25/10/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


The government backs a new third runway at Heathrow, but faces


opposition from rival airports, and government ministers.


Remember the newspaper hacking scandal?


Today a new press regulator could be approved which could trigger


new rules described by the press as "draconian".


Billions of taxpayer pounds are paid by the government to companies


Does out-sourcing ensure value-for-money, or put


And we talk about politics being an art, but it's also a science,


It's not going to explode, we shouldn't stand back?


I'm fairly confident it won't explode!


And I can confirm it did not explode!


All that in the next hour and with us for the whole


of the programme today is Kulveer Ranger, head


of public affairs for ATOS, the IT services company which has


contracts with the UK government worth over


Kulveer also worked for Boris Johnson when he was London mayor.


So, the big decision on Heathrow expansion has been


Theresa May's Cabinet approved plans for a new, third runway


But there's to be more consultation in the new year,


Speaking in the last hour, the Transport Secretary Chris Grayling


said building a third runway at Heathrow was the best option for


This is a really big decision for this country,


but it is also the clearest sign post the referendum


that this country is very clearly open for business.


We have thought long and hard about this,


the committee considered all three options.


There were three very good options on the table,


but we believe a third runway for Heathrow is the best


option for our future, it is the best option for the whole


country to create better connectivity to the different


regions in the United Kingdom, and to provide the best


So we think this is the right decision for Britain.


My message to Gatwick, I know this will be a disappointment


for them, but Gatwick remains a really important part


of our transport system and will continue being so.


But what today is about is doing the right thing for Britain,


doing the right thing for the whole country,


delivering the best option that will secure all of our futures


and working to create a country that works for everyone.


The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling. Already opponents have


expressed their anger at the decision. The Conservative MP for


Richmond Park is that Goldsmith tweeted:


He had always threatened to resign if they gave the third runway at


Let's get the latest from our correspondent, Eleanor Garnier.


It was working at the's worst kept secret. Nearly 50 years of delay,


dithering, enquiries and commissions and we have finally had that


decision, that it will be a third runway at Heathrow. It has been the


preferred option of successive governments and the Airport


Commission had recommended that plan. But it will be controversial,


there will be legal wrangling is, appeals, concern over the impact on


the environment. But today was a big moment, we finally got the decision,


and there will be criticism on both sides. Things will not move quickly.


We will have a year-long consultation before MPs get a vote


on the Heathrow option in the Commons next year. We could see a


by-election with Zac Goldsmith, the MP for Richmond, threatening to


stand down as an independent if Heathrow got the go-ahead. But do


not expect things to move quickly. We know about splits, Boris Johnson,


Justine Greening, in the Cabinet, to name just two. What will happen to


them? That is why we got an inkling last week that it might be Heathrow.


Theresa May said she would be listening to limited Cabinet dissent


and they will be allowed to voice their opposition to this idea for


Heathrow. But they will not be allowed to be critical in the


Commons, they will not be allowed to campaign. Those in Cabinet who want


to express their opposition to the plan must have done so already, they


must have already established their views. Already on the TV and in the


papers they have said publicly they have opposed the idea, but they need


the green light from Theresa May. The idea that many of us had Boris


Johnson lying down in front of the bulldozers, I do not think that will


happen. What about the others in Parliament? We know Jeremy Corbyn


does not like the idea of expansion at Heathrow. They are yet to decide


whether it will be a free vote for the Labour Party or not. But the


government will not have a problem with numbers getting the vote


through. We know the SNP will vote for the expansion at Heathrow


because it will help conductivity to Scotland and we know the SNP are


behind this idea. You work for Boris Johnson very closely with him and


for him and his views are clear about airport expansion. Where do


you stand now? Boris and I were never on the same flight path. I am


a child of the flight path, I grew up in Hounslow in west London and I


understand the challenges local people face with Heathrow expansion.


But also the businesses, the local economy, the national economy and


conductivity. This is what we are talking about, collectivity.


Infrastructure, transport, rail, connections to the south-west and


Birmingham and beyond and Heathrow is ideally placed. It is at capacity


and it has got half a billion or more of Crossrail link being built


to it, which will help to get people to and from the city. The worries


about airport noise and pollution, those issues will be met. The


government has put strict stipulations on times of flights.


That was one of the areas that many campaigners thought it was the late,


because pollution concerns. You always got Boris Island was a mad


idea? No, but what we must remember is how far the Conservatives have


come. At the end of the last Labour administration, Jeff who made an


announcement that it would be Heathrow and then the Labour


government road back. The Conservatives in 2005 and 2006 said


it was only going to be rail capacity that would be driven and


they did not see any aviation increase. Boris in his time as Mayor


made the case for why they are needed to be an aviation capacity


increase in the and the Thames estuary was an option put forward.


