03/07/2014 Daily Politics

Politics. Is the health service safe in David Cameron's hands? We will be

asking, are the Government's health targets being met? Life can be a

struggle but a posh education can leave you better off in the long

run. Our private schools worth the DOS? The Welsh wage war on sugar.

Plaid Cymru is a fizzy drinks should be taxed. We have sent the former

Children's Minister, Tim Loughton, back to his childhood.

Is he meant to be running the country quest might he is showing

his childlike side. With us for the duration, Anthony Seldon, master of

Wellington College, all-round intellectual. We don't often have

those on the show. He has recently been knighted. But that does not

mean we will be calling him Sir. Anyway, welcome to the programme.

Thank you for having me. First today, let us look at events in the

European Parliament work yesterday Nigel Farage and his band of

Eurosceptic MEPs took their seats. It was like the start of a new

school term. Everyone was on their best behaviour. Eager to make good

friends. Not. We have seen naked militarism with the EU flag being

virtually goose-step around the yard, we have seen the European

anthem, and we now, the Eurosceptics, are the progressives.

These two gentleman had nothing to say today. It was the usual dull

looking back to a model invented 50 years ago and we are the ones that

want democracy. We want nation state. We want a global future for

our countries are not to be trapped inside this museum. Thank you. What

are you doing here? What I heard is the speech of the Leader of the

Opposition in the House of Commons. If you want to hold back kind of

speech, get elected there. What are you doing here? The reason why you

are speaking here is that you have enlisted continental Europeans in

your group just to be able to boast as a British citizen who wants to

get out of the EU, if you want to be considered as the leader of a

European political group, make speeches of a European police --

political leader. Thank you. I have to say, you sound like someone from

the old commonest error saying, if anybody else has a different point

of view, they are mentally ill or there is something wrong with them

-- from the old communist era. Across the political spectrum, there

are now more Eurosceptics in this parliament than ever and many of

them do not subscribe to ever closer union, they do not subscribe to the

flag, they do not want a European anthem. They want a modern Europe

where we can trade and cooperate together and have mutual respect. Do

not worry too much about my presence because within the next five years,

I will not be here. All right? Well, good to see they are getting

along so well. With us from Strasbourg is the UKIP MEP Nathan

Gill. Welcome. All very heated in that exchange we just saw between

Nigel Farage and Mr Lamberts, is this a taste of what is to come?

Without a doubt. this a taste of what is to come?

Without a The third of the MEPs here in the Parliament Eurosceptic or

against an ever deeper union. Already in the debates yesterday, we

were there and participating and thrown they did not like it. Does

that mean debate will be so polarised because you have got more

parties on the extremes, whether left or right, in or out, there will

be no consensus? You have hit a very good point. What we have seen

already is that the three federalist parties are ready starting to form

one big super party. Because they have got two thirds of the MEPs,

they are starting to get their own way with practically everything.

There have already been stitch ups with regards to the vice

presidency. We made an agreement with the Conservatives that we would

vote for their candidate and they would vote for hours. The

Conservatives stabbed us in the back and they went ahead and joined with

the Federalists. What we are seeing is a third of the people of Europe

who voted for anti-EU, anti-federalist parties they are

going to be sidelined by the other parties merging together, trying to

get their agenda through. Backroom deals, politics as usual. There will

be people who will pose the question to you, you're taking the Brussels

Eurosceptic line and you want out. What are you doing there? I am

placed with my back to the EU flag. During the opening of the

Parliament, we turned our backs on the national anthem. The people who

voted for us want us to come here and want us to represent them in

their anti-EU, anti-federalist voice. We do not want to be a part

of this. We have to come here to remind the MEPs and the commission

that there is a huge chunk of the British electorate who do not want

this. That is our job. That is what we are going to do. Nigel Farage

made the bold prediction he will not be there in five years time. Do you

think he is confident of achieving it? Absolutely. I do not think any

of us will be here in five years time because Britain will be out of

the EU. If you really want a free and fair referendum, the only way is

to vote UKIP. But UKIP MEPs elected next year so that we can be the

balance of power and we can make sure whoever is in of --government,

we can do that. Have you made any friends? We have made friends within

our group but everyone else's avoiding us. What is your reaction,

Anthony Seldon? I said politics as usual, but actually it has changed.

I think Europe has changed. Europe is being driven towards an ever

closer union and people in Britain and across Europe are Belling. Many

people want a halfway house and maybe that is what the renegotiation

can achieve -- are rebelling. It is appropriate with the Great War

centenary coming up. There were two horrific world wars last century.

