09/09/2014 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The three pro-union parties bury their differences to offer Scotland

a new timetable for more powers for the Scottish Parliament - but will

it be enough to halt the apparent momentum behind the Yes campaign?

Free schools, academies, specialist schools, technical colleges.

There's an array of different schools on offer

in England these days - but will they drive up standards or

Baby boomers have more than enough money to fund their retirement

according to new research - so is it time to cut their benefits?

The South Yorkshire Police Commissioner will tell a Commons

committee why he won't resign over the Rotherham child abuse scandal.

What's happened to the champions of accountable policing?

All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole of the programme

today is the former Conservative Cabinet Minister Kenneth Baker.

First this afternoon, as we've got a former Conservative

Party chairman with us, let's turn to the party's fortunes.

A poll by Lord Ashcroft yesterday put Labour seven points ahead -

though other recent polls have shown a narrower lead.

Why is it that Labour has a strong lead in one poll and is still ahead

this most others, when according to the Conservatives, and the

Government in general, the economy is recovering? Well, I am not

worried about the existing polls because when the election approaches

as we discovered in Scotland they get closer and they will get closer

when the main factor of the next general election will be

Presidential between Cameron and Miliband. You are relying on the

personality of the leadership. If the polls close, I put it to you

that Labour still on paper, because of all the reasons that have been

set out, because of boundaries and the way the election process is

carried out, Labour still wins To be even we have to be nine points

ahead. That was 2010 on polling day, we didn't get through the boundary

change bill, which is a mistake, so we have a huge disadvantage, but

there are other factors coming in to bear on the election, not least

Scotland. It is a different constitutional world we will live

in, either way, whether they go yes or no, there is a huge change

heading up for Britain. What about issues where the Conservatives and

many Conservative MPs feel that they are being challenged by UK

Independence Party. The issue of immigration for example? UKIP, the

interesting analysis of UKIP support is the basic support of UKIP comes

from the old British working class. They are the core of UKIP votes. And

that will affect Labour seats as well as Conservative seats, it is

not only a down side for the Conservative, it is a down side also

for Labour. This is why Miliband is so concerned, he is quiet about it.

I will bring breaking news to you and we will get your response which

is that David Cameron, the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband the Leader of

the Labour Party have agreed to cancel their weekly Question Time,

Prime Minister's Questions clash, to travel to Scotland. Now, what do you

say to that? That is very good of them. It shows how worried they are.

There is no doubt that it is neck and neck in Scotland now, and they

have the great advantage, in this referendum of having the best thing

to vote for. It is much better to be saying yes, yes, yes to something

than no, no, no. And some, one of the first big victory in the

question, the question should have within do you want to stay in the

United Kingdom? That is the answer to yes. The actual question of the

referendum is do you want to have a free Scotland, yes. No is on the

back foot. Has the become clear in the last few days. What impact will

it have, seeing both David Cameron, Ed Miliband and in fact Nick Clegg,

all three main UK party leaders will be in Scotland. They won't appear

Tottenham together for obvious reason, do you think that will have

a major impact on the tightening of the polls. It is intensify concern

of those who want no, and the undecided, it is the undecided now,

the people who have de Vrijjed are 50-50. You have 14, 15% undecided.

You have to go for those, the fact the three leading political figures

are going to Scotland to show their concern will be helpful. Do you

think that David Cameron as the leader of the Tory party, as well as

being Prime Minister, will actually put off potential voters in Scotland

on the issue of independence, as many people have said, which is why

he has been relatively low-key in this campaign, and they have allowed

Gordon Brown, a former Labour Prime Minister to take the lead with this

latest offer. It is basically the Labour vote you are going for, that

is why Brian was there yesterday. Miliband is going tomorrow. They are

doing that because it the Labour vote that is undecided. You see,

what is interesting about this, the Labour Party went for a Scottish

Parliament to diffuse Scottish nationalism and it failed. The

Conservatives didn't support it at the time Agreed. They are now in the

position of being worried by it. If the Scot Nates win and they go yes

the Labour Party in Scotland will be on the retreat. Will David Cameron

survive? Well, that is very interesting, will he resign or not?

Yes or no? It is not as simple as that. There is a precedent when

George III lost the colonies he didn't abdicate but his Prime

Minister offered to resign, and the king didn't accept it. So the Queen

may not accept the resignation if it the made. Should he? That is a

personal decision for him, but the Queen may not accept it, because who

does she ask to be the Prime Minister? Who forms the Government?

They may lead to a immediate general election. We will continue talking

about the question of independence in Scotland, we will come back to

this issue that David Cameron and Ed Miliband won't appear at Prime

Minister's Questions. It is not being cancelled. William Hague and

Harriet Harman will face each other, so David Cameron and Ed Miliband

will join Nick Clegg up in Scotland. I think we can talk to our political

editor Nick Robinson. This is a dramatic news, isn't it, out of

Westminster, if we are going to have all three party leaders in Scotland.