Will it ever happen? We have talked about how long it has taken to get


to this point, a decision. It will not happen very soon in terms of


building work, will we see a third runway at Heathrow? We have got a


convergence of issues. We have a Prime Minister who has a vice like


grip on the Cabinet. Other Cabinet ministers are given scope to


undertake this, but there is a limited amount of criticism. We also


have a country that is looking in a post-Brexit and post-referendum era


and saying, how do we demonstrate our ability to trade? How do we


demonstrate we are still a powerful nation? We need some real power that


comes through, showing we can build and deliver things like this which


is crucial to our economy. I think it is the best time for it to get


The question for today is: The London Mayor, Sadiq Khan,


has landed a cameo role in which TV programme?


At the end of the show Kulveer will give us the right answer.


In a small meeting room in central London, a group of little-known men


and women are meeting right now to make a decision about the future


The Press Recognition Panel was established following the newspaper


hacking scandal which led to the closure of the News


At the heart of all this is the question of how


much should our press be regulated in a free society?


In 2011, following the phone hacking scandal, David Cameron set up


the Leveson Inquiry to examine the culture, ethics


Following Lord Leveson's recommendations, the government


enacted a Royal Charter which in turn set up


a Press Recognition Panel to choose a new press watchdog.


The terms of the Royal Charter can not be changed unless agreed


by a two thirds majority in both houses of Parliament.


So far only one organisation, called Impress, has applied


It has the backing of privacy campaigner Max Mosley and the author


Most of the big newspapers are opposed to what they see


as state regulation of the press, and instead set up their own rival


regulator, called Ipso, which won't apply to be


the officially recognised press regulator.


If Impress is approved by the Press Recognition Panel


today, section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act could be triggered


which means any publishers which don't sign up to Impress


would be forced to pay the legal costs of libel actions brought


against them, even if they win the case.


Newspapers, including the Sun and the Daily Mail, say this


is an affront to democracy and will encourage spurious claims.


Campaigners say Section 40 will ensure newspapers


are properly regulated and respect people's privacy.


We've been joined by Max Mosley, the former head of Formula One


who has been campaigning for more stringent regulation


of the press since the News of the World published stories


He later won a privacy court case against the newspaper.


He's a former deputy editor of the News of the World.


First of all, we understand the government is not intending to


implement legislation that would make the press liable for libel


costs, but it will be kicked into the long grass. Are you disappointed


with that? If that happens, I will be disappointed. At the moment if


you are on the victim of a libel or breach of privacy or harassment,


although sort of thing is, if you want to sue the newspaper, you have


to be buried rich. Very few people can risk ?1 million. The rest of the


population, more than 99%, I left with no recourse. The point of all


this legislation is there would be a recognised regulator which would


have an arbitrary system which the papers could use and the individual


could use and it would give access to justice. It is all about access


to justice. Without that stick, or without the ability to call on


section 40 of the act, do you think the regulator will be finished


before it has even started? No, I do not think so. Even if the government


decide they do not want to implement section 40, they will have to come


up with something. You cannot leave 99% of the population with no


redress if they are produced by the press. In that case, what is wrong


with the idea of Impress? There is already the other regulator, so what


is wrong with Impress? There are two issues, the inadequacies of Impress,


it is an axe grinding farce. Why? I will come onto that. Secondly there


is the background to it. It is the wholly bought property of Macs. Max


is bankrolling... This is fantasy. I am bankrolling a charity which


exists to bankroll a Levenson compliant regulator. It could be if


so, it could be anybody. They decide which potential regulator they are


going to... It is not true to say he is bankrolling this group because he


could be funding any regulator that is chosen by this independent panel.


It is all software history. The truth of the matter is that he set


up something called the Independent Press Regulation Trust and that is


bankrolling a bunch of like-minded, hacked off, and press campaigners to


the tune of just under ?1 million for four years. He is one of the


very few, and certainly the major provider, of funds for Impress. If


it is set up... It is setup, it is whether it will be official


regulator. In the contract I have seen and has been published, you can


withdraw funding from it at ten days' notice. The vital essence of


the need for a press regulator is for that to be independent. Why is


it not independent if it has been chosen by an independent panel? He


is paying for it. Are you saying he is bribing the panel? That is a more


complex issue about funding. But the significance of this is when Lord


Levenson called for an independent regulator, he said a couple of


things that were absolutely essential. He said the new system of


regulation should not be considered sufficiently effective if it does


not cover all significant news publishers. Impress has


approximately... You answer the claim that you are


somehow behind all of this and then we will come onto the support. What


it's all about is access to justice, the only thing that matters to me is


that... This is... Access to justice, ipso, for a start, is


completely own, completely controlled and played for by the


major newspapers. -- paid for it really is controlled. In this case


we have a person giving to a charity which in turn gives to a charity.