The EU at its best as a way of bringing people together. The hope

of many people and my hope is to find a renegotiation whereby there

is a pan-European union, but it is not as ever closer federalist union

that continental countries have been driving towards. Thank you.

I will be getting straight down to the currency exchange! Now it is

time for our daily quiz. Which subject is taught at Wellington

College as part of its super curriculum? Hairdressing, how to be

Prime Minister, happiness or Basic car mechanics? At the end of the

show, I am sure Anthony will give us the correct answer. You think he

will now! Private school, is it worth the

money? The Social Market Foundation has been crunching the numbers to

find out what it is worth. The report argues that children who

attend private schools are more likely to get good A-levels, go to

the most selective universities and get the top degrees. So far, so

obvious. But the think tank reckons they know how much it is all worth.

They argued that between the ages of 26 and 42, someone who went to an

independent school will earn on average nearly ?194,000 more than

someone who went to a state school. But what about other factors like a

pupil's family background? Well, the think tank reckons that even when

the other factors are taken into account, there is still a wage

premium of nearly ?58,000. The report goes on to look at the value

of the proposed open access scheme set up by the education charity The

Sutton Trust. Independent school places are available on merit with

parents playing a sliding scale of fees according to their means --

parents paying. The Social Market Foundation estimates that if you

apply the scheme to the country's top 100 schools, it will cost the

government ?215 million. It would more than double the proportion of

children coming from the bottom 40% of household incomes. The number of

children coming from the top 10% of household incomes would roughly

half. Andrew. Thanks. Bailey Bram peel --

a Labour MP Ian Austin joins us. Actually, when you drill down into

the figures, taking out cognitive ability and family background, the

premium is only ?57,000 for going to a private school which is less than

two years fees at an expensive boarding school. This would suggest

it is not much great value. Well, you can cut figures up in different

ways, Andrew. What is the wrong with the way I have cut it up? I think

parents are very savvy. A lot of parents are choosing to send their

children to independent schools, they do not have a lot of money. I

do not think they would want to do it if it was not representing value

for money. They could be doing it for social reasons, contacts the

kids will make in later life but my point is that when you drill

down... They have gone for this figure of almost 200,000, but if you

take like-for-like ability and take out the importance of family

background which still matters in this country, it is only about

?60,000 and I would suggest you are not getting value for money. We

could debate the figures. There is a much wider story here which is the

continued unfairness in Britain in life prospects between those who

come from the bottom quartile and those who attended dependent

schools. Britain as a show is surely divided country in the developed

world and that divide is static or indeed growing -- Britain is a

socially divided country. I would like to go further than The Sutton

Trust. Is there a huge premium? The key point is one you made in your

film a few years ago is that 7% of pupils go to these schools but they

occupy half of the jobs in so many professions. Our boardrooms,

newsrooms, they are increasingly populated not by the brightest but

by the most expensively educated. It is much worse in terms of social

mobility. That is what the reporters about. That is the central issue. As

a country, we can no longer afford not to exploit all of the talents

and that is what we have to address. What do you make of the open access

scheme? I think it is brilliant. I think it should be introduced. Would

you go along with it? I would go much further. We cannot have the

21st-century like the 20th century where you have 7% in independent

schools and 92%... The best skate -- state schools are superb. But there

is still a massive divide and I think we should go for radical

solutions. We should not go for incremental is which is what the

political parties are offering. What would you do? They Sutton Trust says

that the top 100 days schools, entry should be open to ability and if you

are very poor, the government will pay all of your fees. If you are

moderately rich, it will pay some. If you are very rich, you have to

pay it all. How will you go further than that? I would say the bottom

25% socioeconomically in Britain go to not just the top private schools

but the top state schools also. Grammar schools we know are very

heavily dominated by the middle classes. It is so unfair. There are

only 180 left. We have taken them out of all the poor areas. All of

the grammar schools in inner cities do not exist. There are great state

schools which are not grammar schools. I would reserve a quarter

of places that these schools and at independent schools from those in

the bottom socioeconomics section of society. I would go much further by

having independent schools all starting academies, by state schools

emulating the best features. What do you make of that? The situation of

education in our country is critical. It is the only way we will

prosper in this century. We are lagging behind with basic skills. I

think we should set a target in our country. I think every school should

be capable of getting 70%, 80% of kids getting five eight grades to C

grades. We need more technical colleges. In Germany, they have

three times as many apprentices as we do. The number of young

apprentices is actually falling. Here is a question... If you make

