex tariffs and make it easier for
:24:07. > :24:08.consumers. Since January this year, energy suppliers have been limited
:24:09. > :24:14.to offering eight tariffs to customers - four for electricity and
:24:15. > :24:19.four for gas. And they've faced stricter rules on how to advertise
:24:20. > :24:22.these tariffs. Then on 31st of March, new rules came into force to
:24:23. > :24:27.make sure suppliers inform customers of the cheapest available tariff and
:24:28. > :24:30.how much it could save them. Ofgem have also introduced a Tariff
:24:31. > :24:34.Comparison Rate, or TCR, similar to APR for interest rates, which allows
:24:35. > :24:41.customers to compare tariffs at a glance. So, will these changes make
:24:42. > :24:45.it easier for customers to get a better deal on their energy? Joining
:24:46. > :24:48.me now from Birmingham is Ramsay Dunning from Co-operative Energy,
:24:49. > :24:56.and here in the studio is our guest of the day Henry de Zoete. He's
:24:57. > :25:00.behind a company which encourages collective bargaining in the energy
:25:01. > :25:13.market to bring down prices. Also with me here is Alun Rees from
:25:14. > :25:17.Energy UK. According to which, the consumer organisation, only 35% of
:25:18. > :25:20.people pick the cheapest energy deal, despite the tariffs coming in
:25:21. > :25:25.at the beginning of the year which were designed to simplify the
:25:26. > :25:28.system. That's a problem, isn't it? The strange thing is that the
:25:29. > :25:31.research didn't look at the way people switch, which is really easy
:25:32. > :25:36.to do. All you need to do is find how much energy you use, which is on
:25:37. > :25:42.your bill, go to a price comparison website, Bob 's your uncle, it will
:25:43. > :25:46.give you a quote and tell you what the best deal is. If it's that easy,
:25:47. > :25:50.why have more people not switched? Millar about 3.5 million people
:25:51. > :25:54.switched supplier last year. But what we want to do is make it even
:25:55. > :25:59.simpler and easier for people to come -- pair and choose the best
:26:00. > :26:03.deal for them. In 2013, an estimated 5.8 million people switched energy
:26:04. > :26:11.providers. That's one point three 8 million fewer than ten years ago in
:26:12. > :26:17.2003. The recent switches, 2010, eight .30 1 million. Then it
:26:18. > :26:22.declines. 2011, seven .48. 2012, five .62. We are getting fewer and
:26:23. > :26:27.fewer switches, despite you saying it is easier. It's no surprise that
:26:28. > :26:31.switching is a lot less now than it was five or ten years ago. The
:26:32. > :26:36.reason for that is five or ten years ago, suppliers were doing doorstep
:26:37. > :26:39.selling. That was phased out because public concerns. The market is
:26:40. > :26:43.changing and there are innovative new ways to make it easier for
:26:44. > :26:46.customers to switch, like collective switching schemes, like comparison
:26:47. > :26:50.websites and like the new tools energy suppliers are bringing in to
:26:51. > :26:53.make it easier and simpler to compare. It's clearly not quite
:26:54. > :26:59.simple enough. We can put up a graphic to show some of the offers
:27:00. > :27:08.from three companies. Take a look at that. Which one is the cheapest?
:27:09. > :27:16.At a glance, you've only given me a few seconds to look at this. Show.
:27:17. > :27:19.You are saying it's really easy, I looked at that and I couldn't work
:27:20. > :27:24.it out and I'm not sure I could work it out even after I don't know, 40
:27:25. > :27:29.minutes. This isn't the way that most people compared. The most
:27:30. > :27:33.common used way is find out how much they used, which is on their bill,
:27:34. > :27:36.pop it into a price comparison site along with their postcode and
:27:37. > :27:40.straightaway you will get a quote which will tell you the cheapest
:27:41. > :27:46.deal for you. Accept people still aren't taking it up. I have switched
:27:47. > :27:49.once and I went through that process and it is quite straightforward. It
:27:50. > :27:54.still takes quite a long time and you are reliant on the company is
:27:55. > :27:59.doing all the paperwork for you. 60% of people have still never switched.
