:00:36. > :00:45.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:46. > :00:51.The government backs a new third runway at Heathrow, but faces
:00:52. > :00:55.opposition from rival airports, and government ministers.
:00:56. > :00:58.Remember the newspaper hacking scandal?
:00:59. > :01:03.Today a new press regulator could be approved which could trigger
:01:04. > :01:05.new rules described by the press as "draconian".
:01:06. > :01:09.Billions of taxpayer pounds are paid by the government to companies
:01:10. > :01:13.Does out-sourcing ensure value-for-money, or put
:01:14. > :01:18.And we talk about politics being an art, but it's also a science,
:01:19. > :01:22.It's not going to explode, we shouldn't stand back?
:01:23. > :01:38.I'm fairly confident it won't explode!
:01:39. > :01:43.And I can confirm it did not explode!
:01:44. > :01:45.All that in the next hour and with us for the whole
:01:46. > :01:47.of the programme today is Kulveer Ranger, head
:01:48. > :01:50.of public affairs for ATOS, the IT services company which has
:01:51. > :01:52.contracts with the UK government worth over
:01:53. > :01:56.Kulveer also worked for Boris Johnson when he was London mayor.
:01:57. > :02:00.So, the big decision on Heathrow expansion has been
:02:01. > :02:08.Theresa May's Cabinet approved plans for a new, third runway
:02:09. > :02:12.But there's to be more consultation in the new year,
:02:13. > :02:23.Speaking in the last hour, the Transport Secretary Chris Grayling
:02:24. > :02:26.said building a third runway at Heathrow was the best option for
:02:27. > :02:30.This is a really big decision for this country,
:02:31. > :02:32.but it is also the clearest sign post the referendum
:02:33. > :02:34.that this country is very clearly open for business.
:02:35. > :02:36.We have thought long and hard about this,
:02:37. > :02:38.the committee considered all three options.
:02:39. > :02:41.There were three very good options on the table,
:02:42. > :02:43.but we believe a third runway for Heathrow is the best
:02:44. > :02:46.option for our future, it is the best option for the whole
:02:47. > :02:48.country to create better connectivity to the different
:02:49. > :02:50.regions in the United Kingdom, and to provide the best
:02:51. > :02:54.So we think this is the right decision for Britain.
:02:55. > :02:57.My message to Gatwick, I know this will be a disappointment
:02:58. > :02:59.for them, but Gatwick remains a really important part
:03:00. > :03:01.of our transport system and will continue being so.
:03:02. > :03:04.But what today is about is doing the right thing for Britain,
:03:05. > :03:06.doing the right thing for the whole country,
:03:07. > :03:09.delivering the best option that will secure all of our futures
:03:10. > :03:14.and working to create a country that works for everyone.
:03:15. > :03:20.The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling. Already opponents have
:03:21. > :03:24.expressed their anger at the decision. The Conservative MP for
:03:25. > :03:25.Richmond Park is that Goldsmith tweeted:
:03:26. > :03:36.He had always threatened to resign if they gave the third runway at
:03:37. > :03:41.Let's get the latest from our correspondent, Eleanor Garnier.
:03:42. > :03:51.It was working at the's worst kept secret. Nearly 50 years of delay,
:03:52. > :03:55.dithering, enquiries and commissions and we have finally had that
:03:56. > :04:00.decision, that it will be a third runway at Heathrow. It has been the
:04:01. > :04:03.preferred option of successive governments and the Airport
:04:04. > :04:08.Commission had recommended that plan. But it will be controversial,
:04:09. > :04:14.there will be legal wrangling is, appeals, concern over the impact on
:04:15. > :04:19.the environment. But today was a big moment, we finally got the decision,
:04:20. > :04:24.and there will be criticism on both sides. Things will not move quickly.
:04:25. > :04:28.We will have a year-long consultation before MPs get a vote
:04:29. > :04:35.on the Heathrow option in the Commons next year. We could see a
:04:36. > :04:40.by-election with Zac Goldsmith, the MP for Richmond, threatening to
:04:41. > :04:46.stand down as an independent if Heathrow got the go-ahead. But do
:04:47. > :04:51.not expect things to move quickly. We know about splits, Boris Johnson,
:04:52. > :04:56.Justine Greening, in the Cabinet, to name just two. What will happen to
:04:57. > :05:04.them? That is why we got an inkling last week that it might be Heathrow.
:05:05. > :05:07.Theresa May said she would be listening to limited Cabinet dissent
:05:08. > :05:11.and they will be allowed to voice their opposition to this idea for
:05:12. > :05:16.Heathrow. But they will not be allowed to be critical in the
:05:17. > :05:19.Commons, they will not be allowed to campaign. Those in Cabinet who want
:05:20. > :05:23.to express their opposition to the plan must have done so already, they
:05:24. > :05:30.must have already established their views. Already on the TV and in the
:05:31. > :05:35.papers they have said publicly they have opposed the idea, but they need
:05:36. > :05:40.the green light from Theresa May. The idea that many of us had Boris
:05:41. > :05:47.Johnson lying down in front of the bulldozers, I do not think that will
:05:48. > :05:49.happen. What about the others in Parliament? We know Jeremy Corbyn
:05:50. > :05:55.does not like the idea of expansion at Heathrow. They are yet to decide
:05:56. > :05:59.whether it will be a free vote for the Labour Party or not. But the
:06:00. > :06:04.government will not have a problem with numbers getting the vote
:06:05. > :06:08.through. We know the SNP will vote for the expansion at Heathrow
:06:09. > :06:15.because it will help conductivity to Scotland and we know the SNP are
:06:16. > :06:20.behind this idea. You work for Boris Johnson very closely with him and
:06:21. > :06:25.for him and his views are clear about airport expansion. Where do
:06:26. > :06:30.you stand now? Boris and I were never on the same flight path. I am
:06:31. > :06:33.a child of the flight path, I grew up in Hounslow in west London and I
:06:34. > :06:41.understand the challenges local people face with Heathrow expansion.
:06:42. > :06:46.But also the businesses, the local economy, the national economy and
:06:47. > :06:50.conductivity. This is what we are talking about, collectivity.
:06:51. > :06:53.Infrastructure, transport, rail, connections to the south-west and
:06:54. > :07:00.Birmingham and beyond and Heathrow is ideally placed. It is at capacity
:07:01. > :07:04.and it has got half a billion or more of Crossrail link being built
:07:05. > :07:11.to it, which will help to get people to and from the city. The worries
:07:12. > :07:15.about airport noise and pollution, those issues will be met. The
:07:16. > :07:19.government has put strict stipulations on times of flights.
:07:20. > :07:25.That was one of the areas that many campaigners thought it was the late,
:07:26. > :07:31.because pollution concerns. You always got Boris Island was a mad
:07:32. > :07:36.idea? No, but what we must remember is how far the Conservatives have
:07:37. > :07:38.come. At the end of the last Labour administration, Jeff who made an
:07:39. > :07:42.announcement that it would be Heathrow and then the Labour
:07:43. > :07:48.government road back. The Conservatives in 2005 and 2006 said
:07:49. > :07:50.it was only going to be rail capacity that would be driven and
:07:51. > :07:57.they did not see any aviation increase. Boris in his time as Mayor
:07:58. > :08:02.made the case for why they are needed to be an aviation capacity
:08:03. > :08:08.increase in the and the Thames estuary was an option put forward.