Don't interrupt, you have had your say, let me have mine. This is done


by an independent body. Impress has got all independent people. I don't


even know two of the three trustees involved in the charity. Impress is


completely independent. I run a charity which funds it, but in the


case of Ipso it is all paid for by the major newspapers and they can


cut it off, they can fire people, whatever. It is true, it has been


set up by news proprietors, when you are criticising Max Mosley for his


role in terms of Impress it is also true to say that Ipso was set up by


newspaper proprietors to be a self regulator, so this is something you


could argue in terms of sophistry, it is being run and funded by


newspapers. It is being run by newspapers, it is not being run by


newspapers. Certainly the finances and the people who are investing in


it, as it were, include the Berry Times, the Campbell packet, the


Newcastle Chronicle... 90% of newspapers in this country are


members of ipso. -- Bury Times. That is the problem. Let me put it to


you. One of the biggest problems is about trust in the regulator. People


will question the trust they might have in Ipso because it is run and


set by newspapers themselves, but Impress does not have enough support


from major contributors or newspapers or publications, it is


very small, so how are you going to command the trust of people like


Neil Wallis? The complaint of the major newspapers is that if impress


is recognised, there will be under pressure to join it, because then


they get the benefit of the independent arbitration which works


on both sides, plus, they have all the benefits for the smaller press.


Who at the moment, aren't properly protected. Small


small newspapers will die if this goes ahead. Nonsense. Why? If you


work for a small local newspaper, the vast majority, hundreds upon


hundreds, it is already a dreadful thing if you are sued for libel,


whether you win or not, it is it is immensely expensive. The problem, if


you bring this in and bring in section 40, somebody can spuriously


bring a libel action... This is the whole point. You have got to... Try


honesty... Talk about honesty, you work for the News of the World, you


must be joking! The reason is, when the small newspapers, if one of the


small newspapers at the moment upset somebody rich in the neighbourhood,


they can be sued, and it would put them out of business. Under Impress


and under the regulator, when you have cheap arbitration, that same


local newspaper can defend itself against a rich individual, if, when


Wallaroos, he has got to pay all the costs. Neil Wallis, what are you


frightened of, you have been given a choice, this was agreed by MPs, this


was passed, in the Houses of Parliament. And there is now a


choice for newspapers to sign up to Impress, let's say that they become


the recognised regulator, and then you don't pay or get landed with


punitive costs if you win a case that is brought against you. Surely


that is a fair choice? No, well, no, if you win a libel action, under


this scheme, you pay both sides of the libel action. Not if you have


signed up to the official regulator. The point is, and... There is a


choice, you just don't want to do either. The press recognition panel


is appointed by the government, the government therefore... The state is


deciding... That is not true, we will overlook it, but it is not


true. The state is interfering with the free press, which has been there


for 320 years, the result of this is going to be... But we have had... We


have had Lord Levy sin's enquiry. The world has moved on. The last


government decided it was not going to enforce this. There is a problem


here, there is a dilemma, facing the government, if they recognised


Impress, the onus is going to be on the newspapers who set up their own


regulator, Ipso, to sign up, and if they don't, then they are going to


be liable for costs which they say are Draconian, even if they win a


case brought against them. There is a fundamental problem, passionately


displayed by this debate, because it is about trust and it is about


influence. I am all for the great British free press, it is a Bastian,


a beacon to the world in terms of... Will it no longer be free? Trust


issue has been shaken by what we have seen, Ledson has tried to look


at that. -- both sides have challenges, because of where the


funding comes from. The government needs to look at that. -- bastion.


-- Leveson. It might do that by not committing to section 40 of the


crime and court at all Impress. We need to leave it there, thank you


very much. We were talking about Zac Goldsmith, Tory MP, who said he


would resign and force a by-election, he says he intends to


honour that commitment, in Richmond Park and Kingston north in protest


of the decision of the government to back a third runway at Heathrow. His


local Conservative Association has confirmed that. There will be a


by-election there. It's been another embarrassing month


for private providers One major company left


staff at a school in Another had their contract


to allocate tax credits when the private sector was going


to make everything more efficient? In a moment I'll discuss that


with our guest of the day, Kulveer Ranger, and the Shadow Work


and PensionS Secretary The government contracting for


public services is big is knit and getting bigger, to show you how big,


we will outsource our graphics, two members of the public. We are trying


to outsource our graphics. I haven't got a clue...! Let's see... The


government now spends about 98 billion on outsourcing of privately


run public services. A year. A year. Can we ask you to help us with our


graphics. Around ?1 in every ?3 of taxpayer money spent on public


services goes to non-public sector providers. Is that a good headline?