:28:00. > :28:03.What you've just shown in terms of the different options kind of sums
:28:04. > :28:08.it up. It's really confusing, you are not sure what's going on. Is
:28:09. > :28:12.that going to save you money or not? What we are trying to do is say,
:28:13. > :28:17.actually, if we get a whole bunch of people together, we can demand,
:28:18. > :28:20.through the fact we've got more people, collectively bargain a
:28:21. > :28:25.price. It's the easiest and simplest way of switching. It's easy to do,
:28:26. > :28:30.easy to sign up and we do the difficult job for you by finding the
:28:31. > :28:35.best possible deal. It sounds like a great deal, but Which made the same
:28:36. > :28:38.offer. Is this any different? I think it is different because what
:28:39. > :28:43.we are doing is reaching out to people that have never switched
:28:44. > :28:47.before because we've got over 60% of people involved who never switched
:28:48. > :28:52.before, people who are slightly older. These other groups who have
:28:53. > :28:55.most been badly... I wouldn't want to say exploited, but certainly been
:28:56. > :28:59.the ones who have not been able to save money, they've been ripped off,
:29:00. > :29:04.they are spending up to ?300 more than they should be doing. We think
:29:05. > :29:07.we can get them a really good deal. This is a commercial operation, you
:29:08. > :29:13.will profit from this. How much commission will you take from each
:29:14. > :29:16.person? We don't know what commission we will get at this
:29:17. > :29:19.stage. We will know that when we've done a negotiation with the energy
:29:20. > :29:22.companies and we will be open about that. One of the issues some people
:29:23. > :29:25.have had the price comparison websites is those guys, they are
:29:26. > :29:29.taking commissions but no one knows what they are or what they are
:29:30. > :29:33.doing. The whole point about what we are doing is about saving people
:29:34. > :29:40.money. If we can save them money then we've done what we've aimed to
:29:41. > :29:43.do. Ramsey, thank you for waiting. Should private providers, like Henry
:29:44. > :29:51.de Zoete's be operating in the energy market? I don't think there
:29:52. > :29:55.is a problem with having private providers in the market but previous
:29:56. > :30:00.discussions have highlighted that the public needs a completely
:30:01. > :30:05.independent, dependable and public saving service that provides all the
:30:06. > :30:09.information neutrally. The problem with commercial services is that
:30:10. > :30:14.their primary purpose is to make a profit, and they do that out of
:30:15. > :30:22.commission. They get commission from some companies and not from others,
:30:23. > :30:26.and therefore they will give the customer the best product that they
:30:27. > :30:30.will earn commission on. You are not going to get a private service
:30:31. > :30:35.saying to a customer that this is the very best deal on the market
:30:36. > :30:40.even if we don't make anything from it. The public really needs that
:30:41. > :30:46.completely independent service. Who is going to provide that? A number
:30:47. > :30:49.of people could provide it. I think it needs the Government to come
:30:50. > :30:54.behind it. It does not necessarily need the Government to set it up. It
:30:55. > :31:00.needs to be overseen by the Government or Ofgem. They could set
:31:01. > :31:08.it up. They don't need to. It could go out to a consumer organisation
:31:09. > :31:17.like Which? Or Consumer Focus. Organisations like that. If you can
:31:18. > :31:20.get a better deal and you can negotiate with more clout against
:31:21. > :31:25.the big six, then that would be a benefit, surely? The idea of people
:31:26. > :31:30.coming together collectively to get a better deal for themselves, we
:31:31. > :31:33.absolutely wholeheartedly support. That after all is what co-opts are
:31:34. > :31:43.about. The consumer co-operative model. Private services are not
:31:44. > :31:47.going to give consumers a completely independent and neutral view of what
:31:48. > :31:52.is out there. Well, we try to save people money and if we can do that,
:31:53. > :31:55.yes, we will make some money. We are not like a traditional switching
:31:56. > :31:59.site. We are not about getting people to switch again and again,
:32:00. > :32:02.which is how they make money. The people who have joined us are people
:32:03. > :32:13.that have never switched and have never done it before and don't want
:32:14. > :32:16.to switch every year. They want a longer term deal and have peace of
:32:17. > :32:18.mind and relax, knowing they have a good deal, without worrying about it
:32:19. > :32:24.for several years. Wood energy companies respond to that? Energy
:32:25. > :32:29.companies support anyway to get consumers engaged. Except for
:32:30. > :32:35.charging less. Gas bills have risen by 41% since 2007 and electricity by
:32:36. > :32:42.20%. The prophet of the energy companies has risen from 5% on each
:32:43. > :32:44.bill in 2010 to 6.7% in 2013. Energy companies are working really hard to
:32:45. > :32:52.keep energy prices as low as possible. A loss of the costs within
:32:53. > :32:56.the bill are outside the companies's control. They are all
:32:57. > :33:00.fighting really hard to win business on price and service. What about
:33:01. > :33:05.investment? Investment is really important. This is why we need a
:33:06. > :33:08.healthy energy sector to invest ?100 million over the next three years to
:33:09. > :33:13.build the new power stations that we need to keep the lights on for our
:33:14. > :33:18.children. Do you agree with Labour's plans to break up the big
:33:19. > :33:21.six energy companies? I think there are certainly some issues about
:33:22. > :33:28.vertical integration and suppliers and selling on bits. That plan is a
:33:29. > :33:32.year and a half away from the election and it will take time to
:33:33. > :33:37.implement. But it is the right plan? We would have to see how it will
:33:38. > :33:42.work. The issue for consumers at the moment is that they want price cuts
:33:43. > :33:48.now. We have seen prices doubled. Huge profits from energy companies,
:33:49. > :33:54.quadrupling from the big six. What we want now is a way of saving
:33:55. > :33:58.people money. Thank you very much. When Sarah Teather entered
:33:59. > :34:03.Parliament in a by-election in 2003, she was seen as a rising star. Two
:34:04. > :34:08.years later, she was on the Lib Dem front bench team, and when the
:34:09. > :34:12.coalition was formed, she became minister for children and families.