all these private schools open to ability rather than money, where are

the rich, thick, posh kids going to go? The brightest ones will go on to

independent schools. I am talking about the thick ones! When you leave

your media career, it is a fantastic opportunity for you to make schools

for the toffs. You think I am going to spend the last part of my life

watching thick, posh kids. That will not happen. You should come to the

open Academy and implement policies you were talking about in your film

a years ago. Andrew, you would be a great head. You would be terrifying

for the kids. The serious point is that none of the political parties

are fundamentally addressing what Ian and I are talking about, which

is the squandering of the talent of the vast number of young people, or

the fact that many of them are getting just an education in GCSEs.

They are not getting a rich, all-round education. They are not

getting the technical education or matching sufficiently what kids have

to offer to what the country needs. We need a really radical rethink,

the kind of Jim Callaghan great education debate again. If it is all

right to open the top 100 independent schools, to access by

ability, which means people will have to be tested before they can

go. It will still only affect a pretty small number of people... If

you think that is right, why would you not just bring back grammar

schools? I want to see excellence you not just bring back grammar

schools? I want to see in the state sector. People from ordinary

backgrounds getting access to independent schools. I think we

should have a commission on education. Let's get rid of the

political argy-bargy and set some clear priorities as a country, some

long-term goals. Let's transform education and educate British

youngsters and British people so we can prosper as a country in the 21st

century. There is no more urgent priority than mess. Have the

political parties let the country down? Yes. Education Secretary are

here for two or three years. They arrived next to nothing, they make

little difference and then they go. The answer about grammar schools --

to the question about grammar schools, selection at 11 is too

early. Countries with the best education systems have comprehensive

but streams within their schools for the very bright and technical and so

on. When you select kids to go to independent schools, we have run out

of time. We will have to leave it there. I am looking forward to your

career as a head teacher. You will be on the front row.

Well, the former Children's Minister, Tim Loughton,

has today produced a report for the national charity, 4Children,

A child at heart, we sent Tim to his favourite

Childhood is an adventure and there are aspects of modern life which

would make it even more exciting. With that excitement goes

challenges, the challenges of 24-hour social media, peer pressure

to fit in and achieve or just be cool and the sexualisation of

childhood as well. Recent reports revealed that out of every 30

16-year-olds, ten will have seen parents divorce, three will have a

serious mental health problem and eight will have experienced serious

physical violence. Over the last ten years, the number of children with

sexually transmitted diseases dashed children Dash has more than doubled.

-- sexually transmitted diseases, children, has more than doubled.

There has been lawlessness and riots. Kids lucky enough to be

brought up by two married parents have the very best start in life and

the distinct advantage. The state needs to support marriage

by enabling promoting family life, not by supplanting it. The influence

of the anti-smacking brigade, the obesity police and excessive CRB

checks have led many mums and dads to question their own role and

ability to parenting in the first place. The state should be stepping

in with relationship support if things get sticky amongst families.

If older kids get off the rails, the state must be there to support at an

early stage before the family slipped into crisis. Here we go,

one, two, three! If parents split, we need to make sure that children

are absolutely put first and dads do not get frozen out of their

relationship. Sometimes that may involve the courts. In many cases,

we need to make sure that children centres and schools are not becoming

to mother centric. Children need their parents. The state, which

usually makes for a lousy parent would need to enable and support

mums and that's to do the very best job they can, the hardest, but the

best job in the world. And king of the zip wire, Tim

Loughton joins us now. I want danger money next time. There

was a contradiction in what you are saying. On the one hand he

criticised the nanny state for paternalistic regulation but on the

other hand you want the state to be involved in terms of promoting

marriage. Surely that is the nanny state as well. Married couples and

families they bring up the most independent. They tend to do a

better job. That is not about denigrating people who tried to do

the very difficult job of bringing up kids. We have got to the stage

with good parents have to second-guess that they are supposed

to do is to be seen as good parents by the

to do is to be seen as good parents brigade, you're living in fear if

you give your kids the wrong food, you are going to have a knock on the

door. Other parents had advocated responsibility to the state. I think

we have got to recalibrate the balance between what parents should

be doing and everything starts at home and what the state should be

doing when things start to go wrong. Did you want the state to be more

involved? You would like them to step in with help. Do you want them

to draw back? I want the state to be there to support, not to supplant,

parents. When things do go wrong and they need advice and help, they can

be signposted in the right direction and get that support from the state.

