27/06/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The government's one billion pound deal with the democratic unionist

party has been called a 'bung' by its opponents, but what impact

will it have on the restoration of power sharing in Northern

Theresa May has outlined her plans for EU citizens living

in the UK after Brexit, and the EU gives them

But are the two sides as far apart as they seem?

The government's controversial trade union law was designed to cut

the number of strikes - so has it worked and

This Iain Duncan Smith, sitting in this week... We want to hear your

views... Yes, the quiet man has been turning

up the volume on Radio 2 as the station gives former Tory

leader Iain Duncan Smith his own show for the week -

so was he any good? All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole of the programme today, it's

the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, Frances O'Grady -

it's the next best thing to being given your own radio show

Frances, although I'm afraid we don't have much

in the way of music. First today, let's talk

about the deal struck yesterday between the government

and the Democratic Unionist Party. The election result means that

Theresa May does not have enough Conservative MPs to be sure

of winning votes in Parliament and getting her business through -

so, she's agreed a deal that will see an extra ?1 billion spent

on the Northern Irish health service, education

and infrastructure. It guarantees Mrs May the support

of the DUP's 10 Mps in crucial Commons votes on Brexit,

the Budget and national security as well as any confidence votes

required to keep Mrs May in Downing The first secretary of state

Damian Green came to the Commons This agreement delivers

the certainty we need in the United Kingdom's national

interest at this crucial time. This agreement means the DUP

will support the Government on votes on the Queen's Speech,

the budget and on legislation relating to our exit

from the European Union, This is a shabby and a reckless

deal, which has taken the government true cost for the future of peace

in Northern Ireland could In Scotland, in Wales and other

English regions of the UK, the needs are just as great,

so when will the rest of the country The Government cannot be blind

to the fact that this agreement does place in jeopardy their role under

the Good Friday Agreement. We commit to transparency,

we are very open to that, and someday I'd like to think

we might publish all of the correspondence

and conversations we had in 2010 with the Labour front bench,

and in 2015 with the Labour front bench and, indeed,

with the SNP as well. As Westminster digests news

of the Conservative deal with the DUP, in Northern Ireland

the political parties face a day of intensive talks aimed at reaching

a deal of their own on a return They've been warned if they can't

reach an agreement, direct rule We can speak to our correspondence

at Stormont. There was some debate yesterday that the extra ?1 billion

might be dependent on the restoration of power-sharing but

that's not the case, is it? That was a question which puzzled politicians

here yesterday, whether or not no executive meant no cash from

Westminster but the understanding now is whatever happens here at

Stormont, the money will be coming to Northern Ireland, ?1 billion in

funding, that will go to health and education and also a big

infrastructure project. The hope is that politicians will be back in

their posts running the department here and they will decide how common

is spent but they know that if it is not the case, if they can't agree a

deal, that cash may well be spent by direct rule. Where are we in terms

of timing for power-sharing? Time is fast running out, there is the

deadline of Thursday at four o'clock, this process has been up

and running now for three weeks but the first late-night engagement

between Sinn Fein and the DUP happened last night. Some are saying

that the talks in London is created as a distraction and prevented any

momentum building up a behind the talks, that said, there was positive

engagement last night, Sinn Fein and the DUP are back talking in the

castle behind me, there are round table discussions pencilled in for

this afternoon but the issue still remains, they have to close the gap

on, all the money promised -- from Westminster won't change that. They

know that there is a big pot of money out there that needs to be

spent to ease some of the pressures on public services here. Give us a

sense of those issues that are red lines, also the party 's sake on

both sides? One of the big issues for Sinn Fein is the role of Arlene

Foster, they have said they will not accept her as First Minister, while

questioned secretary turn of the role in the botched renewable energy

scheme. The DUP save the cost will be minimised to some extent. Whether

or not Sinn Fein Quebec into an executive with Arlene Foster

remains, then we have the Irish language act, Sinn Fein say it's a

must for them, whereas Arlene Foster has already said that won't happen

under her watch so there needs to be significant movement from the DUP on

that, then we have the petition of concern which all the parties here

agree needs to be reformed. This is a blocking mechanism which allows

one party to stop legislation passing through, the parties say

against the change because it has been abused in the past. Then we

have a bill of rights to deal with. They are the essential issues which

the parties need to get to the bottom of if we are to move forward.