:08:09. > :08:12.Will it ever happen? We have talked about how long it has taken to get
:08:13. > :08:17.to this point, a decision. It will not happen very soon in terms of
:08:18. > :08:23.building work, will we see a third runway at Heathrow? We have got a
:08:24. > :08:29.convergence of issues. We have a Prime Minister who has a vice like
:08:30. > :08:34.grip on the Cabinet. Other Cabinet ministers are given scope to
:08:35. > :08:40.undertake this, but there is a limited amount of criticism. We also
:08:41. > :08:44.have a country that is looking in a post-Brexit and post-referendum era
:08:45. > :08:48.and saying, how do we demonstrate our ability to trade? How do we
:08:49. > :08:53.demonstrate we are still a powerful nation? We need some real power that
:08:54. > :08:58.comes through, showing we can build and deliver things like this which
:08:59. > :09:00.is crucial to our economy. I think it is the best time for it to get
:09:01. > :09:06.The question for today is: The London Mayor, Sadiq Khan,
:09:07. > :09:08.has landed a cameo role in which TV programme?
:09:09. > :09:21.At the end of the show Kulveer will give us the right answer.
:09:22. > :09:25.In a small meeting room in central London, a group of little-known men
:09:26. > :09:28.and women are meeting right now to make a decision about the future
:09:29. > :09:33.The Press Recognition Panel was established following the newspaper
:09:34. > :09:36.hacking scandal which led to the closure of the News
:09:37. > :09:42.At the heart of all this is the question of how
:09:43. > :09:46.much should our press be regulated in a free society?
:09:47. > :09:49.In 2011, following the phone hacking scandal, David Cameron set up
:09:50. > :09:53.the Leveson Inquiry to examine the culture, ethics
:09:54. > :10:00.Following Lord Leveson's recommendations, the government
:10:01. > :10:03.enacted a Royal Charter which in turn set up
:10:04. > :10:08.a Press Recognition Panel to choose a new press watchdog.
:10:09. > :10:12.The terms of the Royal Charter can not be changed unless agreed
:10:13. > :10:17.by a two thirds majority in both houses of Parliament.
:10:18. > :10:21.So far only one organisation, called Impress, has applied
:10:22. > :10:27.It has the backing of privacy campaigner Max Mosley and the author
:10:28. > :10:34.Most of the big newspapers are opposed to what they see
:10:35. > :10:38.as state regulation of the press, and instead set up their own rival
:10:39. > :10:42.regulator, called Ipso, which won't apply to be
:10:43. > :10:46.the officially recognised press regulator.
:10:47. > :10:51.If Impress is approved by the Press Recognition Panel
:10:52. > :10:55.today, section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act could be triggered
:10:56. > :11:00.which means any publishers which don't sign up to Impress
:11:01. > :11:04.would be forced to pay the legal costs of libel actions brought
:11:05. > :11:08.against them, even if they win the case.
:11:09. > :11:11.Newspapers, including the Sun and the Daily Mail, say this
:11:12. > :11:17.is an affront to democracy and will encourage spurious claims.
:11:18. > :11:21.Campaigners say Section 40 will ensure newspapers
:11:22. > :11:24.are properly regulated and respect people's privacy.
:11:25. > :11:26.We've been joined by Max Mosley, the former head of Formula One
:11:27. > :11:30.who has been campaigning for more stringent regulation
:11:31. > :11:33.of the press since the News of the World published stories
:11:34. > :11:38.He later won a privacy court case against the newspaper.
:11:39. > :11:44.He's a former deputy editor of the News of the World.
:11:45. > :11:53.First of all, we understand the government is not intending to
:11:54. > :11:59.implement legislation that would make the press liable for libel
:12:00. > :12:05.costs, but it will be kicked into the long grass. Are you disappointed
:12:06. > :12:10.with that? If that happens, I will be disappointed. At the moment if
:12:11. > :12:14.you are on the victim of a libel or breach of privacy or harassment,
:12:15. > :12:20.although sort of thing is, if you want to sue the newspaper, you have
:12:21. > :12:27.to be buried rich. Very few people can risk ?1 million. The rest of the
:12:28. > :12:32.population, more than 99%, I left with no recourse. The point of all
:12:33. > :12:37.this legislation is there would be a recognised regulator which would
:12:38. > :12:41.have an arbitrary system which the papers could use and the individual
:12:42. > :12:47.could use and it would give access to justice. It is all about access
:12:48. > :12:52.to justice. Without that stick, or without the ability to call on
:12:53. > :12:56.section 40 of the act, do you think the regulator will be finished
:12:57. > :13:02.before it has even started? No, I do not think so. Even if the government
:13:03. > :13:07.decide they do not want to implement section 40, they will have to come
:13:08. > :13:11.up with something. You cannot leave 99% of the population with no
:13:12. > :13:19.redress if they are produced by the press. In that case, what is wrong
:13:20. > :13:26.with the idea of Impress? There is already the other regulator, so what
:13:27. > :13:37.is wrong with Impress? There are two issues, the inadequacies of Impress,
:13:38. > :13:41.it is an axe grinding farce. Why? I will come onto that. Secondly there
:13:42. > :13:52.is the background to it. It is the wholly bought property of Macs. Max
:13:53. > :14:00.is bankrolling... This is fantasy. I am bankrolling a charity which
:14:01. > :14:04.exists to bankroll a Levenson compliant regulator. It could be if
:14:05. > :14:11.so, it could be anybody. They decide which potential regulator they are
:14:12. > :14:15.going to... It is not true to say he is bankrolling this group because he
:14:16. > :14:21.could be funding any regulator that is chosen by this independent panel.
:14:22. > :14:28.It is all software history. The truth of the matter is that he set
:14:29. > :14:34.up something called the Independent Press Regulation Trust and that is
:14:35. > :14:39.bankrolling a bunch of like-minded, hacked off, and press campaigners to
:14:40. > :14:47.the tune of just under ?1 million for four years. He is one of the
:14:48. > :14:55.very few, and certainly the major provider, of funds for Impress. If
:14:56. > :15:02.it is set up... It is setup, it is whether it will be official
:15:03. > :15:06.regulator. In the contract I have seen and has been published, you can
:15:07. > :15:10.withdraw funding from it at ten days' notice. The vital essence of
:15:11. > :15:17.the need for a press regulator is for that to be independent. Why is
:15:18. > :15:23.it not independent if it has been chosen by an independent panel? He
:15:24. > :15:29.is paying for it. Are you saying he is bribing the panel? That is a more
:15:30. > :15:36.complex issue about funding. But the significance of this is when Lord
:15:37. > :15:40.Levenson called for an independent regulator, he said a couple of
:15:41. > :15:45.things that were absolutely essential. He said the new system of
:15:46. > :15:49.regulation should not be considered sufficiently effective if it does
:15:50. > :15:52.not cover all significant news publishers. Impress has
:15:53. > :16:03.approximately... You answer the claim that you are
:16:04. > :16:07.somehow behind all of this and then we will come onto the support. What
:16:08. > :16:14.it's all about is access to justice, the only thing that matters to me is
:16:15. > :16:17.that... This is... Access to justice, ipso, for a start, is
:16:18. > :16:22.completely own, completely controlled and played for by the
:16:23. > :16:27.major newspapers. -- paid for it really is controlled. In this case
:16:28. > :16:32.we have a person giving to a charity which in turn gives to a charity.