Does this smack of panic? It does, it reveals really, the grow of

anxiety there is among Westminster party leaders that Scotland is about

to vote, not just to go her own way but to break up the United Kingdom

to end Britain as we know it. Now, the decision was taken, I am told by

David Cameron and Ed Miliband when they met to discuss the Scottish

referendum, straight after the Commons statement on the NATO

summit, yesterday afternoon. But, for people who think, well, so what,

it is like missing a day in the office, it is more important than

that, one of the question constitutional duties of a Prime

Minister is to face questions in the House of Commons. One of the key

duties of the leader of the opposition to lead that questioning,

for them to voluntarily give that up in agreement with Nick Clegg, the

Leader of the Labour Party, in order to head to Scotland, is pretty

dramatic, and shows just how concerned they are. They are not

going to appear together which perhaps isn't all together

surprising, what what message are they each going to give to Scottish

voter, will they differ in that sense? It is the message in their

joint statement, we want you to stay. This is modelled, I think, on

what was used by pro Canadian campaigner, in the Quebec

referendum. Remember, those of you that know this, what happened in

Quebec just as in Scotland the yes side pulled ahead, there was a panic

that Canada might be broken up and one of the things that is said to

have pulled that back, in a very very narrow victory in that

referendum, for the no campaign, is the statement coming from the rest

of Canada, in this case, the rest of the UK, that we want you to stay.

That is why, for example, you are seeing Ed Miliband saying that the

saltire would be raised in Liverpool, along with the lead other

the City Council. That is why it will be flown over Downing Street

later today, that is why there will be an encouragement by all the

political party, their members and supporters and no doubt to people

who run Town Halls throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland,

fly the flag to show you want Scotland to stay. And this of course

after headlines today, saying Gordon Brown, a former Prime Minister, was

going to save the union and save the day. Yes, in a sense what was vital

for them about yesterday, is the fight back was led by a Scot, in

Scotland, and by Labour, so some people thought than Gordon Brown had

stolen the Tories's thunder or a government announcement, it wasn't

as simple as that, the unionist parties have been talking with each

forefor a long time. What was true is that Gordon Brown said "I am the

guy who can do this now." And David Cameron is seen as too English and

too Tory. Ed Miliband's trust ratings in the latest polls are as

bad as David Cameron's which is remarkable, given he the Leader of

the Labour Party, Alistair Darling got a bloody nose from Alex Salmond

and therefore the view was this must be seen and seen to be a Labour

initiative, did, could you count number of times they told you it was

a Labour initiative ged in virtually every sentence but it had been

co-ordinated with all the parties behind the scenes. It was Gordon

Brown as we have been hearing from our political end to who set out a

timetable to deliver more powers for Scotland the event of a no vote in

next weeks referendum. It was better together's responsibility to polls

suggesting that support for the two camps is neck and neck. The poll

which has yes one point ahead of no, once undecideds are. A new poll was

released today. Gordon Brown's timetable endorsed by the three main

parties would seal work beginning on new legislation the day after the

referendum. By the end of October, a command paper would be published by

the Government setting out the proposals and a White Paper would be

published by the end of November. Finally, there would be draft

legislation by the end of January, what mared next week Scotland is set

to gain new powers under the 2012 Scotland Act. From 2016 Holyrood

will have the power to vary income tax by ten pence and borrow more

money. The Scottish Government will have power over air gun,

drink-driving and speeding limits. At the moment, the party's differ on

what further power should be given to Scotland. The Conservatives says

Holyrood should have full income tax powers. Labour would volcanic ash

Ritz and the Liberal Democrats who want a more federal UK, would give

Scotland further control over taxation including inher tanth tans

tax and income tax. We are hoping to be joined by Blair McDougall of the

better together campaign and we are joined by Angus report son. Welcome.

Let us get your response to this dramatic news. David Cameron and Ed

Miliband are travelling to Scotland, they are going to try and say to

Scottish voters, stay with the union. Yes, you can literally smell

the panic here on College Green as the Westminster establishment is

going into meltdown, really important for you viewers elsewhere

in the UK, to hear the numbers because they haven't been told them

yet, that support for yes is up six, support for no is down six and we

are seeing a projected turn out of 84% in the referendum, which is

tremendously good news for yes. Now what we are seeing in Scotland, is

the panicked reaction with the three London-based parties, rewarming an

announcement on minimal further devolution, which, as I understand

it, is only going to give the Scottish Parliament and Government

control of only 30% of Scottish tax revenue, as opposed to independence

and 100%, and all the -- all ready that proposal is falling apart today

in Scotland, so I guess what is happening is that the three UK

leaders are realising they have to get involved and do something, I

suppose one of the good things that might come out of it is David

Cameron might find a backbone when he is in Scotland and debate Alex

Salmond. You have heard it here first! Let us take up the general

thrust which is there the panic, that seems to be fairly clear, they

are throwing the kitchen sink at this, which could pressuredown,

because there is still a significant number of undecided and don't knows

in Scotland, you have the former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown,

who is taking the lead on bringing forward this timetable. We have

heard the other three party leaders are going to be in Scotland. You are

under an awful lot of pressure, because what you are promising is

going to take longer to deliver to Scotland than what is being offered

by the better together campaign. They will be able to offer more

powers, a version of Home Rule says Gordon Brown ahead of your 2016

timetable. Did you say the pressure is on the yes campaign? The pressure

is on the no campaign. It is tight Their support is down and there is a

huge transfer of people not just from undecided. People from no,

today, one of the most significant business leaders in Scotland, Ian

Gordon, who was head of the Defence Industry Association has declared he

has moved from no to yes. He is not alone, there are people all over

Scotland deciding. That is why it is panic stations.