For me to put on that paper, that would be rubbish! It might not make


a good headline, but it is a lot of money, what is it spent on? Mainly


it is spent on health, defence, justice, transport, and welfare. You


are a natural! LAUGHTER Thank you! Actually, I am quite shy!


Governments have for years contacted at a range of straightforward and


sensitive public services for a number of reasons. The good reasons


are, there is people out there who can provide a service better than


government can provide it itself, more efficient and effective and at


a better price, that might be a good reason to outsource something.


Sometimes it is done for bad reasons, people in central


government think, we just need to get the costs down. If that is the


main driver, the first driver, it is not that likely to work. Terribly


well. Lord Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office in the last


coalition government, oversaw a mini transformation of public service


providers turning private, to boost the productivity of the state sector


work. I used to visit these, and ask people, would you go back and work


for the government, the NHS, Council, whatever. Never had anyone


say anything other than, no. Why not, because they can do things,


free from bureaucracy. We saw productivity go up in leaps and


bounds, almost literally overnight. Despite the so-called mutuals, world


of outsource public contracts is still dominated by a few large


private companies, which have mastered the art of bidding for


them. And projects regularly suffer from week contract management. The


policy of people, permanent secretaries, by and large, not as


close of, and the people who run big operations in government are the


blue-collar people, they always have to remain a bit below the sword, and


that is wrong. Spectacular failures have made alarming headlines.


Tonight at ten, the security companies accused of massively


overcharging the taxpayer for tagging criminals. Also tonight...


The focus of protests, now at us, the company running the fitness to


work tests, asked to end their contract early. -- Atos. VOICEOVER:


It is supposed to be the nation's great global games, that it is


protected by eight web security firm accused of letting down the country.


The computer was meant to integrate medical records across is the


juicing. It was a real train crash, I watched it burn taxpayer cash and


it still is not finished, even though the government announced in


2011 they were dispensing with it, it is still going on. This goes back


to how you write contracts in the first buys, billions has been spent


to no avail. MPs complained, contractors often overpromise and


under deliver, proper scrutiny from government still lacking.


We've been joined by Labour's Shadow Work


and Pensions Secretary, Debbie Abrahams.


And of course Kulveer Ranger is still with us.


He's head of public affairs for ATOS, which has over half


a billion pounds' worth of contracts with the government.


Atos has come in for criticism for failing to deliver, it has not been


a great advert for government outsourcing. In the context of


government outsourcing and where that has evolved, we believe that we


deliver value for money, the Cabinet Office review said that this summer,


it went so far as to say that we go beyond some of the requirements.


Over the last 20 years I have been involved in public and private


sector partnerships, delivering major infrastructure services. I was


very fortunate to be involved in delivering the Oyster card, PFI,


that came to deliver some technology. The vast majority of


work that the private sector does does not get the positive


recognition. That may be the majority, but these are not


insignificant failures of Atos, at the time it was handling the work


capability assessment, tens of thousands of sick and disabled


people were wrongly assessed as being fit for work. You can imagine


the suffering that causes those people while you are looking at it


from a bureaucratic, technocratic view, these are real people. Your


assessment were described as farcical after you decided that


people with lifelong diseases like Parkinson's would be better and


available to work, how did you get it wrong? Everyone has learned from


those mistakes, the challenge for people in public and private, have


you learn from those mistakes, when dealing with services and making


sure the right result is delivered, you handle those properly. If you


are delivering services such as delivering the integration IT for


the Olympic Games, running the BBC, services for departments across


government, in the private sector as well, we make sure services get


delivered in the way that they best benefit people. The idea here is to


learn. The generation of partnership between government and private


sector. Do companies like Atos, have they learned? I'm not so sure but we


must bring in the government as well, they have culpability in terms


of the contract they have awarded, since 2010, they have doubled to ?88


billion. We need to be able to demonstrate that there is value for


money for the taxpayer. As you rightly pointed out, in terms of


things like the work capability assessment, such is the personal


independent payment process, Atos is still involved in that, there are


huge issues with these processes. What issues are there, we can put


them... The point you raised before, in terms of the accuracy.


Unfortunately, when the contract are set up, performance management of


them, it is about getting claimants off flow. That is what is driving


them. Atos has responsibility but it is not just that. Let's pick up your


point about the principle behind this, is Labour actually against the


idea of outsourcing government contract? We should not be saying


private, bad, public, good, or vice versa. Are you saying private bad?