:34:13. > :34:16.In 2012, she was reshuffled out of the Government and has since said
:34:17. > :34:22.that she will stand down at the next election. She said she feels
:34:23. > :34:24.desolate about some of the Government's policies. Yesterday I
:34:25. > :34:30.joined her in her North London constituency. The London borough of
:34:31. > :34:35.bread is said to be the most ethnically diverse in the country.
:34:36. > :34:38.The MP, Sarah Teather, shocked everyone by saying she would stand
:34:39. > :34:46.down at the next election, disillusioned by the coalition's
:34:47. > :34:49.policies on immigration and welfare. Cases like that of this Nigerian
:34:50. > :34:53.constituent have angered Sarah Teather. She was working legally as
:34:54. > :34:57.a care assistant for three years that her application to stay longer
:34:58. > :35:01.was rejected at first. The Home Office then changed its mind, but
:35:02. > :35:05.left her in limbo for a year. Because the Home Office did not
:35:06. > :35:10.follow the rules, she found herself effectively in the position of being
:35:11. > :35:14.illegal, and denied the right to work and support her family. When
:35:15. > :35:17.the Government talk about wanting to target people that they describe as
:35:18. > :35:22.illegal, they often mean people that they have screwed up. What was it
:35:23. > :35:26.like during that period when you were in limbo waiting for the Home
:35:27. > :35:33.Office to make a final decision about your application? It was hell.
:35:34. > :35:41.I had no access to public funds. No more housing, no more benefits. It
:35:42. > :35:48.was very sad for me. Did you manage to work? I could not work because I
:35:49. > :35:54.was suspended. I had no visa. So what did you live on? Nothing.
:35:55. > :35:59.Sarah, will you be sad to leave your constituency behind? In lots of ways
:36:00. > :36:04.I will be very sad. I have loved being an MP here. Nothing can change
:36:05. > :36:08.your mind? No. I took a long time to make the decision and I thought
:36:09. > :36:12.about it carefully. I am not going to change my mind. Sarah Teather
:36:13. > :36:17.says that she still has friends in the party but does she think Nick
:36:18. > :36:23.Clegg should continue as leader? I mean, I can't see anybody else who
:36:24. > :36:26.would stand in place of him. Hardly a ringing endorsement from someone
:36:27. > :36:30.who feels that the Lib Dems have stopped standing up for what they
:36:31. > :36:34.believe in. Do you agree there should be a limit on immigration? I
:36:35. > :36:39.think the immigration cap is a very silly policy and the end result is
:36:40. > :36:45.what? British families being split up. Students coming here to pay into
:36:46. > :36:48.the system being turned down. Teenagers getting deported. At the
:36:49. > :36:53.same time, people driving around places like this in a van saying go
:36:54. > :36:59.home. That is the end result of making silly policy. Theresa May
:37:00. > :37:04.coined the phrase the nasty party for her own party. Do you think the
:37:05. > :37:07.Tories still are the nasty party? I think it is very difficult to work
:37:08. > :37:12.face to face with people in a constituency like this and see the
:37:13. > :37:15.inhumane decisions that get made to sanction benefits and turned down
:37:16. > :37:21.immigration cases when they have a legitimate right to be here. It is
:37:22. > :37:25.difficult to work face to face with people like that and not see the
:37:26. > :37:29.Conservatives as the nasty party. There is a certain irony with it
:37:30. > :37:33.being Theresa May making the speech, pointing out to the Tory party that
:37:34. > :37:37.they were in danger of being seen as nasty, when it is Theresa May
:37:38. > :37:42.pushing forward a deeply Draconian and unpleasant bill that will have
:37:43. > :37:46.no benefit for the UK. Sarah Teather joins us now along with a
:37:47. > :37:53.Conservative MP Philip Davies. You saw Sarah Teather in the film
:37:54. > :37:58.describing the welfare cap, sorry, the immigration cap as a silly
:37:59. > :38:02.policy. What do you say to that? I want us to control immigration and
:38:03. > :38:06.the general public wants us to control it and my constituents do.