But there is no sense to get as close in on any of those issues. So

we're preparing for a long day of talks which could stretch into the

night, James burqa shire is go to London tomorrow the debate on the

Queen's speech save of the out of the loop, he is likely to be in

London on Thursday as well, so time is running out. Welcome to the

programme. The Welsh First Minister said the deal kills the idea of

their funding while Nicola Sturgeon has covered crabby and shameless.

Are you concerned about the impact of this favouritism and would it

will have on UK domestic relations? I am not concerned. Scotland and

Wales over the last couple of years have themselves received a total of

?1.3 billion in city deal funding, very similar to the funding Northern

Ireland has just received, so these claims are not founded. Its ?1

billion over roundabout three years... It's actually two years.

Some are two years, some are for years, so let's say three on

average. That is 0.04% of government spending. Let's keep these numbers

in proportion. So study has gone out of the window. We have been told for

years by coalition and successive governments that actually, the

country can't afford excessive spending and yet in order to buy

votes, to use the words of Carwyn Jones, you have been able to find ?1

billion, as you say, for two years. Let's put it in context, we're

finding ?8 billion for the NHS, ?4 billion for education announced in

the manifesto so you have to keep it in proportion. I don't think you can

point of this expenditure, which is proportionately not enormous, and

claim it is the end of austerity, I don't think it is. So in other words

austerity was a political choice, it wasn't a necessity, because we can

afford these things? Measured against the scale of government

spending, this is a small... More claims for them to be necessary was

not an economic necessity. It was because the deficit was 11% of GDP,

it's now down to 2.6 if we hadn't made that progress we would be

paying 2% on a national debt interest, like Spain or Portugal or

Italy and instead of interest grittiness ?46 million a year, it

will be costing us 100, so it was an absolute city. Do you see this ?1

billion as a down payment, Nicholas MacPherson said that how will turn

out to be, the DUP will come back for more? That is Spec edition, this

deal lasts... He should know. This deal last the lifetime of the

Parliament, till 2022, the deal is extremely clear... It will be

reviewed after two years. And unlike the correspondence between the DUP

and Labour in 2010 and 2015, this is all public, in the open, exactly how

it should be. Why was it necessary to do this deal at all than we knew

the DUP were going to support a Conservative government on key votes

like the budget and the Queen 's speech because the result could have

been Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister? Clearly the action result

was disappointing from a conservative perspective but what

happens now is the national interest is what matters, we have uncertainty

with the Brexit negotiations and to navigate those successfully, as I

hope and expect we will, it needs to be against the backdrop of

parliamentary stability. Over a couple of seats short of an overall

majority, this extra ten votes on key issues gives the country that

stability needs at a time of uncertainty. They would have voted

for you anyway. Given that our national interest is at stake, that

is not a gamble anyone can responsibly make. Are you saying

they would have voted down a Conservative government and allowed

the prospect, rightly or wrongly, of another election and Jeremy Corbyn,

who they do not support in any way, becoming Prime Minister? Had the DUP

choose to vote in six months, a year, is up to them, not you or me,

and given it is so important to have stability at this time of

negotiation, the government for a right to take absolutely no risks,

it is the responsible thing to do. You sort of implied there that you

could see the DUP reconciling their differences, particularly over Irish

nationalism, with Jeremy Corbyn? It's all speculation can you can't

take any risks, you can't make assumptions, you go for certainty in

the national interest. Except you have had such widespread criticism.

Do you welcome this extra funding going to health and education in

Northern Ireland? Of course Northern Ireland needs more investment in

schools and hospitals and getting its industries up and running, but

so does Scotland, so does Wales, so does England. Their escape to be a

real sense of unfairness here, that you can't just find the convenient

money tree when it is politically expedient to do so. Those cuts are

urging everybody across the nation and I would say to the national

interest to stop those cuts and think again because you heard it on

the doorsteps, people have had it up to here and they want their schools

and hospitals and new industries, critically, for growth, to be

invested in. We do want the NHS funded properly, and schools, but

Northern Ireland is unique, it has had this awful 40-year history of

the troubles, employment in Northern Ireland is 5% lower than the rest of

the UK, so they are a special case. The commitments of the Labour Party

made... The commitments they made, bribing the electorate with their

own money, what about 100 times bigger than the money we are talking

about for Northern Ireland. Talking about Northern Ireland, as a region,

it is long received the most generous funding in the UK, partly

because of some of the structural difficulties. Are you happy it is

heavily reliant, higher than any other part of the UK?