We need to trust and give confidence back to parents that they are the

ones primarily responsible for bringing up children. It is not all

down to schools, the social workers or the doctors. Parents are the most

important people. Do you agree with Tim about marriage? Somehow, in a

married household, it provides a more stable home than any other.

Yes. Evidence would tend to suggest that. Not every child will have

that. A lot of marriages are breaking down. I think children,

above all, need love. They need stability. They also need frontiers

and clear boundaries. They need the steadiness and continuity of a

loving home. I certainly agree that the home is much more important than

the school in giving a child a sense of self worth and stability and a

sense of identity as to who they are. They need that continuity. Are

two parents better than one? Is that the same for same-sex couples?

Absolutely. If you are a five-year-old child at home with two

parents, there is a one in ten chance they will split up if they

are married parents but a one in three chance they will split up if

they are not married. I am not trying to being alive is parents who

are not lucky enough to be in that position, I am just trying to say

the very best start in life are kids is when that child has the love and

intention -- and attention and involvement of both parents. White

agree also heard about the herd mentality leading to the riots. --

you also heard. Where were the parents when there were 13-year-olds

and 14-year-olds smashing their way into shops in the middle of the

night? Those kids need to take responsibility. We need to make sure

the police are doing their job. Why were parents allowing them to be out

in the first place question if parents cannot exercise authority,

that is when the state can help give them the support for single parents.

The impact of technology on children, something I worry about

all the time and lots of my peer group, in terms of screen time, time

on computers, is it a good or bad thing? It is both. It is an amazing,

liberating joy for young people to experience the whole world and

universe on screen and the collectivity between young people

everywhere. It also can be an incredible evil. Clearly, as we

know, with predators. It can be a distraction from reading books,

sitting down with family and talking over males with brothers and

sisters. It is both. It is neutral. We had to teach how to use it,

rather than be used by it. ) you are prepared to embrace it. Would you

like to see more of it used educationally? -- you are prepared

to embrace it. Compare computer games to the drudgery in some

classrooms, if we could use those approaches to animate and excite

young people, in a good way that opens up their minds and

understandings, that is fabulous. It has led to people not just spending

too much time at the screen but an over sexualisation of children. Sky

that is a big challenge. We have lots of programmes about how we

avoid children having access to adult material on the internet.

Actually, social media and sexting, that should not be happening. People

have been driven to self harm and, in some cases, suicide. We need to

tell kids that social media is a great tool but it needs to be used

responsibly because it can be dangerous. Are you shocked by the

scale of what has been revealed through investigations like Jimmy

Savile, Cyril Smith? We could go on and on. Who could not be shocked?

Even the most hard-nosed child protection official could not have

been affected. Some of the stuff that has been coming out is deeply

troubling. The problem I have, all the good work this Gutman has been

doing on child protection, really improving the safeguarding of

children, there are historic cases which are coming up weekly. They

need to get to the bottom of it. Was there a cover-up? Should people

still be brought to justice? To make sure from those lessons that we get

it child protection policy in 2014 which is fit for purpose for our

kids in a technological age which is fit for purpose for our

kids in a technological and is being properly followed. Education has

also been part of some of these investigations. Of course. There

have been some appalling cases of abuse of power over helpless

children. We have to move on. We have to ensure that nothing like

that is happening today and that schools have the best possible

systems in place. It is about respecting people and helping them

to respect themselves, which is the point about sexting. It is about how

neutral digitalisation is. It can be a great force for good and evil.

Schools and parents need to do more to educate young people and to use

it well. PMQs was a feisty affair yesterday. There was a

statistician's dream exchange. Or not. Look at this. Can he tell us

whether the number of people having to wait more than the guaranteed two

months for cancer treatment has got better? The number of people being

treated for cancer has gone up by 50% and we are meeting the kid

waiting time target, particularly the waiting time target for accident

and emergency. -- the key waiting time targets. We introduced for the

first time ever a Cancer Drugs Fund which is treating 50,000 people. The

in the four years since the reorganisation, have the number of

people waiting more than the guaranteed four hours in A got

better or worse? The average waiting time when the shadow Secretary of

State was Secretary of State was 77 minutes. Under this government, it

is 30 minutes. He asked me to defend my record over the last four years.

I will. There are 7000 more doctors, 4000 more nurses, over 1000

more midwives. We are treating over 1 million more patients a year.