:16:33. > :16:42.Don't interrupt, you have had your say, let me have mine. This is done
:16:43. > :16:46.by an independent body. Impress has got all independent people. I don't
:16:47. > :16:56.even know two of the three trustees involved in the charity. Impress is
:16:57. > :17:01.completely independent. I run a charity which funds it, but in the
:17:02. > :17:04.case of Ipso it is all paid for by the major newspapers and they can
:17:05. > :17:09.cut it off, they can fire people, whatever. It is true, it has been
:17:10. > :17:15.set up by news proprietors, when you are criticising Max Mosley for his
:17:16. > :17:20.role in terms of Impress it is also true to say that Ipso was set up by
:17:21. > :17:23.newspaper proprietors to be a self regulator, so this is something you
:17:24. > :17:28.could argue in terms of sophistry, it is being run and funded by
:17:29. > :17:33.newspapers. It is being run by newspapers, it is not being run by
:17:34. > :17:38.newspapers. Certainly the finances and the people who are investing in
:17:39. > :17:42.it, as it were, include the Berry Times, the Campbell packet, the
:17:43. > :17:51.Newcastle Chronicle... 90% of newspapers in this country are
:17:52. > :17:55.members of ipso. -- Bury Times. That is the problem. Let me put it to
:17:56. > :18:00.you. One of the biggest problems is about trust in the regulator. People
:18:01. > :18:06.will question the trust they might have in Ipso because it is run and
:18:07. > :18:11.set by newspapers themselves, but Impress does not have enough support
:18:12. > :18:16.from major contributors or newspapers or publications, it is
:18:17. > :18:20.very small, so how are you going to command the trust of people like
:18:21. > :18:24.Neil Wallis? The complaint of the major newspapers is that if impress
:18:25. > :18:29.is recognised, there will be under pressure to join it, because then
:18:30. > :18:34.they get the benefit of the independent arbitration which works
:18:35. > :18:39.on both sides, plus, they have all the benefits for the smaller press.
:18:40. > :18:42.Who at the moment, aren't properly protected. Small
:18:43. > :18:49.small newspapers will die if this goes ahead. Nonsense. Why? If you
:18:50. > :18:55.work for a small local newspaper, the vast majority, hundreds upon
:18:56. > :18:59.hundreds, it is already a dreadful thing if you are sued for libel,
:19:00. > :19:04.whether you win or not, it is it is immensely expensive. The problem, if
:19:05. > :19:09.you bring this in and bring in section 40, somebody can spuriously
:19:10. > :19:19.bring a libel action... This is the whole point. You have got to... Try
:19:20. > :19:24.honesty... Talk about honesty, you work for the News of the World, you
:19:25. > :19:28.must be joking! The reason is, when the small newspapers, if one of the
:19:29. > :19:31.small newspapers at the moment upset somebody rich in the neighbourhood,
:19:32. > :19:36.they can be sued, and it would put them out of business. Under Impress
:19:37. > :19:40.and under the regulator, when you have cheap arbitration, that same
:19:41. > :19:46.local newspaper can defend itself against a rich individual, if, when
:19:47. > :19:50.Wallaroos, he has got to pay all the costs. Neil Wallis, what are you
:19:51. > :19:54.frightened of, you have been given a choice, this was agreed by MPs, this
:19:55. > :20:01.was passed, in the Houses of Parliament. And there is now a
:20:02. > :20:05.choice for newspapers to sign up to Impress, let's say that they become
:20:06. > :20:11.the recognised regulator, and then you don't pay or get landed with
:20:12. > :20:16.punitive costs if you win a case that is brought against you. Surely
:20:17. > :20:22.that is a fair choice? No, well, no, if you win a libel action, under
:20:23. > :20:29.this scheme, you pay both sides of the libel action. Not if you have
:20:30. > :20:33.signed up to the official regulator. The point is, and... There is a
:20:34. > :20:39.choice, you just don't want to do either. The press recognition panel
:20:40. > :20:45.is appointed by the government, the government therefore... The state is
:20:46. > :20:52.deciding... That is not true, we will overlook it, but it is not
:20:53. > :20:58.true. The state is interfering with the free press, which has been there
:20:59. > :21:05.for 320 years, the result of this is going to be... But we have had... We
:21:06. > :21:09.have had Lord Levy sin's enquiry. The world has moved on. The last
:21:10. > :21:17.government decided it was not going to enforce this. There is a problem
:21:18. > :21:19.here, there is a dilemma, facing the government, if they recognised
:21:20. > :21:24.Impress, the onus is going to be on the newspapers who set up their own
:21:25. > :21:28.regulator, Ipso, to sign up, and if they don't, then they are going to
:21:29. > :21:33.be liable for costs which they say are Draconian, even if they win a
:21:34. > :21:36.case brought against them. There is a fundamental problem, passionately
:21:37. > :21:41.displayed by this debate, because it is about trust and it is about
:21:42. > :21:46.influence. I am all for the great British free press, it is a Bastian,
:21:47. > :21:51.a beacon to the world in terms of... Will it no longer be free? Trust
:21:52. > :22:04.issue has been shaken by what we have seen, Ledson has tried to look
:22:05. > :22:06.at that. -- both sides have challenges, because of where the
:22:07. > :22:12.funding comes from. The government needs to look at that. -- bastion.
:22:13. > :22:16.-- Leveson. It might do that by not committing to section 40 of the
:22:17. > :22:21.crime and court at all Impress. We need to leave it there, thank you
:22:22. > :22:25.very much. We were talking about Zac Goldsmith, Tory MP, who said he
:22:26. > :22:29.would resign and force a by-election, he says he intends to
:22:30. > :22:33.honour that commitment, in Richmond Park and Kingston north in protest
:22:34. > :22:37.of the decision of the government to back a third runway at Heathrow. His
:22:38. > :22:39.local Conservative Association has confirmed that. There will be a
:22:40. > :22:43.by-election there. It's been another embarrassing month
:22:44. > :22:45.for private providers One major company left
:22:46. > :22:48.staff at a school in Another had their contract
:22:49. > :22:51.to allocate tax credits when the private sector was going
:22:52. > :22:57.to make everything more efficient? In a moment I'll discuss that
:22:58. > :23:01.with our guest of the day, Kulveer Ranger, and the Shadow Work
:23:02. > :23:14.and PensionS Secretary The government contracting for
:23:15. > :23:18.public services is big is knit and getting bigger, to show you how big,
:23:19. > :23:26.we will outsource our graphics, two members of the public. We are trying
:23:27. > :23:35.to outsource our graphics. I haven't got a clue...! Let's see... The
:23:36. > :23:43.government now spends about 98 billion on outsourcing of privately
:23:44. > :23:50.run public services. A year. A year. Can we ask you to help us with our
:23:51. > :23:53.graphics. Around ?1 in every ?3 of taxpayer money spent on public
:23:54. > :23:59.services goes to non-public sector providers. Is that a good headline?