No, I have never said that. I have said there is particular issues. You


said they have doubled, you have said... My point... My point was


that... My point was that the government decides these contracts,


awards these contracts, it is an ideological approach that the


government has taken, not just with employment support, and work


capability assessments, fit for work, but also with health care,


looking at the 2012 health and social care, all of that,


privatisation act and it was given in that direction. Ideological with


the last Labour government who first gave the contracts?


What about the last Labour government? They gave contract out.


We did not get it right. They now believe it is not fit for purpose.


Under Jeremy Corbyn Labour will not pursue these sorts of contracts in


the way they did before 2010. We want to replace it with a holistic,


Person centred approach, looking at their needs, whether they are skills


related, health and care or housing and transport. Can you deliver a


holistic approach to this? The key to this is to work with government


and understand their requirements and to help deliver the best outputs


for the people. We are in the Europe, this is the key proper


technology perspective, is we see new services that can be designed


and new ways for governments to deliver better outcomes for people


and we need a new industrial strategy that this government wants


to set up. It will help care, the services and the front line. But the


track record is not good. It may be improving, but it has not been good.


Debbie Abrahams raises an important point, in the end if you are dealing


with these sorts of issues in terms of payments to disabled people or


tax credit claims, if there is a profit motive at the heart of the


operation, that surely does encourage by its very nature


cost-cutting at the expense of a holistic, fair assessment of the


person. What you and Debbie I demonstrating very well is now the


private sector is equally responsible for the government to


implement government policy and we take that very seriously to say we


care about the services we are delivering because we are the ones


associated with it. But profit is still the most important? You have


to deliver a value to the government, to the taxpayer and the


shareholders. But you do not see any major organisations who do outsource


various parts of their organisations, whether it be private


sector companies or the IOC, saying we can do it ourselves, they are


looking for good and trusted partners to help deliver the


services. You cannot do without the private sector, whether you are


delivering tax credits or independence payments to people on


benefits. Surely the private sector has to be involved? We have not said


anything about the third sector and during the summer I visited a whole


niche of charities such as those delivering support to homeless


people, those enabling work and giving support to disabled people,


making a huge difference, and we need more of that type of approach


as well. In terms of the government outsourcing to the private sector,


it has doubled to ?88 million during the coalition years according to the


Financial Times. Has that gone too far? The whole thing is about value.


We still have a government structure from Victorian times with massive


departments with thousands of people working in their not sharing


information. We are entering into a technology world where people


experience the way they deal with banks, businesses, food being


delivered to their door, and the relationship between the state and


the citizen will be changed through the prism of technology. We will see


a real change and there will be more private sector involvement, but


fundamentally focus on value for money and the citizen. We have to


So, just before we came on air transport secretary Chris Grayling


confirmed that the government would support a third


But not all his colleagues on the Conservative benches


Zac Goldsmith has told his constituency that he intends to


honour his pledge to resign and for a by-election.


Dr Tania Mathias, explaining her opposition to Heathrow expansion.


I am appalled by the decision, but for myself and my constituents I


still believe Heathrow expansion will not happen, I believe it is not


deliverable. I expect there will be consultation and scrutiny and the


facts will bear out and we will find out Heathrow cannot expand. It is


too costly, it cannot be done in the time period, there will be legal


challenges and the pollution aspect are becoming clearer and clearer,


month by month, so it just will not happen.


We've been joined by the co-leader of the Green Party,


Jonathan Bartley, and by the Labour MP Gavin Shuker.


Gavin, I understand you have been trying to coordinate the response of


Labour MPs. Well most of them backed the decision? I think they will, I


think the majority of Labour MPs wanted a decision and now we have


got it and the majority favoured Heathrow. It will be better for us


as a party to be clear about it. Do you think there will be a free vote?


We know John McDonnell, he is a long-standing opponent of expansion


at Heathrow, and the leader Jeremy Corbyn do not want this, so what


will the line be? We are waiting to find out. Our Shadow Transport


Secretary was very clear that he was edging towards a decision on


Heathrow. But the party having a decision on Heathrow does not


preclude individual constituency MPs from representing their constituents


on the issues that they feel strongly about. But it is important


for the British public to know where the Labour Party stands. But you


cannot seem to get the complete consensus on both sides. Were you


supporting one of the other three options being put forward or are you


just against all airport expansion? It is disappointing to see Labour


lining up with the government on this. We cannot expand aviation if


we are to meet our climate change targets. You think it is impossible


to meet those targets? This drives a wrecking ball through those targets.