Before his reorganisation, the number of people waiting more than

four hours was 353 and after his reorganisation it has risen to

939,000 -- 353,000. In million more patients treated, a Cancer Drugs

Fund for the first time, more doctors, more nurses, more

midwives, more people being treated. And it is official, the best NHS in

the world. That was yesterday. And it is official, the best NHS in

like ships passing in the night. The Leader of the Opposition gave one

set of statistics and the Prime Minister replied with a different

set of statistics using different parameters. Richard Murray, director

of policy at The King's Fund. Let us see if he can shed light on it. What

are best metrics by which to judge the performance of the health

service? There are a number. The key ones are those in the NHS

Constitution and those were debated yesterday around waiting time in

accident and emergency, waiting time for routine operations, and waiting

times for cancer. These are processed targets, about how long

you wait. We would also like to know about how well people are treated

but the data is not available. In terms of waiting times, in the

round, how is the health service performing? Are things getting

better or worse? Until quite recently, performance was holding up

well, particular considering the health service has had no real term

increase in funding since 2010. It was looking pretty good. What we

have seen now are the beginnings of cracks in the service. A has had a

very difficult spring which is unusual. Normally spring is the time

it does quite well. We have seen the 18 week target for hip replacements

and how long people wait for cataracts and routine operations,

that was broken in February and March. It has just been caught back

now. The waiting time for cancer as well was broken for the first time.

But only just. None of these are catastrophic. Quite marginal. If you

add them up, they begin to be more significant. A number of cracks

across the system. Each one on its own probably isn't that great. The

elephant in the room is the money. The money seems to be deteriorating.

But that was not discussed yesterday. Thank you very much. With

us now is the Health Minister, Dan Poulter, and the Shadow Health

Secretary, Andy Burnham. Welcome. Andy Burnham, let me come to you

first. Labour is very critical of the Government's handling of the

health service. What is the most important fact you can give us that

sums up your case that things are getting a lot worse? A is the

barometer of the whole health and care system. If there is a problem

anywhere in the system, in social care or general practice, in the

end, it tells in pressure in A We are coming up to the point soon, in

a couple of weeks, when hospital A will have missed the

Government's own target for a whole year put up could you remind us what

the target is. They lowered it. The use to be 98% of patients would be

seen within four hours. The current government lowered it to 95. They

had an argument for doing it. They are not even hitting the lowered

target. The A target is the barometer and it is telling us that

there are severe storms ahead for the NHS. As Richard Murray said, the

cracks are appearing under the Government is not getting a grip on

it. What do you say to that? The health service has faced challenges,

and -- an ageing population. Would you answer his point? We have not

got all day. We have a lot of patients getting older, we have

increasing patient demand of the NHS, the health service is bearing

up and treating people very well. We have very good patient outcomes and

people are experiencing very good standards of care. In terms of

looking at a tee, it is the case there is a direct comparison the

public can make between how a conservative led government is

delivering A services compared to a Welsh administration in Wales. In

this country, we have found we are making sure 95% of patients are

being treated on the whole in a timely manner. In Wales... Hold on.

Forgive me. The Prime Minister talks about Wales every week and I am sure

at some stage we will come back to Wales. Let us stick with what you

are responsible for. Are you telling us you are hitting your 95% target

of 95% of people who go to A being seen in under four hours? We have

been doing that consistently. We haven't. We had a difficult winter

the winter before. Sometimes A can have difficulties. Let me bring in

Andy Burnham. That is not right what the minister said. They have hit the

target is some weeks but the NHS as a whole has listed in recent weeks.

Hospital iron tees, the A target as a whole includes walk-in centres,

if you look at hospital A, they have not hit the Government's target

for 15 league 50 weeks. The minister did not answer that -- for 50 weeks.

What is your answer? We have trying to look for a crisis in A I am my

doctor and I still work in the NHS and I know the

doctor and I still work in the NHS and I know NHS is coping very well.

This is beginning to get a little bit like Prime Minister's Questions.

Andy Burnham is making points and you are answering with different

points that are not germane to the point he has made. Let us confront

this. In hospital A, have you failed to meet your target for a

long time now? It is not the case we are struggling to meet the target.