Let's put that to Blair McDougall, who is joining us from Glasgow. Are

you panicked? This is extraordinary. The reason Angus is so upset, and

can I say, it is great to see him at Westminster, good to see that he can

travel down here to be on television, even if he could not go

to Westminster to vote on the bedroom tax. We want more powers in

Scotland, but without the huge economic risks of separation. We can

now see that despite them saying for 2.5 years, every time concerns were

raised about jobs, or about the NHS, they told us we were scaremongering,

but we can see in the real reaction of the markets, where ?2.3 billion

was taken off the price of Scottish companies yesterday. These things

are real. Yes, we are giving greater clarity, greater guarantees to

people about what they will get with a no vote, but what that does, along

with the reaction from the market, is that it exposes the fact that

there are no guarantees from the other side whatsoever. So why do you

need David Cameron and Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband to rescue your

campaign? That is not the case at all, we have been doing this for

months, talking about the powers that will be coming to the Scottish

Parliament. There has been a clear consensus about bringing more

welfare powers to Scotland. What we are seeing is the parties coming

together and throwing their full authority behind it, because this is

where people are making up their mind. The other side cannot even

tell us what currency we would use. We, on the other hand, want to give

voters absolute clarity. I can hear Angus laughing down the line, but

maybe he can stop laughing and tell us why he did not come down to vote

against the bedroom tax. Under the current settlement, does the

Scottish Government have complete control over how to run, and how

much money to spend on, the NHS in Scotland? It is a hand-me-down

budget from Westminster. It is determined by how much money is

transferred... You asked me a question, if you will allow me to

finish... One of the great advantages with a yes vote is that

we will be in charge of 100% of Scotland's budget. Even with this

latest plan, the anti-Independence parties do not trust the government

of Parliament Scotland to determine more than 30% of Scotland's budget.

On the bedroom tax, it is important to clarify, when there was a

substantive vote on it, I voted against it, and Labour MPs

abstained, I am sorry. I will interrupt this little argument

between yourselves, I want to get back to the question about the NHS,

because you do have power over policy on the NHS. You can choose

how much of the block grant to spend on the NHS, you can increase income

tax to a limited extent. If you wanted to put more money into the

NHS, you could. So I put it to you that you are putting up a strawman,

saying to Scottish voters that the NHS in Scotland is under threat

without Independence - that is not true. The keyword you used was

limited, which is exactly correct. If you will let me answer, again...

You are not answering my question. You have not given me a chance. What

is correct to say is that Scotland's budget is handed down

from Westminster, and with a yes vote, we will change all of that.

But is why so many people around Scotland are saying the best way to

protect it, as opposed to the privatisation route being pursued

down here, is a yes vote. These are the reasons why the no campaign is

totally rattled, they have lost the initiative, they are going to lose

the referendum. Who does have control over the NHS in Scotland,

Blair McDougall? We do. We have 100% control over the NHS, which means we

can protect the budget for the NHS in Scotland. That is a precise quote

from the manifesto which Angus wrote in 2011 for the Scottish Parliament

elections. This is a scare story they have concocted. The interesting

thing is, firstly, the SNP government themselves are overseeing

a massive increase in private provision in the NHS in Scotland.

This is total hypocrisy from them, to cover up the fact that they know

that the real threat to the NHS in Scotland is the huge ?6 billion of

additional cuts, over and above UK cuts, which have been identified by

the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Why in this latest offer that we are