We have to look at the demand for aviation and we have to bring it


down. It is not about people taking a family holiday, it is 70% of


flights taken by 15% of the population, frequent flights, and we


need a levy to bring it down. You believe we can meet those targets,


how can you both be right? We cannot be and I am, actually. That is OK


then. They do not take my word for it. Take the airports commission,


take the bodies that we charged with meeting our budgets. There is an


economic case. If we do that, we cannot meet our carbon climate


change budgets and targets. What makes you convinced we cannot? It is


based on such flimsy evidence. They did not even agree with the


transport Department over carbon emissions. This has been the result


of huge lobbying by airports who want to make a lot of money. It is


not about economic growth, that will be minimal. It does not tackle the


underlying issues, that we have to tackle our climate change targets.


There is look at deliverability. Will it happen? Yes, it will, but it


requires clear targets from government and it is up to both


parties to make sure it does. You think the Labour Party will fall in


line. Will it happen or will it be held up by those who are preparing


legal arguments against it? Would it be there? We will have to go through


a number of different stages and the government has laid out how they


believe it should go about this, but if you are asking me if I think by


2030, the government's deadline, that a third runway will be in place


for that? I think it will be, but we have to make tough decisions to


deliver it. I'm saying is that it's an argument. In terms of people


living near the airport, and the stop when you look at the figures in


the Airport Commission report it said about ?11 billion benefit over


a third of a cup of copy of everyone who comes through Heathrow. For all


those people who will have their quality of life destroyed, new roads


are put through their area, maybe using new homes, that is something


they are not calling for. Are we going to see months and months of


wrangling before Heathrow can even start to be built? A 12 month period


has been set out by government, said that is a clear period of time of


discussion. What we have on the delivery, if this Prime Minister and


government stake in place for a significant period of time, this


airport will have to happen. The case has been made and even the


previous Labour government got the point where they said it has to


Heathrow. But it did not happen. They made the case right at the end


of their time in office and that is not the best point, especially when


you lose an election. But how do we get the rest of the country to see


the value of Heathrow? The conversation that has held up


Heathrow has been focused on the impact. The pollution conversation,


when we look at the impact of pollution right now from the planes


having to circle London because they cannot get their slots, that needs


work. You are saying how do you convince the country and the people


around? This is a protest outside the houses of parliament today. Are


we just going to see months and months of this going on while the


political arguments are being made? I am sure we will see a huge range


of protests around Heathrow and by those activists there. All those


people represented by Unite and GMB want this and he argued there will


be protests is an insufficient one to prevent the government from


making a decision. It is not just protest, it is about legal


challenges and the government tearing up the climate change act.


There will be legal challenges on that. They have had plenty of time


to think about it this year and it is part of the process. One of the


problems for Labour is that the Mayor of London said a government


decision taken to day on Heathrow was wrong with a capital and he will


continue to talk about his opposition for the project. How


difficult is it for Labour? It is as difficult for us as it is for Boris


Johnson and Justine Greening being against it in the Cabinet. But we


need to get on with it. We'll Boris Johnson lie in front of those


bulldozers? I was watching the video to see if he was lying there. He has


made his position clear. Sadiq Khan, the Mayor, needs to see what is best


for London. He is building Crossrail and it has a direct link to


Heathrow. It was put in to ensure capacity for Heathrow. He needs to


have a conversation about collectivity and what is best for


Heathrow and for this country in an economic sense. I am going to say


thank you to all of you. I am going to say thank


you to all of you. With financial pressures bearing


down on the NHS in England, the government has been looking


at how to bring down Yesterday, the Health Secretary


Jeremy Hunt told the House of Commons that a new approach


to working with big pharmaceutical companies could deliver huge savings


and get cutting-edge drugs This government is committed


to ensuring that patients get access to innovative and cost effective


medicines as quickly as possible. I want to pay tribute to the work


carried out by my honourable friend the member for Mid Norfolk


who worked tirelessly in government to promote


the life sciences industry, and who established the accelerated


access review to provide clear recommendations on how


the government, the NHS and industry can work together to ensure patients


benefit from transformative That review is published today


and is an excellent document which challenges everyone in the


medicine system to up their game. Jeremy Hunt speaking


during the second reading of the Health Service Medical


Supplies Bill yesterday. We've been joined by


the former Life Sciences This is about streamlining NHS


processes and according to figures, the NHS drugs bill has gone up by 8%


in England to ?15.5 billion, despite a cap at 12 billion pounds, so it


has exceeded it. Is the NHS drugs bill too high or too low? In my view


the NHS is under extraordinary pressure from the pace of


developments in the life sciences industry, people living longer,


incredible life expectancy gains, breast cancer is curable and now


with you immune therapy is their IQ is for cancer. The issue is we are


facing extraordinary rises in the cost. Individual drugs cost 250,000


a year. It is not about blame, it is about a


new model. The NHS is the world's only universal health system, with


the research infrastructure to be a partner in developing these drugs,


these new drugs, and the idea is, by using genetics and data and research


excellence, we will be the first place in the world where these new


drugs are targeted, and we get a discount or even a royalty. Is it


affordable? If you say... It saves money. Does it, in the long term...