:24:00. > :24:03.For me to put on that paper, that would be rubbish! It might not make
:24:04. > :24:10.a good headline, but it is a lot of money, what is it spent on? Mainly
:24:11. > :24:15.it is spent on health, defence, justice, transport, and welfare. You
:24:16. > :24:22.are a natural! LAUGHTER Thank you! Actually, I am quite shy!
:24:23. > :24:25.Governments have for years contacted at a range of straightforward and
:24:26. > :24:30.sensitive public services for a number of reasons. The good reasons
:24:31. > :24:34.are, there is people out there who can provide a service better than
:24:35. > :24:38.government can provide it itself, more efficient and effective and at
:24:39. > :24:41.a better price, that might be a good reason to outsource something.
:24:42. > :24:43.Sometimes it is done for bad reasons, people in central
:24:44. > :24:48.government think, we just need to get the costs down. If that is the
:24:49. > :24:52.main driver, the first driver, it is not that likely to work. Terribly
:24:53. > :24:56.well. Lord Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office in the last
:24:57. > :25:01.coalition government, oversaw a mini transformation of public service
:25:02. > :25:06.providers turning private, to boost the productivity of the state sector
:25:07. > :25:10.work. I used to visit these, and ask people, would you go back and work
:25:11. > :25:14.for the government, the NHS, Council, whatever. Never had anyone
:25:15. > :25:20.say anything other than, no. Why not, because they can do things,
:25:21. > :25:24.free from bureaucracy. We saw productivity go up in leaps and
:25:25. > :25:29.bounds, almost literally overnight. Despite the so-called mutuals, world
:25:30. > :25:32.of outsource public contracts is still dominated by a few large
:25:33. > :25:36.private companies, which have mastered the art of bidding for
:25:37. > :25:43.them. And projects regularly suffer from week contract management. The
:25:44. > :25:47.policy of people, permanent secretaries, by and large, not as
:25:48. > :25:50.close of, and the people who run big operations in government are the
:25:51. > :25:55.blue-collar people, they always have to remain a bit below the sword, and
:25:56. > :26:00.that is wrong. Spectacular failures have made alarming headlines.
:26:01. > :26:03.Tonight at ten, the security companies accused of massively
:26:04. > :26:09.overcharging the taxpayer for tagging criminals. Also tonight...
:26:10. > :26:13.The focus of protests, now at us, the company running the fitness to
:26:14. > :26:18.work tests, asked to end their contract early. -- Atos. VOICEOVER:
:26:19. > :26:22.It is supposed to be the nation's great global games, that it is
:26:23. > :26:30.protected by eight web security firm accused of letting down the country.
:26:31. > :26:35.The computer was meant to integrate medical records across is the
:26:36. > :26:42.juicing. It was a real train crash, I watched it burn taxpayer cash and
:26:43. > :26:46.it still is not finished, even though the government announced in
:26:47. > :26:52.2011 they were dispensing with it, it is still going on. This goes back
:26:53. > :26:57.to how you write contracts in the first buys, billions has been spent
:26:58. > :27:02.to no avail. MPs complained, contractors often overpromise and
:27:03. > :27:07.under deliver, proper scrutiny from government still lacking.
:27:08. > :27:11.We've been joined by Labour's Shadow Work
:27:12. > :27:17.and Pensions Secretary, Debbie Abrahams.
:27:18. > :27:19.And of course Kulveer Ranger is still with us.
:27:20. > :27:22.He's head of public affairs for ATOS, which has over half
:27:23. > :27:26.a billion pounds' worth of contracts with the government.
:27:27. > :27:31.Atos has come in for criticism for failing to deliver, it has not been
:27:32. > :27:34.a great advert for government outsourcing. In the context of
:27:35. > :27:38.government outsourcing and where that has evolved, we believe that we
:27:39. > :27:43.deliver value for money, the Cabinet Office review said that this summer,
:27:44. > :27:48.it went so far as to say that we go beyond some of the requirements.
:27:49. > :27:50.Over the last 20 years I have been involved in public and private
:27:51. > :27:55.sector partnerships, delivering major infrastructure services. I was
:27:56. > :27:58.very fortunate to be involved in delivering the Oyster card, PFI,
:27:59. > :28:03.that came to deliver some technology. The vast majority of
:28:04. > :28:09.work that the private sector does does not get the positive
:28:10. > :28:12.recognition. That may be the majority, but these are not
:28:13. > :28:16.insignificant failures of Atos, at the time it was handling the work
:28:17. > :28:18.capability assessment, tens of thousands of sick and disabled
:28:19. > :28:22.people were wrongly assessed as being fit for work. You can imagine
:28:23. > :28:26.the suffering that causes those people while you are looking at it
:28:27. > :28:29.from a bureaucratic, technocratic view, these are real people. Your
:28:30. > :28:35.assessment were described as farcical after you decided that
:28:36. > :28:38.people with lifelong diseases like Parkinson's would be better and
:28:39. > :28:42.available to work, how did you get it wrong? Everyone has learned from
:28:43. > :28:46.those mistakes, the challenge for people in public and private, have
:28:47. > :28:49.you learn from those mistakes, when dealing with services and making
:28:50. > :28:54.sure the right result is delivered, you handle those properly. If you
:28:55. > :28:58.are delivering services such as delivering the integration IT for
:28:59. > :29:01.the Olympic Games, running the BBC, services for departments across
:29:02. > :29:03.government, in the private sector as well, we make sure services get
:29:04. > :29:09.delivered in the way that they best benefit people. The idea here is to
:29:10. > :29:14.learn. The generation of partnership between government and private
:29:15. > :29:18.sector. Do companies like Atos, have they learned? I'm not so sure but we
:29:19. > :29:22.must bring in the government as well, they have culpability in terms
:29:23. > :29:28.of the contract they have awarded, since 2010, they have doubled to ?88
:29:29. > :29:32.billion. We need to be able to demonstrate that there is value for
:29:33. > :29:36.money for the taxpayer. As you rightly pointed out, in terms of
:29:37. > :29:42.things like the work capability assessment, such is the personal
:29:43. > :29:45.independent payment process, Atos is still involved in that, there are
:29:46. > :29:51.huge issues with these processes. What issues are there, we can put
:29:52. > :29:56.them... The point you raised before, in terms of the accuracy.
:29:57. > :29:59.Unfortunately, when the contract are set up, performance management of
:30:00. > :30:06.them, it is about getting claimants off flow. That is what is driving
:30:07. > :30:13.them. Atos has responsibility but it is not just that. Let's pick up your
:30:14. > :30:15.point about the principle behind this, is Labour actually against the
:30:16. > :30:22.idea of outsourcing government contract? We should not be saying
:30:23. > :30:29.private, bad, public, good, or vice versa. Are you saying private bad?