:38:07. > :38:10.Where the Government has got itself into a mess is that while we are
:38:11. > :38:14.still in the European Union, we cannot control immigration into the
:38:15. > :38:20.country. We cannot cap immigration. I am all for having a proper cap,
:38:21. > :38:26.but that only way to do that is to leave the European Union. So you
:38:27. > :38:30.admit that the immigration target is nonsense because the Government
:38:31. > :38:34.cannot control immigration so was it a silly idea? I think it was a
:38:35. > :38:38.mistake to have a cap and a target when you have no control. You can
:38:39. > :38:43.only have an effective target and cap if you have control over it.
:38:44. > :38:46.Absolutely, I think that was a mistake. The policy objective of
:38:47. > :38:49.reducing immigration into the country is a good one and certainly
:38:50. > :38:58.one that the overwhelming majority of my constituents agree with, and I
:38:59. > :39:00.suspect the overwhelming majority of the country. Why shouldn't there be
:39:01. > :39:04.some limit on immigration? Would you like an open door policy with
:39:05. > :39:07.limitless numbers coming in? No, but immigration policy has to be a
:39:08. > :39:11.balance of what is good for the country and for the people coming
:39:12. > :39:16.here. You need to balance those needs and look at individual areas
:39:17. > :39:18.and understand what skills are required and the corrugated ways in
:39:19. > :39:24.which people contribute, which is not always economic. My trouble is
:39:25. > :39:28.that this policy is not looking across the country and thinking
:39:29. > :39:32.about the wider good of the society. It is about opinion polls, which is
:39:33. > :39:36.not a good way of making policy. That is how people feel. Should they
:39:37. > :39:40.not feel the burden of pressure on schools and hospitals as people do
:39:41. > :39:45.in constituencies where there are high levels of immigration and the
:39:46. > :39:50.place is too small to absorb immigrants? In places like London,
:39:51. > :39:54.the difficulty is caused by the draw of the South East. People are moving
:39:55. > :40:01.from all over the country not just all over the world. People want
:40:02. > :40:05.politicians to show colour -- courage and leadership and not just
:40:06. > :40:08.to do what was in favour at the last opinion poll. You were a minister
:40:09. > :40:13.taking decisions in the last Government so what were you and your
:40:14. > :40:16.Lib Dem colleagues doing? I was certainly fighting a lot of them
:40:17. > :40:21.behind the scenes. Many colleagues still are. That you failed to make
:40:22. > :40:24.an impact. A lot of things were changed but I would like to see more
:40:25. > :40:29.change. That was the price of coalition, if you like. You got your
:40:30. > :40:38.way on having some kind of immigration target, even if the Lib
:40:39. > :40:41.Dems were not wholly supportive of it. You have admitted that it was a
:40:42. > :40:44.complete waste of time. How else would you bring down immigration? At
:40:45. > :40:47.the moment the only way is to leave the EU. We need people with the
:40:48. > :40:52.right skills for the economy and I totally agree with that but with an
:40:53. > :40:55.open border policy, with the EU, anybody can come in whether they
:40:56. > :41:02.have the skills or not. Most people coming from the EU are coming to do
:41:03. > :41:05.low skilled jobs, entry-level jobs, while we have 900,000 people aged 16
:41:06. > :41:10.to 24 who are unemployed and capable of doing the jobs. It is the low
:41:11. > :41:15.paid people in this country that have suffered as a result. I think
:41:16. > :41:21.it is more complicated than that. A lot of people are struggling to get
:41:22. > :41:25.a job and they are frightened and nervous. We need to focus more on
:41:26. > :41:29.what we can do to get them chances of getting into work. School
:41:30. > :41:32.reforms, apprenticeships, where there has been enormous investment
:41:33. > :41:36.from this Government in making sure people have the skills to get the
:41:37. > :41:40.right kinds of work. But I am not sure pulling out of the EU will be
:41:41. > :41:43.good for Britain as a whole. What will happen to all the jobs that we
:41:44. > :41:50.hope will be available for people if we pull out of the EU? That is not
:41:51. > :41:55.sensible policy either. We have a trade deficit with the EU. We buy
:41:56. > :41:59.much more from them than they buy from us. The idea that Mercedes and
:42:00. > :42:05.BMW will stop the German Government trading freely with us is utter
:42:06. > :42:09.nonsense. We want free trade with Europe but we do not want to be run
:42:10. > :42:14.by them and have unlimited immigration coming in from the EU.