hearing about does the no campaign say, we will pledge to protect the

NHS in Scotland from further austerity, if Scotland has 100%

control? Well, the tax powers which are within this often means that

Scotland can make decisions about public spending. What percentage of

Scotland's budget? The SNP government has chosen not to spend

money on health. This is the ridiculous side of the SNP, who have

a terrible record on health in Scotland, and who are trying to

blame the government down south. Blair, what percentage of

Scotland's budget will be determined by the Scottish Parliament, the

Scottish Government, under your campaign's proposals, is it more or

less than 30%, simple question? We have set out the plans in terms of

giving more powers to Scotland. There are disagreements on the

details, for example, do we go on three quarters of income tax, or do

we do 100% of income tax? For you, that will be enough reason to break

up a 300-year-old union. The only tax power you really want to bring

to Scotland I know is a power to bring a massive tax cut to the

wealthiest companies in Scotland. You talk about simple questions,

last night, Alex Salmond could not tell us how much that huge tax cut

for the richest companies in Scotland would cost, so maybe you

could answer that question? You will have to ask him on another

occasion. Thank you both very much. So, people in Scotland seem to be

tied on the future of their country, but what about the

English? Ed Miliband was in Liverpool today, encouraging the

people in England to urge Scots to reject independence, raising the

sole tyre over Liverpool Town Hall, and asking other councils to follow

suit. We want people in cities, towns and villages across the United

Kingdom to fly the Scottish flag, because we want to send a clear

message to the people of Scotland, please stay with us, because we

believe we are strong together. And we are starting here in Liverpool,

to send the message that we can achieve equality and social justice

together. We are now joined by two English men

with differing views on how Scotland should vote, the historian Tom

Holland, who is urging people in Scotland to vote no. Simon Jenkins

thinks they should vote yes to independence. Why has it taken this

poll, 11 days before the referendum, for the rest of the UK to wake up to

the prospect of the break-up of the union? Well, I think people have

been aware of the risks. Myself and fellow historian Dan Snow wrote a

letter six months ago, and we have spent the last months getting

assorted celebrities, all kinds of people, to sign it. Since we put

that up, we have been having more and more people from across England,

Wales and Northern Ireland putting their signatures to it, because

ultimately, what matters is that when people to wake up, there is a

framework for them to express their emotions of admiration for the

Scottish people, and let them know that we in the rest of the united

into want those bonds of citizenship to be maintained. So this is

demonstrating big love, if you like, for Scotland. Do you think that

emotional connection has been missing? I think there is a kind of

awkwardness about expressing Patria to some, perhaps, and expressing the

idea of Britishness. We are an uptight people, that is the

stereotype. But I think the time has come where we have to make it

absolutely clear, it is up to the Scots to decide whether they go, but

it would be terrible for them to go thinking that the rest of the United

Kingdom did not care. What is your view, it is everyone's union, isn't

it, it will affect everyone? I do not disagree, I would be sorry to

see Scotland go, as I would be sorry to see Wales go, but I do not think

it is as big an issue as it has begun to seem. If I was a Scot, I

would think, this has gone on long enough, there is no such thing as

full independence any more, the days of these big confederations are

over, all of Europe is breaking up, in a sense, that time has come. I

think we all need to calm down a bit, it has got completely

hysterical. I do not think it would make a big difference either to the

Scots or the English, but if I was a Scotsman, I think I would say,

enough is enough of this relationship. Are you going to

profess your emotional connection? I married a Scot, our three children

went to Scottish universities. That neither of the last two are quite

right. The real solution is a federal solution for the whole of

the United Kingdom, that is how you keep this lot together. Either a

solution of a completely independent Scotland, or a devo max Scotland,

does not really answer it. That is exactly why I am so keen for the

Scots to stay, because the union has not been a frozen entity, it has

continuously evolved, as before them the kingdoms of Scotland and England

evolved. I think the traditions and values and ideals which the Scots

have brought to Britain, to this great merging of traditions, is

precisely is what has made Britain such a great nation. Looking at the

optimism which is on display in Scotland at the moment, what I am

hoping is that the Scots will vote to stay with us and channel that

optimism for the good of everyone in this kingdom. Why in your mind is

independence better for the Scots? I think the days when you had these

comp located confederacy is, like the European Union, they are over.

Small, countries now want to be independent. Small is beautiful.

Small countries do better than bigger countries, it is in control

at. Luxembourg does better than France. But leave that to one side.

-- incontrovertible. Sovereignty is clearly desperately wanted by at

least half of Scots. I do not think it is a bad thing, self-government,

we want to detach ourselves from the European Union, to a certain

extent. People believe in governing themselves nowadays, they are grown

up, they are mature. They do not want to be told what to do by the

English. I think it is a sensible decision, and we should not get so

excited about it. There are quite a number of people who would actually

like to see Scotland go independent, they do not want to see promises of,

we will protect your NHS from cuts, what about the NHS in England, what

about all of these other promises? The Scots are being offered

everything, and the English will feel, hang on, why are we doing

this? I think that is very much a minority. Is it? I think a

substantial minority would like Scotland to stay. I think also one

of the risks of Scotland going independent, and as you say, people

in England are suddenly waking up to this, and there is a mood of alarm,

and of pain, and I think that when people are reject it, that is when

attitudes tend to freeze. I suspect that the one person who will benefit

from this will be England's Alex Salmond, who is clearly Nigel

Farage. Do you think the 2015 general election, if there is a

victory for the yes vote, will have to be postponed? I do not think it

would be. I think there is a possibility of having a general

election before Christmas if there is a yes vote, because there is a

huge constitutional model. The welfare benefits of Scotland with

English money. That is not a fair situation. The English feel this

very strongly. What is going to happen in Northern Ireland, what is

going to happen in Wales? You are playing with the whole constitution

of our country, which could be the subject of a general election.