:30:30. > :30:33.No, I have never said that. I have said there is particular issues. You
:30:34. > :30:41.said they have doubled, you have said... My point... My point was
:30:42. > :30:44.that... My point was that the government decides these contracts,
:30:45. > :30:47.awards these contracts, it is an ideological approach that the
:30:48. > :30:54.government has taken, not just with employment support, and work
:30:55. > :30:57.capability assessments, fit for work, but also with health care,
:30:58. > :31:01.looking at the 2012 health and social care, all of that,
:31:02. > :31:05.privatisation act and it was given in that direction. Ideological with
:31:06. > :31:12.the last Labour government who first gave the contracts?
:31:13. > :31:22.What about the last Labour government? They gave contract out.
:31:23. > :31:27.We did not get it right. They now believe it is not fit for purpose.
:31:28. > :31:32.Under Jeremy Corbyn Labour will not pursue these sorts of contracts in
:31:33. > :31:37.the way they did before 2010. We want to replace it with a holistic,
:31:38. > :31:41.Person centred approach, looking at their needs, whether they are skills
:31:42. > :31:48.related, health and care or housing and transport. Can you deliver a
:31:49. > :31:51.holistic approach to this? The key to this is to work with government
:31:52. > :31:57.and understand their requirements and to help deliver the best outputs
:31:58. > :32:02.for the people. We are in the Europe, this is the key proper
:32:03. > :32:06.technology perspective, is we see new services that can be designed
:32:07. > :32:09.and new ways for governments to deliver better outcomes for people
:32:10. > :32:15.and we need a new industrial strategy that this government wants
:32:16. > :32:21.to set up. It will help care, the services and the front line. But the
:32:22. > :32:26.track record is not good. It may be improving, but it has not been good.
:32:27. > :32:30.Debbie Abrahams raises an important point, in the end if you are dealing
:32:31. > :32:35.with these sorts of issues in terms of payments to disabled people or
:32:36. > :32:40.tax credit claims, if there is a profit motive at the heart of the
:32:41. > :32:44.operation, that surely does encourage by its very nature
:32:45. > :32:49.cost-cutting at the expense of a holistic, fair assessment of the
:32:50. > :32:52.person. What you and Debbie I demonstrating very well is now the
:32:53. > :32:57.private sector is equally responsible for the government to
:32:58. > :33:01.implement government policy and we take that very seriously to say we
:33:02. > :33:06.care about the services we are delivering because we are the ones
:33:07. > :33:10.associated with it. But profit is still the most important? You have
:33:11. > :33:15.to deliver a value to the government, to the taxpayer and the
:33:16. > :33:19.shareholders. But you do not see any major organisations who do outsource
:33:20. > :33:25.various parts of their organisations, whether it be private
:33:26. > :33:28.sector companies or the IOC, saying we can do it ourselves, they are
:33:29. > :33:33.looking for good and trusted partners to help deliver the
:33:34. > :33:36.services. You cannot do without the private sector, whether you are
:33:37. > :33:41.delivering tax credits or independence payments to people on
:33:42. > :33:45.benefits. Surely the private sector has to be involved? We have not said
:33:46. > :33:50.anything about the third sector and during the summer I visited a whole
:33:51. > :33:56.niche of charities such as those delivering support to homeless
:33:57. > :34:01.people, those enabling work and giving support to disabled people,
:34:02. > :34:07.making a huge difference, and we need more of that type of approach
:34:08. > :34:12.as well. In terms of the government outsourcing to the private sector,
:34:13. > :34:15.it has doubled to ?88 million during the coalition years according to the
:34:16. > :34:22.Financial Times. Has that gone too far? The whole thing is about value.
:34:23. > :34:26.We still have a government structure from Victorian times with massive
:34:27. > :34:33.departments with thousands of people working in their not sharing
:34:34. > :34:36.information. We are entering into a technology world where people
:34:37. > :34:40.experience the way they deal with banks, businesses, food being
:34:41. > :34:44.delivered to their door, and the relationship between the state and
:34:45. > :34:51.the citizen will be changed through the prism of technology. We will see
:34:52. > :34:54.a real change and there will be more private sector involvement, but
:34:55. > :34:58.fundamentally focus on value for money and the citizen. We have to
:34:59. > :35:02.So, just before we came on air transport secretary Chris Grayling
:35:03. > :35:04.confirmed that the government would support a third
:35:05. > :35:07.But not all his colleagues on the Conservative benches
:35:08. > :35:19.Zac Goldsmith has told his constituency that he intends to
:35:20. > :35:20.honour his pledge to resign and for a by-election.
:35:21. > :35:26.Dr Tania Mathias, explaining her opposition to Heathrow expansion.
:35:27. > :35:36.I am appalled by the decision, but for myself and my constituents I
:35:37. > :35:42.still believe Heathrow expansion will not happen, I believe it is not
:35:43. > :35:47.deliverable. I expect there will be consultation and scrutiny and the
:35:48. > :35:51.facts will bear out and we will find out Heathrow cannot expand. It is
:35:52. > :35:55.too costly, it cannot be done in the time period, there will be legal
:35:56. > :35:59.challenges and the pollution aspect are becoming clearer and clearer,
:36:00. > :35:59.month by month, so it just will not happen.
:36:00. > :36:04.We've been joined by the co-leader of the Green Party,
:36:05. > :36:06.Jonathan Bartley, and by the Labour MP Gavin Shuker.
:36:07. > :36:23.Gavin, I understand you have been trying to coordinate the response of
:36:24. > :36:27.Labour MPs. Well most of them backed the decision? I think they will, I
:36:28. > :36:33.think the majority of Labour MPs wanted a decision and now we have
:36:34. > :36:40.got it and the majority favoured Heathrow. It will be better for us
:36:41. > :36:46.as a party to be clear about it. Do you think there will be a free vote?
:36:47. > :36:51.We know John McDonnell, he is a long-standing opponent of expansion
:36:52. > :36:57.at Heathrow, and the leader Jeremy Corbyn do not want this, so what
:36:58. > :37:00.will the line be? We are waiting to find out. Our Shadow Transport
:37:01. > :37:05.Secretary was very clear that he was edging towards a decision on
:37:06. > :37:10.Heathrow. But the party having a decision on Heathrow does not
:37:11. > :37:17.preclude individual constituency MPs from representing their constituents
:37:18. > :37:20.on the issues that they feel strongly about. But it is important
:37:21. > :37:26.for the British public to know where the Labour Party stands. But you
:37:27. > :37:30.cannot seem to get the complete consensus on both sides. Were you
:37:31. > :37:36.supporting one of the other three options being put forward or are you
:37:37. > :37:40.just against all airport expansion? It is disappointing to see Labour
:37:41. > :37:44.lining up with the government on this. We cannot expand aviation if
:37:45. > :37:51.we are to meet our climate change targets. You think it is impossible
:37:52. > :37:55.to meet those targets? This drives a wrecking ball through those targets.