:42:15. > :42:18.Do you think the Tory party is the nasty party? I never did and I would
:42:19. > :42:23.not want to be part of a nasty party. We have a different
:42:24. > :42:27.perspective on things. I think Sarah's views are stupid on many
:42:28. > :42:33.things. But she is entitled to have an opinion, we live in a democracy.
:42:34. > :42:39.Cheers! Just because we disagree does not make one of us nasty and
:42:40. > :42:42.one more pleasant. So why the nasty party? When you asked me the
:42:43. > :42:46.question yesterday, when you work face to face of people and see the
:42:47. > :42:51.consequences in their lives, and you see people left destitute by changes
:42:52. > :42:55.in welfare, people left destitute who want to work, and really had the
:42:56. > :42:58.right to work, and eventually the Home Office accented that my
:42:59. > :43:03.constituents should have been able to remain and to work and they had
:43:04. > :43:10.made a series of errors. -- accepted that my constituent. They had made a
:43:11. > :43:16.series of boxes, which is the Home Office, unfortunately. Do you accept
:43:17. > :43:20.that these policies are leaving some people destitute? Look at the
:43:21. > :43:26.welfare cap. You have to burn ?35,000 a year to get their welfare
:43:27. > :43:30.cap of ?26,000. I think it is nasty to get people to go out and work for
:43:31. > :43:36.less than they are paying in their taxes for somebody else to get food
:43:37. > :43:39.without working at all. I think that is nasty. We have a different
:43:40. > :43:43.perspective on what is nice and nasty. I don't see any great
:43:44. > :43:49.pleasantness about expecting people to go out to work and earn less than
:43:50. > :43:53.people on benefits. The sanctions regime which we were talking about
:43:54. > :43:57.yesterday in the context of that conversation, I have seen people
:43:58. > :44:00.have their benefits removed for having missed their appointments
:44:01. > :44:05.because they were having surgery for a tumour. That is just inhumane. It
:44:06. > :44:10.does not do any good for society and it causes huge damage to that
:44:11. > :44:14.individual. OK. Let's look briefly at the party itself. You have
:44:15. > :44:20.announced that he will step down. Jeremy Browne has said that the
:44:21. > :44:26.Liberal Democrats are too timid, but coming at it from a different
:44:27. > :44:34.political perspective, what do you say to him? He wants profit free
:44:35. > :44:38.schools. Henry is delighted! It see more of a Conservative than Liberal
:44:39. > :44:44.Democrat, Jeremy Browne? I am not going to get into that stuff. Do!
:44:45. > :44:50.You don't agree with him on any of that? I don't. I felt awkward about
:44:51. > :44:54.the way that video was cut to make it look like I am attacking Nick
:44:55. > :44:58.Clegg. I don't want to get into personal politics. But he is talking
:44:59. > :45:08.about policies. You don't agree with cutting the top rate of tax. I don't
:45:09. > :45:12.think cutting the top rate of tax is going to help those people in my
:45:13. > :45:17.constituency to get on or pay into the system, to make sure we can
:45:18. > :45:21.provide quality public services. This is a dilemma for the Liberal
:45:22. > :45:26.Democrats. Is generally mean Brown looking more like a conservative
:45:27. > :45:31.these days with those policy suggestions? -- Jeremy Browne.