Whoever wins that election would have to years. If we do not have an

early general election, the coalition government would have to

do part of the planning, then another government might come in in

May and change a lot of it. I have no doubt that a yes vote would be

pretty disastrous, constitutionally. Both in Scotland and in the rest of

the United Kingdom, which is one of the major reasons I hope they will

vote no. But beyond that, more than any of these issues, this is not

ultimately I think about finance or economics, ultimately, this is about

identity, and whether those of us in this country will be able to

continue to be simultaneously English or Scottish or Welsh or

Northern Ireland and British, or have those identities diced up and

demarcated? What do you say about identity, Simon Jenkins, because you

have attended lots of independence and debates? I think you have got to

get a grip on the single fact, which is that Scotland, Wales and Northern

Ireland have been dreadfully badly run by England for the past 25

years, they really have been badly run. Have they not done well to some

extent, financially? Yes, they have. They are literally

old-fashioned dependencies. There is no reason why Scotland should not be

as rich as Denmark. Why shouldn't Wales be poorer than the rest of

Britain when it used to be richer than the rest of Britain? These are

not successes. I think an independent Scotland would be a

pretty terrible place for ten years, but after that it would be a very

exciting place. This is like a kind of 1950s prep school teacher, saying

having a cold shower would be good for you. Sometimes it is good for

you, it is patronising to say it is not. Those days are over. Let me

come back to the celebrity support, because many people might think it

is rather patronising, so what about getting ordinary people, if you feel

they are so passionate, to support the campaign? That is what they did

in Quebec, and they said it tipped the balance in favour of staying

together, rather than independence. The sway of the luminaries we have

got, 200 people says something about how strongly everyone in Britain

feels. But I also think that the reason I am here is because I

organised that letter, the reason that attention is being fixed on

that letter and we are getting signatures from across Britain is

because the celebrities blazed the cause. The only reason we wrote it

is we want more and more people to go to the website and sign up to it.

You are a better historian and home fission. I would say one thing, in

praise of you, you were positive about the virtue of hanging

together. That has been missing from the no campaign, it has been on the

back foot, exaggerating the difficulty, what you wanted somebody

to say from the beginning, look, we love you, we want you with us and we

like that sort of thing, that is why the three leaders are going to

Scotland, they are injecting pops it I have. . The point about Scotland,

Scotland economically, is the richest part of the country, after

London and the south-east. Do you want to answer that briefly.

Any figures can be countermanded. I am sure the Government would say

that. Simon Jenkins and Tom Holland thank you.

Next, whether it's a free school, faith school or foundation school,

they all come in different shapes and sizes.

It means there's a long list of confusing education lingo

for parents and pupils to get their heads around.

And across England there's a relatively new breed of schools

called University Technical Colleges - the brainchild of our guest

These aren't toy tool, they are the real thing. At industry standard

they are normally found on the factory floor, so this might not

look like your average school, and it isn't. This is a rare specimen, a

UTC or University Technical College.

University Technical College are secondary schools for

14-19-year-old, they are taxpayer funded, flee to go to and they are

not selective. They teach the main academic subjects but the emphasis

is on practical and technical learning, and they are different

from other schools because they have to be sponsored by university, with

backing from businesses too. So no prizes for guessing which

London employer is supporting royal Greenwich UTC. Yes, that is right.

Transport for London. Mike Sharp is the principle here and admits they

need to work hard to get the school noticed by parents We have advert

fire, we have our face on the backs of bus, we send out mail shots, we

get media coverage, once the message gets out, people can look round and

see what we do, then it is relatively easy to sell it. You have

to get them here first. 17 new University Technical College s

opened this September. That means there are 30 across England and it

is expected 57 will be opened by 2016. Parents and pupils already

have to pick their way through a long and at times confusing list of

choice, University Technical College s are the latest kids on the

education block, there is other free schools and state schools of course.