Unions in Northern Ireland have long our Jude for an intelligent

industrial strategy, just as we do and the rest of the UK, but me and

we is to get good jobs to get the wealth on which public services

depend. But there is this other worry. I personally feel uneasy

about what the implications of this deal are in the long term for the

Good Friday Agreement. I'm optimistic, as your reporter was,

that the Assembly will get up and running again but it does erode

trust when deals of convenience are done. What do you say to that?

Because there has been, again, a lot of criticism about threatening the

Good Friday Agreement. I don't think it will. If you read the agreement

signed yesterday, the DUP have reaffirmed their agreement to the

peace process and the Conservative government have reaffirmed their

unshakeable commitment to the Good Friday Agreement, the Belfast

agreement on everything critically, the Northern Ireland Secretary of

State is broken and I did not and will not participate in any of these

discussions with the DUP that have been taking place over the last few

weeks and may take place in the future, to make sure that his

impartiality as can be protected. Thank you very much.

Yesterday saw a first in the Commons - an MP making their maiden speech

claimed they were the first MP ever to sit in parliament with this name.

At the end of the show, Frances will hopefully give

Let's turn to the other big announcement in

That was the Prime Minister's proposal for what will happen

to the three million EU citizens resident in Britain after Brexit.

Under Theresa May's plan, all EU nationals lawfully resident

in the UK for at least five years will be able to apply

Those granted settled status will be able to live, work,

study and claim benefits as they can now.

They will also be able to bring over family members

in the UK for less than five years will be able to continue living

they'll be able to apply for settled status.

The cut-off date for eligibility is undecided -

but will be between 29th March 2017, when Article 50 was triggered,

and 29 March 2019, the date at which Britain is scheduled

Those arriving after the cut-off point will be able to stay

temporarily but with "no expectation" they will be granted

Theresa May said her plans were designed to put EU nationals'

"anxiety at rest" but must be reciprocal - giving

certainty to the British expats living in the EU.

She also insisted the UK should police the new rules rather

As I said, the Prime Minister came to the Commons yesterday

to explain her plan - let's take a look.

I know there's been some anxiety about what would happen to EU

citizens at the point we leave the European Union.

Today I want to put that anxiety to rest, I want to completely

reassure people that under these plans no EU citizen currently

in the UK lawfully will be asked to leave at the point

The Prime Minister went to Brussels last week to make what she described

as a generous offer to EU nationals in this country.

The truth is, it's too little, too late.

That could have been done and should have been done a year ago,

when Labour put that very proposal to the House of Commons.

It was more than concerning to open the document designed to settle

the lives of many of our EU citizens here, to discover that it

leaves many more questions than it does answers.

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister went to Brussels last week and presented

It fell short of expectations, with Dutch president Mark Rutte

stating, "There are thousands of questions

Is she going to take the opportunity to make sure that EU nationals

who sadly have come to this country and abused our hospitality

by committing crimes, she will use the full opportunity

of this to make sure they can be removed from our country?

Well, my right honourable friend, with one of his previous roles,

knows very well about the issue of those who have come to this

country and abused the rights that they have been given

by their criminality and I certainly will ensure that those

who are serious and persistent criminals, that we can take action

So that was the debate in the Commons.