:45:32. > :45:36.Looking at the Liberal Democrats over the last four years of the
:45:37. > :45:40.coalition, there's been an internal battle from the very start. I think
:45:41. > :45:44.it was first formed when the decision to go into the coalition
:45:45. > :45:48.happened. Perhaps the grassroots of the party, looking at the
:45:49. > :45:52.conferences and seeing the motions they passed, knowing that wasn't
:45:53. > :45:56.exactly what they wanted or the direction that is. There's always
:45:57. > :46:00.been tension between the Jeromy Brown's in the party and the
:46:01. > :46:04.grassroots, Sarah Teather Dunne views within the party. I think
:46:05. > :46:08.that's healthy, but fundamentally, they are going to have to make a
:46:09. > :46:14.decision quite soon about where they are going to go and what's going to
:46:15. > :46:19.happen. It doesn't seem like it can carry on. You are on the culture
:46:20. > :46:23.committee, should Maria Miller stay or go? Like Sarah, she said we
:46:24. > :46:27.shouldn't get into personalities and views. This is the biggest issue
:46:28. > :46:31.that's been running in Westminster. Rune whether she resigned as a
:46:32. > :46:34.matter for her. The whole thing is extremely damaging for the
:46:35. > :46:39.Conservative Party, it's damaging for Parliament as a whole and
:46:40. > :46:42.politicians, we all get tarnished by the same brush. It's damaging for
:46:43. > :46:47.the Government and the Prime Minister. The sooner the matter is
:46:48. > :46:52.resolved the better. What would resolve it? It's for the Prime
:46:53. > :46:56.Minister and Maria Miller to sort out themselves. It's incredibly
:46:57. > :47:01.damaging for the party, the Government and for all of us in
:47:02. > :47:05.Parliament. The rules have all changed. What has happened couldn't
:47:06. > :47:14.happen now. This is a spill-over from the previous regime. But it
:47:15. > :47:17.still tarnishes all. Ed Miliband has been making a speech in Birmingham
:47:18. > :47:20.this morning and it's all about giving the cities and regions of
:47:21. > :47:23.England more control over housing, transport and employment. Labour
:47:24. > :47:26.says ?20 billion that's currently controlled by Whitehall will instead
:47:27. > :47:31.be handed to local bodies over the lifetime of the next Parliament.
:47:32. > :47:36.Here he is speaking earlier. Labour's message at the next
:47:37. > :47:40.election will be clear. It is about devolving power from Whitehall to
:47:41. > :47:44.our towns and cities. Because it is essential to generate the jobs we
:47:45. > :47:48.need. We propose a new bargain. Cities and towns come together with
:47:49. > :47:53.local businesses will be given historic, new powers over
:47:54. > :48:01.transport, housing, skills and economic development. We're joined
:48:02. > :48:07.now by Andrew Adonis, he's the man behind this plan and he's also
:48:08. > :48:17.shadow Infrastructure Minister. He is in Birmingham.
:48:18. > :48:23.Sometimes you do interviews with people who aren't even in London.
:48:24. > :48:28.Explain this in everyday language. We are talking about devolving more
:48:29. > :48:31.budgets to the level of the cities and the areas around the cities, the
:48:32. > :48:38.city regions and the counties where that make sense, so they can take
:48:39. > :48:41.charge of their own provision in two key areas. Skills and
:48:42. > :48:45.infrastructure, being transport and housing above all. If we are going
:48:46. > :48:50.to drive growth and get more growth companies, we've got to raise our
:48:51. > :48:53.skill levels and have better local infrastructure. We need decisions
:48:54. > :48:59.taken closer to the scene of the action, closer to the companies and
:49:00. > :49:04.areas affected. Departments have been too centralised for too long in
:49:05. > :49:08.this country. I hear every politician saying that, particularly
:49:09. > :49:11.in opposition. All oppositions talk about giving away power until they
:49:12. > :49:15.get power. It will probably not happen if you win the Lex
:49:16. > :49:19.collection. You'll a-macro to be fair, Labour in government took two
:49:20. > :49:24.very big steps on the road to devolution. We set up the devolved
:49:25. > :49:29.governments of Scotland and Wales. We also set up the Mayor of London
:49:30. > :49:34.and the Greater London authority. What happened to regional
:49:35. > :49:37.assemblies? The big issue for us is how we get properly functioning
:49:38. > :49:43.devolution in the cities and counties of England. But that didn't
:49:44. > :49:47.work. It was never implemented. The attempts in the North East to create
:49:48. > :49:50.a regional assembly, we're not talking about that, not a wholly new
:49:51. > :49:54.tier of government. We are talking about bringing together local
:49:55. > :49:57.enterprise partnerships which exist at the moment. We will not do what
:49:58. > :50:02.the present government did and abolish what was there before when
:50:03. > :50:06.we abolished -- they abolished the agencies. We will take those
:50:07. > :50:09.partnerships, which are doing good work and need more power and four
:50:10. > :50:12.budget, and put them together with the local authority leaders that
:50:13. > :50:16.cover their area so they can make decisions jointly and have joint
:50:17. > :50:21.control over budgets, which puts business leaders and local authority
:50:22. > :50:24.leaders in charge. In Birmingham, the local enterprise partnership
:50:25. > :50:28.covers Birmingham, the area around it and Solihull. That is a travel to
:50:29. > :50:34.work area with a really important growth driver in terms of jobs. They
:50:35. > :50:38.would then be able to do much more of the planning of their
:50:39. > :50:42.infrastructure and their skill set. If this were to work that would be
:50:43. > :50:47.great, but in terms of grabbing voters, in terms of it being one of
:50:48. > :50:50.your headlines in your manifesto, when people are still going to be
:50:51. > :50:54.worried about one of Labour's other themes, the cost of living, and
:50:55. > :51:00.generally about the economy, it's just not going to do it, is it? You
:51:01. > :51:05.need a manifesto full of policies. The key game here is putting in
:51:06. > :51:09.place arrangements that will promote more and better jobs. Let's take a
:51:10. > :51:14.concrete example. There's a message -- massive shortage of youth
:51:15. > :51:19.apprenticeships in this country. The number has fallen since 2010, which
:51:20. > :51:21.is why we have mass youth unemployment and local employers,
:51:22. > :51:26.including employers here in Birmingham, crying out for young
:51:27. > :51:30.people with skills. One of the key functions we want to devolved is
:51:31. > :51:33.responsibility for promoting apprenticeship to local employers.