You cannot look at A in isolation. Is to use me, minister I am looking

at it in isolation and I am asking you one more time. Have you failed

to meet your A hospital target for a long time? There are some weeks

when hospitals fail to meet targets. Consistently, we have been meeting

targets broadly. We will have to move on. Andy Burnham's response. It

is just not true. They have been missing the target in hospital A

for nearly a year. The question is a while? Nobody wants this trading

statistics. What is happening to people's real experience of the

NHS? People are finding it harder to get GP appointments. They do not

have support in the home anymore. That is what is driving people to

A in greater numbers. The reason why the system is under such

pressure is because people cannot be discharged home from hospital

because the social care has been cut. This is mismanagement of the

NHS on a pretty grand scale. It all goes back to the reorganisation they

said they would never have. No top-down reorganisation, remember?

It through the NHS into chaos when it most needed stability. The NHS

has been going downhill on their watch. This is what Ed Miliband

pointed out yesterday. You say that, Andy Burnham, and it is clear that

you can see some cracks developing, but the latest report from the fund

says that despite no real rise in spending, on key performance

measures, the NHS has provided services to a growing population and

maintain the quality of these services. Things may not be as good

as they should be, but according to The King's Fund, it is not a crisis.

Not yet, anyway. What I said was that the NHS has been going downhill

on their watch. I think the figures will tell you that. Let us look at

the overall figure. Public satisfaction was around 70% when we

left government. It is around 60% today. The service is heading in the

wrong direction. That is what people's experience is telling us.

Crucially, Ed Miliband laid out a series of issues yesterday. Cancer

treatment, people are now waiting longer to start cancer treatment.

The government has missed for the first time as Richard Murray said

its cancer target. All right. He needs to have a say now, Ian Poulter

-- Dan Poulter. What matters is patient experience. Over the last

four years, there are 35,000 more people being treated for cancer than

before. 50,000 people now have access to cancer drugs they would

not have had under the previous government. These are things that

are improving the care and changing the lives of patients. We have

introduced a friends and family test to get direct feedback on the

quality of care they receive helping to improve services. As The King's

Fund said, yes, there are always going to be pressures on the NHS,

but the quality of care and patient experience remains good. The Labour

Party are grasping at straws. The King's Labour that there is a

crisis. It says the quality of the service has been maintained, but it

goes on to say it is deeply pessimistic about 2015-16 when you

will run out of money. It says there is a risk... It does not agree there

is a crisis now, but it sees a crisis coming. Andy Burnham is a

professional politician. I work as a doctor and I see the quality of care

being delivered. What is your point about 2015? Are we going to have the

money in the system to deliver the care? Every year during this

Parliament, we have made ?4 billion worth of efficiency savings, not

cuts, to free up more money. Can I come into this? Yes. The minister...

All right. Andy Burnham, can the league I don't see you can complain

about not having your site and I don't thing you can complain. He has

done a good job of moving the goalposts. The Government will not

answer about the main indicators. I know what it is like on the walls.

The Prime Minister did this yesterday. He did not answer one of

Ed Miliband's questions. That is what Dan Poulter is doing. The

reason the money is such a problem is because... Hang on. There is no

point both of you talking. Let Andy Burnham finishes pointers. The

reason the money is such a problem is because the Government has frozen

the NHS will stop from within that, they have wasted ?3 billion on a

reorganisation that nobody wanted. They have given 6-figure payoffs to

managers who have since been re-employed in the NHS. The money

has come from general practice and mental health and it has put the NHS

in a dangerous position. We are way over but for fairness sake, your

final point, briefly. I work in the NHS and I see patients receiving

good care thanks to as trusting doctors and nurses and we have made

efficiency savings and it has meant more money has been freed up for

patient care by reducing administrators. We have 14,000 more

clinical staff delivering care. It is wrong for Labour to look at

trying to grasp at straws and create a crisis. The Conservative run NHS

in England delivers much better cared... I did say briefly. You are

now taking advantage. Andy Burnham, Dan Poulter, we will have to leave

it. It was better than the exchange in PMQs, I thought.

Last week we were told we should ban fizzy drinks from the dinner table.

Health professionals say they should be banned from schools. In Wales,

Plaid Cymru say they will campaign for a tax on fizzy drinks when

eventually the Welsh Assembly gets tax-raising powers. Joining us is

Hwyell Williams, Plaid Cymru's Westminster health spokesman, and

Gavin Partington, from the British soft drink 's Association. Hwyell

Williams, are you not just jumping on the latest dietary public enemy

number one bandwagon? No. We published this last year and have

followed it up with careful studies as to the potential effects. Also

what we could do with any money raised. It's been a policy we have

had for some time and I'm glad to see others are agreeing with us.