:37:56. > :37:59.We have to look at the demand for aviation and we have to bring it
:38:00. > :38:05.down. It is not about people taking a family holiday, it is 70% of
:38:06. > :38:10.flights taken by 15% of the population, frequent flights, and we
:38:11. > :38:15.need a levy to bring it down. You believe we can meet those targets,
:38:16. > :38:21.how can you both be right? We cannot be and I am, actually. That is OK
:38:22. > :38:25.then. They do not take my word for it. Take the airports commission,
:38:26. > :38:34.take the bodies that we charged with meeting our budgets. There is an
:38:35. > :38:42.economic case. If we do that, we cannot meet our carbon climate
:38:43. > :38:49.change budgets and targets. What makes you convinced we cannot? It is
:38:50. > :38:53.based on such flimsy evidence. They did not even agree with the
:38:54. > :38:58.transport Department over carbon emissions. This has been the result
:38:59. > :39:03.of huge lobbying by airports who want to make a lot of money. It is
:39:04. > :39:07.not about economic growth, that will be minimal. It does not tackle the
:39:08. > :39:11.underlying issues, that we have to tackle our climate change targets.
:39:12. > :39:17.There is look at deliverability. Will it happen? Yes, it will, but it
:39:18. > :39:22.requires clear targets from government and it is up to both
:39:23. > :39:27.parties to make sure it does. You think the Labour Party will fall in
:39:28. > :39:31.line. Will it happen or will it be held up by those who are preparing
:39:32. > :39:37.legal arguments against it? Would it be there? We will have to go through
:39:38. > :39:40.a number of different stages and the government has laid out how they
:39:41. > :39:49.believe it should go about this, but if you are asking me if I think by
:39:50. > :39:53.2030, the government's deadline, that a third runway will be in place
:39:54. > :40:00.for that? I think it will be, but we have to make tough decisions to
:40:01. > :40:15.deliver it. I'm saying is that it's an argument. In terms of people
:40:16. > :40:19.living near the airport, and the stop when you look at the figures in
:40:20. > :40:27.the Airport Commission report it said about ?11 billion benefit over
:40:28. > :40:32.a third of a cup of copy of everyone who comes through Heathrow. For all
:40:33. > :40:37.those people who will have their quality of life destroyed, new roads
:40:38. > :40:41.are put through their area, maybe using new homes, that is something
:40:42. > :40:45.they are not calling for. Are we going to see months and months of
:40:46. > :40:51.wrangling before Heathrow can even start to be built? A 12 month period
:40:52. > :40:59.has been set out by government, said that is a clear period of time of
:41:00. > :41:02.discussion. What we have on the delivery, if this Prime Minister and
:41:03. > :41:05.government stake in place for a significant period of time, this
:41:06. > :41:10.airport will have to happen. The case has been made and even the
:41:11. > :41:15.previous Labour government got the point where they said it has to
:41:16. > :41:19.Heathrow. But it did not happen. They made the case right at the end
:41:20. > :41:25.of their time in office and that is not the best point, especially when
:41:26. > :41:30.you lose an election. But how do we get the rest of the country to see
:41:31. > :41:34.the value of Heathrow? The conversation that has held up
:41:35. > :41:40.Heathrow has been focused on the impact. The pollution conversation,
:41:41. > :41:43.when we look at the impact of pollution right now from the planes
:41:44. > :41:50.having to circle London because they cannot get their slots, that needs
:41:51. > :41:55.work. You are saying how do you convince the country and the people
:41:56. > :42:00.around? This is a protest outside the houses of parliament today. Are
:42:01. > :42:07.we just going to see months and months of this going on while the
:42:08. > :42:11.political arguments are being made? I am sure we will see a huge range
:42:12. > :42:17.of protests around Heathrow and by those activists there. All those
:42:18. > :42:21.people represented by Unite and GMB want this and he argued there will
:42:22. > :42:26.be protests is an insufficient one to prevent the government from
:42:27. > :42:28.making a decision. It is not just protest, it is about legal
:42:29. > :42:32.challenges and the government tearing up the climate change act.
:42:33. > :42:38.There will be legal challenges on that. They have had plenty of time
:42:39. > :42:42.to think about it this year and it is part of the process. One of the
:42:43. > :42:49.problems for Labour is that the Mayor of London said a government
:42:50. > :42:54.decision taken to day on Heathrow was wrong with a capital and he will
:42:55. > :43:00.continue to talk about his opposition for the project. How
:43:01. > :43:04.difficult is it for Labour? It is as difficult for us as it is for Boris
:43:05. > :43:09.Johnson and Justine Greening being against it in the Cabinet. But we
:43:10. > :43:14.need to get on with it. We'll Boris Johnson lie in front of those
:43:15. > :43:22.bulldozers? I was watching the video to see if he was lying there. He has
:43:23. > :43:26.made his position clear. Sadiq Khan, the Mayor, needs to see what is best
:43:27. > :43:32.for London. He is building Crossrail and it has a direct link to
:43:33. > :43:36.Heathrow. It was put in to ensure capacity for Heathrow. He needs to
:43:37. > :43:39.have a conversation about collectivity and what is best for
:43:40. > :43:42.Heathrow and for this country in an economic sense. I am going to say
:43:43. > :43:43.thank you to all of you. I am going to say thank
:43:44. > :43:46.you to all of you. With financial pressures bearing
:43:47. > :43:48.down on the NHS in England, the government has been looking
:43:49. > :43:51.at how to bring down Yesterday, the Health Secretary
:43:52. > :43:55.Jeremy Hunt told the House of Commons that a new approach
:43:56. > :43:59.to working with big pharmaceutical companies could deliver huge savings
:44:00. > :44:01.and get cutting-edge drugs This government is committed
:44:02. > :44:09.to ensuring that patients get access to innovative and cost effective
:44:10. > :44:12.medicines as quickly as possible. I want to pay tribute to the work
:44:13. > :44:15.carried out by my honourable friend the member for Mid Norfolk
:44:16. > :44:17.who worked tirelessly in government to promote
:44:18. > :44:20.the life sciences industry, and who established the accelerated
:44:21. > :44:22.access review to provide clear recommendations on how
:44:23. > :44:25.the government, the NHS and industry can work together to ensure patients
:44:26. > :44:28.benefit from transformative That review is published today
:44:29. > :44:35.and is an excellent document which challenges everyone in the
:44:36. > :44:40.medicine system to up their game. Jeremy Hunt speaking
:44:41. > :44:43.during the second reading of the Health Service Medical
:44:44. > :44:47.Supplies Bill yesterday. We've been joined by
:44:48. > :44:59.the former Life Sciences This is about streamlining NHS
:45:00. > :45:06.processes and according to figures, the NHS drugs bill has gone up by 8%
:45:07. > :45:12.in England to ?15.5 billion, despite a cap at 12 billion pounds, so it
:45:13. > :45:17.has exceeded it. Is the NHS drugs bill too high or too low? In my view
:45:18. > :45:26.the NHS is under extraordinary pressure from the pace of
:45:27. > :45:29.developments in the life sciences industry, people living longer,
:45:30. > :45:35.incredible life expectancy gains, breast cancer is curable and now
:45:36. > :45:40.with you immune therapy is their IQ is for cancer. The issue is we are
:45:41. > :45:42.facing extraordinary rises in the cost. Individual drugs cost 250,000
:45:43. > :45:53.a year. It is not about blame, it is about a
:45:54. > :45:58.new model. The NHS is the world's only universal health system, with
:45:59. > :46:02.the research infrastructure to be a partner in developing these drugs,
:46:03. > :46:05.these new drugs, and the idea is, by using genetics and data and research
:46:06. > :46:10.excellence, we will be the first place in the world where these new
:46:11. > :46:17.drugs are targeted, and we get a discount or even a royalty. Is it
:46:18. > :46:24.affordable? If you say... It saves money. Does it, in the long term...