If it keeps climbing, in what way is it affordable? Nobody expects the


cost of medicine in an ageing society to go down, but what we are


doing is making sure the NHS get more value back from research


structure, so the rate of the increased flat and is up. So we can


get new drugs quickly to patients and we can get a discounted price


and or even royalties. The pharmaceutical Journal, has risen by


59.8% over the past four years, even taking into account your tailoring


off in however many years' time, how is the government going to square


the still rising cost of medicine while asking the NHS to make savings


to the tune of ?22 billion? The BMA says it is mad. There is measures in


place, in terms of drugs, the pharmacy reforms, reducing the cost


of dispensing drugs and processing drugs, but this reform, accelerated


access, goes right to the heart of it, allowing us to fundamentally


reduce the cost and time cost of developing medicines. Imagine the


NHS today, nice is recommending some drugs, the NHS is very slowly


fermenting recommendations, this transforms it, allowing us to pull


them in quickly, that is the most valuable thing that we can give


industry, early access. -- implementing recommendations. And


then over time we will be paid a royalty. You keep mentioning that,


you are very pleased about it. You should be as well, we will get drugs


farm or cheaply. Should you be worried about the relationship with


pharmaceutical companies, are you bound to pressure? Not at all, it is


going through a transformation, the way the drugs are developed is


changing, a lot of those changes are led in this country and we are


having to redesign the way the industry works with the NHS, we


would not have any of these drugs without the life science industry,


great industry, but we cannot expect to produce ever more expensive


medicines or us in a universal tax payer system to buy them at retail


prices. This is a unique way of saying we have a unique asset in the


NHS, and we will give businesses reason to come to the NHS, to the


UK, and give cheaper drug. When it comes to medical advances the NHS


has a reputation for lagging behind, have patients been missing out up


until now for the best and most innovative treatments for things


like cancer. We have slowly come in the last couple of decades, the UK


has moved from being right at the vanguard, we have slipped down the


league tables, this reform is about, particularly in cancer, that is


partly because type of drugs coming through our very different. This is


an admission that the UK has lagged behind, why hasn't the government


done anything about it. This has been going on for some time. We have


been lagging behind, we have set up research fund into drugs that nice


were saying no to, but we are leading the world as a research


engine, and the NHS helping to get quick access to patients to new


medicines, and a deal that we can afford. That is the big reform. Is


that a good idea, actually cutting the waiting time for new drugs, in


your mind is that going to be safe for patients? Sounds to me like we


have fallen down in the pecking order in how well the health service


has been performing in terms of other parts of the world but we are


trying to address is to teach each challenge within the supply chain of


the NHS with this idea. I think that we should cautiously welcome it, if


it does do what it is trying to do, which is deliver better value, early


engagement with those people that are developing the drugs we need, we


still have the increasing burden of an ageing population more demands on


the NHS. There is a difficult opposition, supply chain management


issue, which if it can deliver both value for money and the quality of


the product which enhances lives of people in terms of better results


then I think we have got to see how it works out. The new hepatitis C


drugs that are coming, the NHS is buying them, they cost a fortune,


the Italians bought them first and discovered that a large number of


patients don't need a full 12 week course, it is a genetic


predisposition. I would like us to discover that and get the benefit of


the saving. Stay with us. More from you.


The city of Nottingham has been making its voice heard here in


Westminster today - because the 25th of October is... Nottingham in


Parliament Day. Sounds exciting doesn't it? One of the many events


was a real life science experiment, conducted by Nottingham University's


chemistry supremo Professor Martyn Poliakoff - we'll talk to him in a


moment - and the Science Minister, Joe Johnson. But can you mix


politics and science? We sent Ellie to find out.


So, we talk a lot about how politics is an art, but how


Happily, I found a politician and a scientist.


Well, I'm here with Professor Martin Poliakoff from the University


of Nottingham who is going to demonstrate the effect


of increasing carbon dioxide and the acidification effect


In front of us? Right now in front of us.


What exactly is going to happen then?


What we have here is some water which has an indicator in it


which changes colour when acid is put in and we are putting


in carbon dioxide which we are putting in as a solid.


As it dissolves, the colour changes and you can see it goes


quite yellow, which is indicating that it is acid.


And the... It won't explode.


I'm fairly confident it won't explode.


And the minister is now going to add some coral.