What would you do with the money? We'd like to employ more doctors in

Wales. We have a crisis in general practice and hospital doctors for

that matter, so we would use the money specifically to employ more

doctors. It's true at the moment isn't it that we have had so much

publicity that sugar is public enemy number one, particularly for

children, all the fruit and fizzy drinks really are doing substantial

damage? We have to make a deaf Rennes shakes here Jo between the

facts -- differentiation between the facts and the campaigning. Obesity

is a complicated problem stemming from a whole range of factors and

cannot be attributed to one predict, let alone one ingredient like sugar.

The fact of the matter is, if you look at the international experience

where tax on soft drinks has been trying to stay in France, where

sales dipped initially, subsequent increases have increased by 6% in

the first four months, so it's not clear to me that a tax on soft

drinks would either be fair or would have the desired effect that Mr

Williams says he wishes to see. Do you accept that sugar contributes

though to childhood obesity? I accept that sugar, along with other

factors contribute to obesity, including the lack of exercise, the

fact we sit behind computer desks and don't get enough sport, these

are all facts and we should look at it realistically. To just pick out

soft drinks is unfair. Really it's not going to tackle the possible.

It's gesture politics I'm afraid. Do you agree soft drinks, people don't

realise how much sugar exists in fruit juices on a daily basis?

Increasingly because there is a lot of publicity around this, and we

have led the way in providing a range of options that allow

consumers to make the choice for their diet which is proper, if

there's clear labelling on the product, you are free to choose, but

to demonise one product isn't going to solve the problem. There is no

point in demonising sugar, we used to have a thing about saturated fat,

you cannot just attribute it to one ingredient? Well, sugar is one of

the things. High fat consumption is another. The effect is undeniable.

The figures show that about 28% of children in Wales and 15 obese are

overweight. The actual effect of all of this is to be seen in every

school playground in Wales. So I think whatever we can do, and public

education is one of them certainly I think we have seen fat as another,

sugar is a specific thing that we can look at and we should be doing

it. Thank you both very much. Anthony, tax, fizzy soft drinks or

not? Linking your last two items, why is the NHS going up so much,

because people are not looking after themselves properly, they are eating

and drinking the wrong things, they are not taking enough per size, we

should be really, it's a national illness service, we need far more

focus from Government in educating young people and parents and

everybody to live well. Would you tax them? If necessary, absolutely,

yes. Now, hands up if you like to write a

biography about David Cameron? No. Our guest of the day is writing

about him. In fact, he's writing an official biography of Mr Cameron

which means he gets exclusive access to the Prime Minister, his family

and frindzth friends I guess. We are join bid former star of the Sunday

Politics who's writing an unofficial biography of David Cameron which

means she dozen get the same access but can be as horrible as she likes

about hill. Why are you writing a biography about David Cameron?

There's only been one real biography of David Cameron so far, that was

written very well in 2007 when David Cameron had only just become Leader

of the Opposition. Who wrote that? Francis Elle yous and James Hanning.

They did a great job, but lots has happened in David Cameron's life

since then so the time is right for a new one. Do you agree? I think

Isabel is going to write a great book. She's a great journalist. Do

you think her book will be better? It will be different. For one thing,

it's just a study of what happened when he's Prime Minister, so my book

begins where Brown at Ten finished, when the door at Number Ten closes

and the Prime Minister goes off and it will finish with the general

election. So you won't be doing all the boring stuff? No, it won't be.

It starts when he becomes Prime Minister, that's principally what

interests me. It's not official, it's inside because this is I think

the fifth of these books I've done in a row. He's given you an

interview, hasn't he? People are talking to me because they are

making a judgment. I've written these previous four books on Prime

Ministers and they'll make a judgment but I'm trying to write as

a historian, trying to stand back and think, in 30 years' time, how

will we view him, what do we think about the Thatcher Government and

what was being said in 1983 after her first Government, do we know

much more now? It's valuable. I bet you are not getting an interview?

Well, I think our books will be very different. My book is with Lord

Ashcroft, the Conservative peer. A supporter of David Cameron - not!

Whatever his personal view and I'm not privy the detail on that, you

only have to see his polling to see how impartial he is, whether it's

Lord Ashcroft talking about David Cameron or Ed Miliband or negligent.