:46:25. > :46:33.If it keeps climbing, in what way is it affordable? Nobody expects the
:46:34. > :46:37.cost of medicine in an ageing society to go down, but what we are
:46:38. > :46:39.doing is making sure the NHS get more value back from research
:46:40. > :46:43.structure, so the rate of the increased flat and is up. So we can
:46:44. > :46:47.get new drugs quickly to patients and we can get a discounted price
:46:48. > :46:54.and or even royalties. The pharmaceutical Journal, has risen by
:46:55. > :47:00.59.8% over the past four years, even taking into account your tailoring
:47:01. > :47:03.off in however many years' time, how is the government going to square
:47:04. > :47:08.the still rising cost of medicine while asking the NHS to make savings
:47:09. > :47:17.to the tune of ?22 billion? The BMA says it is mad. There is measures in
:47:18. > :47:21.place, in terms of drugs, the pharmacy reforms, reducing the cost
:47:22. > :47:25.of dispensing drugs and processing drugs, but this reform, accelerated
:47:26. > :47:28.access, goes right to the heart of it, allowing us to fundamentally
:47:29. > :47:33.reduce the cost and time cost of developing medicines. Imagine the
:47:34. > :47:37.NHS today, nice is recommending some drugs, the NHS is very slowly
:47:38. > :47:42.fermenting recommendations, this transforms it, allowing us to pull
:47:43. > :47:47.them in quickly, that is the most valuable thing that we can give
:47:48. > :47:50.industry, early access. -- implementing recommendations. And
:47:51. > :47:54.then over time we will be paid a royalty. You keep mentioning that,
:47:55. > :47:58.you are very pleased about it. You should be as well, we will get drugs
:47:59. > :48:02.farm or cheaply. Should you be worried about the relationship with
:48:03. > :48:06.pharmaceutical companies, are you bound to pressure? Not at all, it is
:48:07. > :48:09.going through a transformation, the way the drugs are developed is
:48:10. > :48:12.changing, a lot of those changes are led in this country and we are
:48:13. > :48:15.having to redesign the way the industry works with the NHS, we
:48:16. > :48:19.would not have any of these drugs without the life science industry,
:48:20. > :48:24.great industry, but we cannot expect to produce ever more expensive
:48:25. > :48:28.medicines or us in a universal tax payer system to buy them at retail
:48:29. > :48:33.prices. This is a unique way of saying we have a unique asset in the
:48:34. > :48:40.NHS, and we will give businesses reason to come to the NHS, to the
:48:41. > :48:43.UK, and give cheaper drug. When it comes to medical advances the NHS
:48:44. > :48:47.has a reputation for lagging behind, have patients been missing out up
:48:48. > :48:50.until now for the best and most innovative treatments for things
:48:51. > :48:54.like cancer. We have slowly come in the last couple of decades, the UK
:48:55. > :48:59.has moved from being right at the vanguard, we have slipped down the
:49:00. > :49:02.league tables, this reform is about, particularly in cancer, that is
:49:03. > :49:07.partly because type of drugs coming through our very different. This is
:49:08. > :49:11.an admission that the UK has lagged behind, why hasn't the government
:49:12. > :49:15.done anything about it. This has been going on for some time. We have
:49:16. > :49:21.been lagging behind, we have set up research fund into drugs that nice
:49:22. > :49:25.were saying no to, but we are leading the world as a research
:49:26. > :49:29.engine, and the NHS helping to get quick access to patients to new
:49:30. > :49:33.medicines, and a deal that we can afford. That is the big reform. Is
:49:34. > :49:39.that a good idea, actually cutting the waiting time for new drugs, in
:49:40. > :49:42.your mind is that going to be safe for patients? Sounds to me like we
:49:43. > :49:45.have fallen down in the pecking order in how well the health service
:49:46. > :49:50.has been performing in terms of other parts of the world but we are
:49:51. > :49:54.trying to address is to teach each challenge within the supply chain of
:49:55. > :49:58.the NHS with this idea. I think that we should cautiously welcome it, if
:49:59. > :50:01.it does do what it is trying to do, which is deliver better value, early
:50:02. > :50:05.engagement with those people that are developing the drugs we need, we
:50:06. > :50:13.still have the increasing burden of an ageing population more demands on
:50:14. > :50:15.the NHS. There is a difficult opposition, supply chain management
:50:16. > :50:19.issue, which if it can deliver both value for money and the quality of
:50:20. > :50:22.the product which enhances lives of people in terms of better results
:50:23. > :50:28.then I think we have got to see how it works out. The new hepatitis C
:50:29. > :50:31.drugs that are coming, the NHS is buying them, they cost a fortune,
:50:32. > :50:35.the Italians bought them first and discovered that a large number of
:50:36. > :50:38.patients don't need a full 12 week course, it is a genetic
:50:39. > :50:42.predisposition. I would like us to discover that and get the benefit of
:50:43. > :50:50.the saving. Stay with us. More from you.
:50:51. > :51:09.The city of Nottingham has been making its voice heard here in
:51:10. > :51:10.Westminster today - because the 25th of October is... Nottingham in
:51:11. > :51:13.Parliament Day. Sounds exciting doesn't it? One of the many events
:51:14. > :51:15.was a real life science experiment, conducted by Nottingham University's
:51:16. > :51:17.chemistry supremo Professor Martyn Poliakoff - we'll talk to him in a
:51:18. > :51:20.moment - and the Science Minister, Joe Johnson. But can you mix
:51:21. > :51:21.politics and science? We sent Ellie to find out.
:51:22. > :51:24.So, we talk a lot about how politics is an art, but how
:51:25. > :51:27.Happily, I found a politician and a scientist.
:51:28. > :51:32.Well, I'm here with Professor Martin Poliakoff from the University
:51:33. > :51:34.of Nottingham who is going to demonstrate the effect
:51:35. > :51:36.of increasing carbon dioxide and the acidification effect
:51:37. > :51:40.In front of us? Right now in front of us.
:51:41. > :51:42.What exactly is going to happen then?
:51:43. > :51:46.What we have here is some water which has an indicator in it
:51:47. > :51:49.which changes colour when acid is put in and we are putting
:51:50. > :51:51.in carbon dioxide which we are putting in as a solid.
:51:52. > :51:54.As it dissolves, the colour changes and you can see it goes
:51:55. > :51:57.quite yellow, which is indicating that it is acid.
:51:58. > :52:05.And the... It won't explode.
:52:06. > :52:06.I'm fairly confident it won't explode.
:52:07. > :52:14.And the minister is now going to add some coral.
:52:15. > :52:32.This delicious Fanta concoction we have just made.