Then there is academy, faith schools and grammar school, plus special

school, Community Schools, and foundation schools, not forgetting

private school, city technical colleges and studio schools For me

there were lots I could have gone to, since I wanted to become a civil

engineer this had the courses most schools wouldn't do. I wanted to

study architecture in my future, because the school does BTEC

construction, not many do that so I decided to come here. Keeping a

close eye on University Technical College is the Tory peer Lord Lucas,

the editor of the Good Schools Guide be so few UCTs how much diversity

are they providing Not much. There ought to be 1,000 of them. Give them

time. It is right to build them slowly otherwise you make too many

mistakes, if you start with a find and how they work and build that

good practise, it is easier to make something that works well. The

principle at royal Greenwich says ambitions here are high, with two of

its pupils applying to Cambridge. But University Technical College s

still have some way to go, before they become a mainstream choice for

parents and pupils. And we're joined now by Fiona Miller

of Comprehensive Future and Lord Baker, whose University Technical

Colleges were featured in that 30 of them in England at the moment,

but given we have such a shortage of engineers, and scientist, wouldn't

we be better teaching those subjects, in all schools? Well, all

schools do take science for example, but to do the engineering you, the

equipment for that college is ?1 million. No school could that. This

that school for two days a week the youngsters are making and designing

things with their hands on a long Walker working day from 8.30 to

five. The other time is spent doing GCSE subjects, we should have had

them 50 years ago. We had them in 1945 and they were closed by

snobbery, in the last four years we Magged to get it off the grouped. To

create approvals for 57 new schools in four years, is a record. Do you

agree there is a real demand for specialist schools like this,

because we have such an acute shortage of those skill, and they

are not taught in the same way in comprehensive state schools? I think

there is a very urgent need to address the fact that vocational

high quality skills training has been the Cinderella of the education

system for too long. Putting them into separate institution, I am not

convince. Why? How do you know they will be in the areas where you need

them? How can you put a school into that where there is a shortage of

places and you take pupils ousmt my concern about this whole situation

we are this is we have so many different types of schools set up,

governs in different way, managed in different ways. It is part of a

whole to meet the need there is. We place them where there is a need.

Local ploughiers come to us, in Scarborough for example, or right

over the country, in Leeds, man chest e Liverpool and in the

south-west, in Plymouth and a town like Newton Abbot. They say we can't

employ y youngster, they are not employable. Our record... Not by the

choice of a child who might want to do engineering? So therefore it is

driven by the demands of the economy, I agree with you, but that

is the biggest problem facing the country, the skills mismatch. That

is a massive shortage of skills. The English education system has failed.

It is a waste of talent... But it is a disgrace. Go for 1,000 University

Technical College s. Or offer a broader curriculum They can't do it

with the intensity we do. All I am saying there needs to be a planned a

pro proven so you can offer this to pupils where ever they are. We have

had the binary approach where it has been a disaster. Can I ask one thing

about the standards and you can talk about what you are so pleased about.

Standard are important, one can argue about the shortages and

filling a need. Standards are important. There have been three

inspections so far of the college, which have produced two grade three

and an inadequate one. Are you disappointed? Those are the first

round. I am disappointed. What we found, what that found is, we found

a huge improvement in maths, they deal with numbers all the time. From

what? A very poor standard. They are measured when they come in, we get

high results in math. We get 100% in the technical subjects, what is

difficult for us is English, because the English education is very bad.

Does that worry you? That is not true, because almost 80% of English

schools are judged outstanding.le but I think this goes to the heart

of the point your film referred to about the different types of

schools, who holds them to can't, I don't know, but I think they are

contracted to Government... I want to move on. The record we are, which

many don't have is when we have levers at 16 or 18, no-one is so far

joined the ranks of the unemployed. There has been no... This is all our

school, all our schools that have had levers so far. The other local

schools in Greenwich can't say that. The other schools across the country

can't say that. One of the things you have accepted that standards are

improving in state schools, I put it to you it is improveling because

there is more competition in the say it sec store, there is a wider

choice, particularly in urban areas and that has pushed up standards in

all of those schools but particularly in what one would call

the local comprehensive. There is more accountability, it has helped

to raise standards, Ofsted, the performance tables no doubt about

it. And other schools. Sp Teaching has got better, that is what we

need. Why has it got better? Under Governments, they have put emphasis.

Choice, choice. Choice has been increased on a massive scale. The

emphasis has been put on recruiting good people into teaching, the

quality of leadership, I have been a school governor for 20 year, is

higher than when my children first started school. It's a combination

of lots of different factor, you can't leave to it the market on its

own. One final pointor, go back Scotland, one of the things people

in Scotland look at what goes on in England and the drift to

privatisation which is what I fear... That is a different subject.

. Are you calling for the dismantling of schools that are, not

all of them but some faith schools and many of the academies, no, so

what you are saying... Particularly on behalf of parents you have

different schools with different admissions criteria. If you think

that the English education is doing so well, why are there are 750,000

young people, boys and girls who are unemployed at this moment in time

who have gone through 11 years of free education. That is a scandal.

It needs to improve. But that doesn't mean it isn't improving.

750,000! You should be representing your Government. 50,000... It is a

disgrace. UTCs are doing something about it. Final word there.

Is there such a thing as "over-saving"?

Yes, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has

released new research today, carried out in England, saying that many

couples born in the 1940s have more money than they need to maintain

IFS Director Paul Johnson is in our Westminster studio and can

What do you mean about oversaving? What we have done is try and look at

how much money people need in retirement, in order to be as

well-off as they were on average over their working lives, what, what

we find a lot of people, possibly by accident have ended up with more

money than they need to maintain that, they may not see it as

oversaving. They want want a better standard of living than they

previously had. It means they could have saved is less an been better

off while they were working. Do you think that the Government has

prioritised the needs of the older generation, policy wise, over those

of the younger generation? If you do look at what the Government has done

over the last four year, they have protected pensioner benefits, and

they have not protected benefits for younger people, tax rises have

largely hit people of younger ages, at a time when pensioner incomes

have nor the first time gone up to the average and a bit above it for

those below pension age, so there has been some protection of

pensioners, yes. It is strange to shear someone like yourself saying

pensioners have too much money. Does it matter? Good for them if they do.