You don't know what Lord Ashcroft thinks about David Cameron? My brief

is to write an objective biography and they'll be two different books,

his starts when they enter Number Ten, mine with Lord Ashcroft starts

at the beginning. His book is often referred to as authorised. That is

not the case, as far as I understand, from Number Ten. I don't

think you are really claiming that. He may get some access to David

Cameron, I'm not sure that's been decided. You are getting access s,

aren't you? It isn't an authorised version, authorised means that... I

know what it means. Yes. I asked you, are you getting access to David

Cameron? Am I getting access... You know everything. I don't know the

answer to my question. I spoke to Downing Street about this this

morning and I can answer the question which is, it's not clear.

They were very unclear about it at this stage so he may or neonatal.

I'm still quite early in this book. It'ser in mall that I get access to

Prime Ministers and people around them -- it's normal.

He's going to write a book from his entire life, he's an extraordinary

human being, love or loathe him, he's a phenomenal politician.

But he didn't win the election? But look at what he's done since. He's

an extraordinary person, a well-informed biography will have a

great market. Is he a phenomenal person? Lord Ashcroft and I think

it's too early to judge. The French revolution! He wrote

recently that history would be kinder to his contemporaries. On the

radio you were supportive of David Cameron. We are reserving judgment

at the moment, there is a lot of research to be done before drawing a

conclusion. When is yours out? Post-election. And your?s

Post-election. That's a waste of time. We need them before. The

outcome of the election will make a difference.

Political cartoons often highlight the inadequacies of politicians and

provide a sideways look at current affairs. During the First World War,

they had a much more important purpose in mind sattising and

be-Dunking the German threat was an important tool in raising spirits in

Blighty. A new series of cartoons has been released which looks at the

run-up to war a century ago and they have been penned by some familiar

names. Steve Bell, the Forwardian

cartoonist joins me now. Welcome to the programme. We have just seen

those, we may be able to show some original World War I cartoons which

answer the question - how do their compare, today's and

answer the question - how do their compare, today's the ones done at

the time? The ones done today weren't done in the heat of the

moment while it was all happen, they were done with a hundred years of

reflection. But I suppose I can only think about the one I did which was

done I think more or less in the same way, I had a much longer

deadline so was able to take more time to finish it off. Essentially,

the principle was the same, getting the idea, summing up a situation or

a moment, in my case, the moment of the assassination. Do you think a

lot's changed in your trade? Yes and no. In essentials it hasn't because

it's making seasons out of politics through a visual medium. The nuts

and bolts of politics has changed lots. I don't know if you had a BBC

100 years ago. None of this existed so it's all changed there. But I

think the press was far more important, so in a sense, there

seemed to be more slots for cartoonists then. Seems to be more

papers are closing so there seems to be less slots but I think it's

booming elsewhere in other media. As you say, many cartoons were at the

for front of bolstering the war effort, if you like, the war

campaign. Do we still see that image today or is it the exact opposite,

is it more antiwar than bolstering effort, if you think of recent

conflicts? We don't find many Steve Bells who are supporting the Iraq

war or Afghanistan and cartoons are so brilliant, aren't they, at

lightening what the politicians are not saying to us and using the

visual medium to appeal to a different part of the brain. So most

cartoonists tend to be critical, rather than supporters. The idea of

an official Government cartoonist would be really bizarre, you know,

on the NHS, you know, a cartoonist saying what a great job the

Government NHS policy is - unhikely. Your cartoon depicts the

assassination of Archduck Ferdinand, do you think people know what the

image means? -- Afterth archDuke? The particularity of it is

horrifying. The actual what happened and what was said at the time of the

assassination, it was horrible, people were killed. Politically,

they people were killed. Politically,

and all the rest of it, it's easy to take the Mickey out of that, but as

something happens, it take the Mickey out of that, but as

and arresting. The significance ballooned and swelled and that's the

thing about the day-to-day thing, the thing that's been on the BBC,

into how this apparent hi small act blew up into a major thing. It was

the spark. Anthony, do you think teaching children about the events

leading up to World War I, including the assassination should be

compulsory? Oh, absolutely. It's our world and the lessons of what

happened there are so profound and the late radioture and the cartoons

and the painting -- literature. It's magnificent. And tragic. Time for

the answer to our quiz: Which subject is taught at Wellington

College? Air dressing, how to be Prime Minister, happiness or basic

car mechanics. Steve Bell thinks it's... What do you think? Happiness

for well-being. That's it. I'll be back on BBC One tonight with This

Week. Portillo, Abbott, Green. Bye!