:52:33. > :52:34.This will show that if you have got a calcium shell,
:52:35. > :52:37.like a bit of coral, you are gradually, very
:52:38. > :52:38.slowly, going to dissolve in this acidified...
:52:39. > :52:43.Your role in this? Look, there it is, bubbling around.
:52:44. > :52:46.It all looks rather impressive, but obviously there is a bit
:52:47. > :52:51.This shows why it is so important to control the amount of carbon
:52:52. > :52:53.dioxide in the atmosphere which is getting caught
:52:54. > :52:55.in our oceans and making the oceans increasingly acidified.
:52:56. > :52:57.Even a small increase in acidity over time will effect
:52:58. > :53:00.the organisms because the change is happening much faster
:53:01. > :53:03.Because it is based on physical chemistry,
:53:04. > :53:05.the rate at which things dissolve, then it is not clear
:53:06. > :53:08.that the animals could ever evolve to cope with this larger
:53:09. > :53:19.It certainly gives you something to think about as a politician.
:53:20. > :53:22.It certainly does. I am liking the white jacket.
:53:23. > :53:24.Yes, thank you very much, courtesy of Nottingham
:53:25. > :53:27.which I visited yesterday to see the extraordinary university there.
:53:28. > :53:31.It is at the cutting edge of so much that is at the heart
:53:32. > :53:33.of our education system and I am delighted that Nottingham
:53:34. > :53:37.in Parliament today is demonstrating that to a wider audience.
:53:38. > :53:41.Excellent, and bringing interesting science to Westminster.
:53:42. > :53:43.It is fantastically important to communicate that science
:53:44. > :53:46.is helping us to address these global issues in this way.
:53:47. > :53:47.Excellent, chaps, thank you very much.
:53:48. > :53:51.All that is left for me to tell you is the most interesting thing
:53:52. > :54:00.about chemistry that I remember is the atomic number of zinc is 30.
:54:01. > :54:07.I'm very impressed that you remember that, very exciting me, I have got a
:54:08. > :54:11.bubbling potion in front of me... I don't want any jokes about witches!
:54:12. > :54:15.I thought it might be my cocktail hour! I'm not going to try that.
:54:16. > :54:19.Professor Martyn Poliakoff has joined us in the studio.
:54:20. > :54:25.Tell us again what this demonstrates. This tube contains
:54:26. > :54:33.water with an indicator that changes colour from alkaline to acid. We
:54:34. > :54:38.have dropped in solid carbon dioxide which has made the solution acid. It
:54:39. > :54:42.is orange. I demonstrated to the Minister with some vinegar, to
:54:43. > :54:47.convince him that the indicator works with acid. The idea is to show
:54:48. > :54:57.that when CO2 dissolves in water, it increases the acidity, and
:54:58. > :55:00.therefore, if you have organisms like shells and coral, then you can
:55:01. > :55:05.see we have a bit of coral here. Scottish coral. What was the point
:55:06. > :55:11.of view doing this with the minister outside Parliament? What point are
:55:12. > :55:15.you trying to make? We are trying to demonstrate that with increasing CO2
:55:16. > :55:20.levels in the atmosphere, it is making the Seymour acid. Not a huge
:55:21. > :55:24.increase in acidity but enough to start affecting the organisms. And,
:55:25. > :55:29.if you increase the solubility of the calcium carbonate, that makes
:55:30. > :55:37.the shelves, then it is difficult for the organisms to start forming
:55:38. > :55:41.their shells. How worried should we be? They are enough to be
:55:42. > :55:45.concerning, it is not a huge rise in acidity but it is enough to have
:55:46. > :55:50.three times as many hydrogen irons, three times the strength, as it
:55:51. > :55:57.would have been without the extra CO2. -- ions. The problem is that it
:55:58. > :56:02.is happening rapidly, the organisms do not have time to evolve and
:56:03. > :56:04.change behaviour and chemistry. Are you convinced something needs to be
:56:05. > :56:11.done about the effect of climate change, that it is having on the
:56:12. > :56:15.oceans? Yes, and one of the things we are doing in this country, we are
:56:16. > :56:20.a science superpower, not military, but in science, in medicine, in
:56:21. > :56:26.food, we are a superpower, we can help the world develop sustainably.
:56:27. > :56:30.We are helping Martin, we are helping lean tech and biotech and
:56:31. > :56:34.chemical sciences. And through the industrial strategy, which we will
:56:35. > :56:39.be unveiling shortly, you will see a robust approach to taking signs and
:56:40. > :56:42.making a global impact. Are these kind of days, Nottingham in
:56:43. > :56:45.Parliament date, are they important to representing and it's pressing
:56:46. > :56:50.the things about which you are passionate? It is very important, it
:56:51. > :56:54.is important to talk with policymakers. -- impressing the
:56:55. > :57:00.things. It is important, science and the economy, to the region,
:57:01. > :57:05.Nottingham, but also to show that science is fun and enjoyable. And it
:57:06. > :57:11.is great fun, having this in here, I presume it won't explode, is the
:57:12. > :57:14.government is doing enough? The government, in principle, is
:57:15. > :57:20.supportive, we have the Autumn Statement, coming up shortly. We
:57:21. > :57:27.hope to demonstrate whether or not you are actually supportive. What we
:57:28. > :57:31.really need is an increased investment in science, why was
:57:32. > :57:38.saying to the Minister, Joe Johnson, that we need to put more money into
:57:39. > :57:44.the training of technicians. Technicians are the real support for
:57:45. > :57:48.researchers at universities, and the problem is, they are getting older,
:57:49. > :57:53.and we are not feeding in a new generation fast enough to replace
:57:54. > :57:57.people. Really well-made point, as well as the scientists, the eminent
:57:58. > :58:01.scientists behind all this, there is a whole supply chain of technicians,
:58:02. > :58:05.mechanical engineers, people who take science into the workplace.
:58:06. > :58:08.Through our industrial strategy, we want to make sure we are investing
:58:09. > :58:12.in the skill base so that everyone can take part in this incredibly
:58:13. > :58:16.exciting economy. Thank you for coming in and demonstrating the
:58:17. > :58:20.experiment, we were going to try to do another one, we do not have the
:58:21. > :58:22.time, because we need to find out the answer to the quiz. That is
:58:23. > :58:26.where you come in. has landed a cameo role
:58:27. > :58:33.in which TV programme? Is it a) Doctor Who
:58:34. > :58:34.b) Citizen Khan c) Luther
:58:35. > :58:36.or d) Fleabag? So Kulveer,
:58:37. > :58:38.what's the correct answer? I have no idea, so I am going to go
:58:39. > :58:52.with Fleabag. But it is based in Birmingham! Why
:58:53. > :58:54.cant... He's the Mayor of London, why is he in a show that is based
:58:55. > :58:56.Birmingham? LAUGHTER The London Mayor plays a cricket
:58:57. > :58:59.match spectator who gets mistaken for someone else and gets
:59:00. > :59:00.nicked by the police. They have something on me
:59:01. > :59:05.that I can actually remember. The final chapter between
:59:06. > :59:10.Gibson and Spector.