What difference does it make? There is two things, first we should

celebrate what has been amazing change over the last three decades,

back in 1980, pensioners were very very much poorer than the rest of

the population, if you were old, there was a good chance you would be

poor, pensioner incomes are less than that of everyone else. It is a

triumph of social policy in many respects, in terms of whether it

matters, there is potentially an intergenerational problem here. One

reasons pensioner are well-off they got generous state pension, some of

them, generous occupational pensions, some of them. They have

done well in the housing market, some of them. The next generation

will do less well in those areas. Here to discuss are Cari Rosen,

editor of the website Gransnet and Angus Hanton, co-founder of

the Intergenerational Foundation. We have just heard, pensioners, over

saving, they are well off, they have been, to some extent, prioritised by

government policy, do you agree? Not necessarily. I think people are

grabbing the headline and running with it, but I think we have to

realise that the study is 1600 couples, and there are 12 million

pensioners in this country, so it is not representative of all of them,

by any means. But the baby boomers generation have had it relatively

easy, haven't they, in terms of many of them will perhaps have made a

reasonable amount of money on their property, they will have had

pensions either through their work or private pensions that have done

better than you would get now, despite changes coming. They have

not have to pay for university Jewish in and so on - do you agree

with that? Absolutely. -- University tuition. If you look at the tail end

of the baby boomers, like myself, it is a very different thing

altogether. So, yes, many people have done well, but it is the same

generation who are the first generation who, in retirement, for

whom it will be the norm to be living alone, Chas a massive

financial impact. Living alone, and living a lot longer, so they will

need more money for retirement. These people have got the windfall

benefit of their particular circumstances, the benefit of house

price increases, which is a straight transfer from the younger generation

to the older generation, whether they went all whether they give away

a large part of their life's earnings in getting a mortgage and

paying for that. So, what has happened is that the younger

generation are being asked to pay twice, to save for their own

generation, but also to pay for the older generation's pensions because

so many of these pensions are underfunded, and it is just not

fair. It is not fair, particularly after the recession we have just

had? And that is not something that anyone on our site would dispute.

But these people we are talking about, they have worked hard, paid

taxes and paid national insurance, and now, in

taxes and paid national insurance, looking after their grandchildren,

so their children can go back to work, so they are still contributing

to society. People are forgetting, ?7 billion a year in child care is

saved by an army of grandparents. You are getting that the wrong way

around. It is great that they are finding this private solution to

childcare, but it is because of a public failure, because both people

in the couple are having to work very hard. A lot of them would

prefer to be with their children. Absolutely. Don't you think policy

now should be redirected towards the younger generation, if the figures

speak for themselves, many people now in retirement have got enough

money for it? The evidence is that nobody wants to see their children

and grandchildren suffer at the expense of their own well-being. So,

should policy be redirect it? It is not as simple as that. We are an

ageing population, with more and more people claiming pension. If we

drive them all to Pena rhe, then the state would be in even more hot

water. The whole problem is the way the tax burden falls, which falls

very heavily on earned income. Young people going into work are paying

income tax, national insurance, student debt in many cases, almost

50% tax. By contrast, the older generation, whose wealth is in

pensions and housing, pay very little tax on rental income or on

pensions, for example. The fundamental thing we need to do is

we need to review all government policies, in terms of

intergenerational fairness. Do you accept that the Government has

shielded to some extent the older generation, cynics would say because

a lot of older people vote Tory? Well, basically, I agree with him.

And I think as Mr Johnson was saying earlier, there has been quite a big

shift to the elderly over the last 15 years, and the present generation

of pensioners will not be replicated in the future. The future is much

smaller pensions. This is why these baby boomers are the lucky

generation. If you get the Mail on Sunday, it has 12 - 15 pages

advertising cruises. The people who go on cruises are mainly older

middle age people. Young families with several children to not go on

cruises. What about universal benefits, you agree with the Lib

Dems, who say they would take the free TV licence away? Yes, it is

absurd that I should get a free TV licence. But means testing benefits,

it has been shown, costs more than the amount you would save. And there

are many people who rely on those benefits who would proud to claim.

That was the argument used on prescription charges, when they were

introduced. The exception was given for the elderly, it can be done.

Would you say that if you were still an elected politician with a

constituency? I would, but you are quite right, this is a headache for

any politician to say this. Lots of Tory MPs have said they would agree

with that after the election. Yes, and it is good to look at universal

benefits, which are an fair on the younger generation at a moment, but

that is a relatively small amount of money, compared to the pensions

issue. It is an important signal. But I wonder if you are right that

they are a lucky generation, or haven't we, and I am a baby boomer

as well, taken from the young? Is there not a change that we are not

just being lucky, but we are making our own luck by taking from the

younger generation? I will let that question hang.

Directly elected police and crime commissioners were supposed to make

the police accountable, but the Police Commissioner for South

Yorkshire does not want to be hold accountable for what happened under

his watch in Rotherham. Before becoming Police Commissioner, Shaun

Wright was the councillor with responsibility for children's

services at a time when hundreds of girls in the town were being

sexually abused. This afternoon, he appears before the Home Affairs

Select Committee to explain why he will not resign. Here is defending

himself last month. I do not think any of this was my direct fault.