:51:34. > :51:37.We've got Jaguar Land Rover, a fantastic local employer here,
:51:38. > :51:41.expanding and wanting to create new jobs in companies that supply them,
:51:42. > :51:46.but they are desperately short of apprentices. Who is more likely to
:51:47. > :51:51.deliver those apprentice? A business body with strong roots in the
:51:52. > :51:55.locality or quango in London? The quango in London has clearly failed.
:51:56. > :52:01.Let's put local people in charge. How much money would you have to put
:52:02. > :52:05.into the city and county regions? We haven't been precise because we are
:52:06. > :52:11.looking at it individually. The present government is devolving only
:52:12. > :52:16.a tiny sum... So you'd have to cut at the Department's budgets to pay
:52:17. > :52:20.for it? We're not talking about cutting budgets but devolving them.
:52:21. > :52:25.If you just take skills, a budget held centrally of more than ?1
:52:26. > :52:29.billion. It's all run by a quango which sits in Whitehall. The
:52:30. > :52:34.question which is facing us is whether that money would be better
:52:35. > :52:40.spent and produce much better results for companies and young
:52:41. > :52:42.people if it were devolved locally, so that local business leaders and
:52:43. > :52:45.local authorities, which are much closer to the scene of the action
:52:46. > :52:55.and they would have a much bigger say and how it is spent. When
:52:56. > :52:59.special advisers are in the news it's safe to say it's probably for
:53:00. > :53:02.the wrong reasons. Spads, as they're known, are meant to help ministers
:53:03. > :53:06.with the kind of sticky issues that are too political for the civil
:53:07. > :53:09.servants to touch. It could be briefing the media or injecting the
:53:10. > :53:13.party line into a new policy. It doesn't always go smoothly - let's
:53:14. > :53:15.take a look. If they ever get into the press at all, which they
:53:16. > :53:19.shouldn't, it's always an episode of when Spads go bad! Joe Hind Lee is
:53:20. > :53:24.this week's flak magnet, special adviser to Maria Miller who did or
:53:25. > :53:31.did not threaten a newspaper. Maria has been having quite a lot of
:53:32. > :53:39.meetings around leaves on. But she still standing tall and in a job,
:53:40. > :53:49.unlike her predecessor as a culture secretary Spad. He went into hiding
:53:50. > :53:56.and the press hunted him down. It looks like a Spad, walks like a
:53:57. > :54:02.Spad, talks like a Spad, but he wasn't and lost Liam Fox's job.
:54:03. > :54:06.Damian McBride was the ultimate killer Spad. Ruthless, reckless,
:54:07. > :54:11.ready and refreshed. He came a cropper after a career of mailing
:54:12. > :54:17.opponents. He made up stories then resurfaced to tell his own in a
:54:18. > :54:23.book. Message to Stephen Byers' special adviser, there is no good
:54:24. > :54:27.day to bury bad news, as she famously, callously e-mailed
:54:28. > :54:32.colleagues. And, with spectacular irony, promptly became bad news and
:54:33. > :54:37.was buried. If ever there was a Spad and from a young age was born to the
:54:38. > :54:41.calling, branded crazy zealot by his enemies and a reforming profit by
:54:42. > :54:45.his supporters, Dominic Cummings, this disciple of the Lord Michael
:54:46. > :54:52.Gove Almighty, has now himself consigned his Spad Korea to the
:54:53. > :54:55.grave. After that trip down memory lane, we're joined by the Daily
:54:56. > :54:58.Telegraph's Whitehall watcher Sue Cameron, and Henry de Zoete is a
:54:59. > :55:01.former special adviser. How crucial is your old role to a cabinet
:55:02. > :55:05.secretary? I think special advisers are very important, but I think
:55:06. > :55:10.there's a bit of a misunderstanding about what we do. Of course there
:55:11. > :55:14.are the examples that were picked up on film, which is fair enough. To
:55:15. > :55:19.give you what I was doing in the department and what Dominic Cummings
:55:20. > :55:23.was doing, we work... Well, we were mainly focusing on the priorities of
:55:24. > :55:27.the Secretary of State and project managing them to the department.