This delicious Fanta concoction we have just made.


This will show that if you have got a calcium shell,


like a bit of coral, you are gradually, very


slowly, going to dissolve in this acidified...


Your role in this? Look, there it is, bubbling around.


It all looks rather impressive, but obviously there is a bit


This shows why it is so important to control the amount of carbon


dioxide in the atmosphere which is getting caught


in our oceans and making the oceans increasingly acidified.


Even a small increase in acidity over time will effect


the organisms because the change is happening much faster


Because it is based on physical chemistry,


the rate at which things dissolve, then it is not clear


that the animals could ever evolve to cope with this larger


It certainly gives you something to think about as a politician.


It certainly does. I am liking the white jacket.


Yes, thank you very much, courtesy of Nottingham


which I visited yesterday to see the extraordinary university there.


It is at the cutting edge of so much that is at the heart


of our education system and I am delighted that Nottingham


in Parliament today is demonstrating that to a wider audience.


Excellent, and bringing interesting science to Westminster.


It is fantastically important to communicate that science


is helping us to address these global issues in this way.


Excellent, chaps, thank you very much.


All that is left for me to tell you is the most interesting thing


about chemistry that I remember is the atomic number of zinc is 30.


I'm very impressed that you remember that, very exciting me, I have got a


bubbling potion in front of me... I don't want any jokes about witches!


I thought it might be my cocktail hour! I'm not going to try that.


Professor Martyn Poliakoff has joined us in the studio.


Tell us again what this demonstrates. This tube contains


water with an indicator that changes colour from alkaline to acid. We


have dropped in solid carbon dioxide which has made the solution acid. It


is orange. I demonstrated to the Minister with some vinegar, to


convince him that the indicator works with acid. The idea is to show


that when CO2 dissolves in water, it increases the acidity, and


therefore, if you have organisms like shells and coral, then you can


see we have a bit of coral here. Scottish coral. What was the point


of view doing this with the minister outside Parliament? What point are


you trying to make? We are trying to demonstrate that with increasing CO2


levels in the atmosphere, it is making the Seymour acid. Not a huge


increase in acidity but enough to start affecting the organisms. And,


if you increase the solubility of the calcium carbonate, that makes


the shelves, then it is difficult for the organisms to start forming


their shells. How worried should we be? They are enough to be


concerning, it is not a huge rise in acidity but it is enough to have


three times as many hydrogen irons, three times the strength, as it


would have been without the extra CO2. -- ions. The problem is that it


is happening rapidly, the organisms do not have time to evolve and


change behaviour and chemistry. Are you convinced something needs to be


done about the effect of climate change, that it is having on the


oceans? Yes, and one of the things we are doing in this country, we are


a science superpower, not military, but in science, in medicine, in


food, we are a superpower, we can help the world develop sustainably.


We are helping Martin, we are helping lean tech and biotech and


chemical sciences. And through the industrial strategy, which we will


be unveiling shortly, you will see a robust approach to taking signs and


making a global impact. Are these kind of days, Nottingham in


Parliament date, are they important to representing and it's pressing


the things about which you are passionate? It is very important, it


is important to talk with policymakers. -- impressing the


things. It is important, science and the economy, to the region,


Nottingham, but also to show that science is fun and enjoyable. And it


is great fun, having this in here, I presume it won't explode, is the


government is doing enough? The government, in principle, is


supportive, we have the Autumn Statement, coming up shortly. We


hope to demonstrate whether or not you are actually supportive. What we


really need is an increased investment in science, why was


saying to the Minister, Joe Johnson, that we need to put more money into


the training of technicians. Technicians are the real support for


researchers at universities, and the problem is, they are getting older,


and we are not feeding in a new generation fast enough to replace


people. Really well-made point, as well as the scientists, the eminent


scientists behind all this, there is a whole supply chain of technicians,


mechanical engineers, people who take science into the workplace.


Through our industrial strategy, we want to make sure we are investing


in the skill base so that everyone can take part in this incredibly


exciting economy. Thank you for coming in and demonstrating the


experiment, we were going to try to do another one, we do not have the


time, because we need to find out the answer to the quiz. That is


where you come in. has landed a cameo role


in which TV programme? Is it a) Doctor Who


b) Citizen Khan c) Luther


or d) Fleabag? So Kulveer,


what's the correct answer? I have no idea, so I am going to go


with Fleabag. But it is based in Birmingham! Why


cant... He's the Mayor of London, why is he in a show that is based


Birmingham? LAUGHTER The London Mayor plays a cricket


match spectator who gets mistaken for someone else and gets


nicked by the police. They have something on me


that I can actually remember. The final chapter between


Gibson and Spector.


Download Subtitles