What I take is collective responsibility. When you are a

member of a 63 person council, you take collective responsibility. And

I took my responsibility as part of that organisation. And I have moved

on and taken lessons from that experience and transferred those

into another organisation, South Yorkshire Police, and I am happy to

stand proudly on my record over the last couple of years as a police and

crime commissioner for South Yorkshire. I am joined now by former

Home Office Minister Damian Green and the Labour MP John Mann, and

they are both outside Parliament. First of all, John Mann, should

Shaun Wright resign? Yes, today. He should have resigned before.

Frankly, this demonstrates how unsuited he is to the job. Damian

Green? I completely agree. He is not doing himself any good, not doing

the post any good, and most of all, not doing the people in South

Yorkshire any good. If he was head of children's services at a time

when these disgraceful things were happening, then he clearly has more

than collective responsibility, he has some individual responsibility.

You have both said categorically that he should resign, but can he be

sacked? No, because, and this is an important point of principle, he is

an elected politician, just like John and me. Just as if he or I say

something unpopular, it is not for a Minister of the government to say,

no, you can no longer be an MP. If you are elected in a constituency,

then you should be chucked out by that constituency, unless you commit

a serious crime. He has done more perhaps than just done something

people do not like, over Cameron, Theresa May, many people have called

for him to resign, Sheffield council has passed a vote of no confidence

in him - should he not be sacked? As I say, because he is elected, the

only way you can be sacked if you have committed a criminal offence,

and that applies to elected people across the board. He should go. The

fact that all of the party leaders, I do not know anyone apart from

Shaun Wright who says Shaun Wright should survive. Frankly, I hope he

has a tough time in front of the select committee this afternoon. He

may well do. John Mann, that is democracy, isn't it, we have to wait

until there is another election? Well, it is not good democracy when

you have politicians running the local police, and they cannot be

recalled. If he does not resign, I would call on the Home Secretary to

take over South Yorkshire Police and force him out that way. It is

unsustainable for him to remain. He is a barrier to that police force

doing what they should have done many years ago, which is to get

their acts together and get these sex offenders arrested and put in

front of the courts. Even if he does resign, is it not likely that any

kind of by-election would seek a turnout similar to the one held in

the West Midlands in the summer, with just a 10% turnout, so again,

no mandate? No, I think the government ought to get rid of these

ridiculous positions, and Shaun Wright demonstrates why they were

always an absurdity. They will not do that. It needs legislation to get

rid of them. In the meanwhile, he should be going anyway, he should do

the decent thing. Damian Green, it is a ridiculous idea in the first

place, they should go anyway? Well, it is not a ridiculous idea, because

you always need somebody to hold the police accountable. It used to be

police authorities, who were completely invisible. Nobody knew

who was holding the police to account, and very often nobody was.

The fact that you have got one man behaving very badly, as he is in

this instance, does not alter the basic point which is that having a

public figure who is democratically accountable, subject to public

Russia, is a better and more accountable system of police

governance than we had before. It is not for the police and crime

commissioner to decide how South Yorkshire Police deals with child

abuse cases, that is for the chief constable. John Mann, therefore, is

it not the position itself, it is the paucity of talent within, in

this case, Labour? He is clearly unsuited to the job. But these

positions, who would want them? That is part of the problem. Having

elected politicians trying to run the police force is an absurdity,

Shaun Wright demonstrates that. He was hardly known by anybody. But he

was selected by Labour? Where John is wrong, he said, who would want to

do this? But quite a lot of ex-Labour ministers, including Tony

Lloyd, good, serious people on the Labour side have become a lease and

crime commissioners. There will always be some ex-politician wanting

to grab the job, we all know that. That does not mean it is a good

idea. Damian Green, you obviously still believe that they are worth

continuing, even though there is so little support for them? Yes,

because I have seen, I suspect more than John, the good work which is

being done by PCCs from all political backgrounds, particularly

in terms of violence against women and children. They have brought much

more openness into the way police forces can connect with their local

community. Do you agree? I was never a great fan of the Police

Commissioners, but police services are also responsible to the Home

Secretary, who has very considerable powers. But he could not use them in

this particular case. There should have been some provision in the

legislation for the Home Secretary to intervene in special

circumstances, that would have been the best thing, but it was never

thought of. But this man is totally shameless, his reputation is

ruined, he will be ineffective in his job, and he should behave

sensibly, but he is not going to do that. We have just got a few seconds

- what question should Shaun Wright be asked? What did he know, when did

he know it and what did he do about it and why isn't he resigning now?

Thank you all of our guests, and particularly to our guest of the

day, Ken Baker. One o'clock news is starting over on BBC One. I will be

back tomorrow with Andrew with by ministers questions, although not

with David Cameron and Ed Miliband. or to stay part of

the United Kingdom? The BBC's online coverage will keep

you up to date with every development with live streaming

of the key moments, expert opinions