:55:28. > :55:31.Dominic basically spent probably about 1% of his time on any sort of
:55:32. > :55:35.media issue, I spent a bit more because I was more of a media
:55:36. > :55:39.special adviser. But what we have to do was pick out the policies we
:55:40. > :55:43.wanted to get most traction to get through the department, to happen on
:55:44. > :55:54.the ground as quickly as possible. Then we will project managing those
:55:55. > :55:56.through the system. Do you accept there was a level of ideological
:55:57. > :55:58.zeal being injected by you and Dominic Cummings in the education
:55:59. > :56:00.department to get Michael Gove's point across? Absolutely not.
:56:01. > :56:05.Obviously we believed in our policies, but what we were trying to
:56:06. > :56:10.do and, unfortunately, I worked with some brilliant civil servants and
:56:11. > :56:15.they are brilliant, but the system itself that they are in, it makes it
:56:16. > :56:19.very difficult to ensure that the project goes through and is
:56:20. > :56:23.delivered properly at the end. There are countless examples where we had
:56:24. > :56:28.to do it ourselves. There were reported highly personal attacks on
:56:29. > :56:32.a certain journalist, that came from the education department and a
:56:33. > :56:38.Twitter feed. Those things were reported as coming from a Twitter
:56:39. > :56:43.feed. They weren't from you? It was nothing to do with us. Is that a
:56:44. > :56:48.more sanitised view of what a special adviser does? I think it
:56:49. > :56:52.partly reflect the fact they are a very mixed bunch. A lot of them do
:56:53. > :56:58.very different things. Some of them do concentrate very much on the
:56:59. > :57:03.media, others are more policy. A few, though why they are needed I
:57:04. > :57:06.don't know, politicians should be their own advisers, but some
:57:07. > :57:12.actually advise on the politics of things. One of the problems with
:57:13. > :57:18.them, there are some very good ones but they are not civil servants, who
:57:19. > :57:23.are totally impartial, and nor are they democratically elected. They
:57:24. > :57:28.are basically minister's mates. That is one of the difficulties. Some of
:57:29. > :57:34.them, as the ones you've just seen, go rogue. They were supposed to be
:57:35. > :57:37.cutting the number of Alun Reess but they've increased. -year-old one of
:57:38. > :57:41.the reasons for that is because we are in coalition. Poor old Nick
:57:42. > :57:46.Clegg was sitting in Downing Street and he's meant to keep an eye on
:57:47. > :57:51.everything in every department. He had one man and a dog to help him.
:57:52. > :57:55.That's one of the reasons why there is more of them. Is it up to
:57:56. > :58:00.ministers to rein in special advisers who do end up doing things
:58:01. > :58:04.that are unacceptable? Yes, I think it is up to ministers. But I think
:58:05. > :58:08.it is an unsatisfactory situation. I think there needs to be some way of
:58:09. > :58:15.bringing special advisers into the democratic setup. Whether they have
:58:16. > :58:22.to be approved by backbench MPs or by the civil service commission,
:58:23. > :58:26.some kind of system. Watt -- I think the idea of getting more highly
:58:27. > :58:33.qualified people into those roles is a good one. What about the vetting
:58:34. > :58:37.side a bit? There is such a crucial role they play next to a Secretary
:58:38. > :58:40.of State, that the Secretary of State has to be able to decide who
:58:41. > :58:45.that is. If there is some sort of system, it should be looked at. I
:58:46. > :58:50.remember sitting, when I wasn't in government but I used to work with a
:58:51. > :58:53.whole load of Labour special advisers, and David Cameron
:58:54. > :58:56.announced he was cutting the number of special advisers. They all said
:58:57. > :59:05.that was the worst decision he'd made. The question was, who did Nick
:59:06. > :59:13.Boles speculate might be the best MP to play the game of Thrones
:59:14. > :59:21.character Daenerys Targaryen? I can only think of Nadine. Nadine Dorries
:59:22. > :59:27.is the right answer. That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. Andrew
:59:28. > :59:30.and I will be back tomorrow. Goodbye.