The Government's proposals haven't been entirely well received in

Brussels, you may not be surprised to hear. The EU's chief Brexit

negotiator Michel Barnier has called for ambition, clarity and

guarantees. So how far apart are the two sides of this negotiation? We're

joined now by Leila Nathoo, our political correspondent. Is there a

big gulf between the EU's position and the UK proposal? The EU have

outlined their thinking, it is a bit broader than what Theresa May set

out in her document yesterday. There was a lot of agreement - there is a

shared desire, this is the central issue and one of the things they

want to get sorted out as soon as possible. They want to look after

all those EU citizens living in different countries and there is

agreement on the fact that those who have lived in the country for five

years continuously should then be able to have continued residency and

most of the rights of the citizens of that country. But there are a few

notable differences. Firstly, this issue of the cut-off date to drop

you mentioned that Theresa May was talking about the cut-off date for

the eligibility being no earlier than the 30th of March this year and

then no later than two years' time. The EU side aren't very clear that

they want all rights to be guaranteed right up until the Brexit

agreement is in place and comes into force. That is, of course, into my

career is time but who knows? The talks could drag on matters when

they won the eligibility to start from. The other big area of

difference is the ECJ. Theresa may very clear she wants to end the

jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, she wants the UK courts

to police this system. The EU completely at odds on that, saying

they see a continued role for the European Court of Justice. There are

finer details of what happened to families in the longer term. Nouri

EU wants the rights of families to be guaranteed in perpetuity, whereas

it is a bit vague on the UK side and there is some suggestion that

families will have to apply individually to be granted settled

status and that this settled status can be lost by anyone if they have

two years out of the country so I think if you finer points still to

be ironed out you mentioned Michel Barnier's tweet that he was looking

for more clarity, so I think there is still plenty more to be worked

out. Thank you very much. We're joined now by

Labour's Frank Field, who campaigned for Brexit

and is a former welfare minister. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Why

can't the UK just accept this document of the EU's position paper,

bearing in mind there is a lot of common ground and then negotiate on

things like who will be the arbiter to enforce those rights? Well, of

course it could. Should it? No. If we take the role but Frances O'Grady

has, it is like going into wage negotiation where you actually want

to map objectives, a pay increase and the employer in return wants

something from you, save more flexible working. The idea you would

go in and say, "Of course you can have a flexible working but we will

come along separately and deal with a pay increase"... You bargain with

a flexible working to get as big a pay increase as possible. My

criticism of the Government is that this statement, as you rightly,

gently, said, is vague, still, could have been made at the very going Mrs

May's stewardship to try and reassure people that we want people

to stay, that we should be weighed down in the negotiations now, not

with the negotiation of the direction of the nature of the

negotiations. The general statement she is now making, we are going into

these negotiations, we want people to stay, we want to enforce by law

people's freedoms and rights in this country. It could have been made

ages ago. The nature of the negotiations, that we want to get

the best deal for our people abroad as they want to get for their people

here, I think is right it And it is a negotiation. As Frank Field said,

if you play all your cards at the beginning and you just accept lock,

stock and barrel, apart from the issue of the ECJ, you have lost that

negotiation. I get lots of e-mails from members, particularly in the

NHS and social care, who are EU citizens working here, and also from

Britons abroad who also feel very uncertain about their status, and I

have to say it is quite distressing that these announcements are making

them feel more anxious about their futures. They don't know when the

cut-off date is, they don't know whether there will be an income

threshold, they can't plan. They pay taxes, they've done incredible jobs

here and they're being treated like bargaining chips and I would say as

a negotiator, actually, there are times when you show good faith by

putting something on the table that shows goodwill, that it is possible

to do something unilaterally because what you are trying to do is build

up trust and confidence for future negotiations. Ramuwai we're talking

about human beings, we're not talking about money or obscure parts

of treaties, we are talking about real people who are worried about

their future and it seemed to me this was the time the Government

really should have done the right thing and guaranteed. But I am

worried about Brits abroad also. And again, one of the real problems

Labour has is with part of its vote who feels that we put foreigners

first over our own kind and a deal, as Francis is describing, which if

we were in the garden of Eden, we would all sign up to, would

reinforce that point yet again. We have have not negotiated or

safeguarded the position of Brits abroad but guaranteed those people

who we want to stay state should stay, but it comes back to this

vagueness of the government. This could have been made me months ago

and it raises the bigger questions about how on top of the negotiations

the government is. But if the Government have made a unilateral

move, because these are people, and I also get correspondence from

people who are worried, but if they did throw down the gauntlet and say,

"We are doing this, we are going to hold the moral bar slightly higher,"

surely it would be up to the EU 27 members to meet our offer if we had

done it and if we still do take a position paper, it is only a

position paper. That will mean it will be up to the EU then to deny

our citizens the same rights and they wouldn't be seen in a very

positive light. I paid for my union membership and I would not like

Michael Stone member to negotiate for me on that strategy. -- I would

not like my union member. I am deeply critical that the Prime

Minister didn't at the very beginning use a prime ministerial

broadcast to say, "We need you, we actually value you and we're going

to go in to get the best possible deal, please feel as least alarmed

as possible". Had the work started then, I think we would have been

very near a conclusion of this part of the negotiations. But even if you

take it on your own terms as a negotiator, if you see this as a

negotiating issue, you've got to be able to follow through on any

threats you make, otherwise they're empty threats. Are we really saying

that we would deport nurses, care workers...

Who are saying that nurses care workers are going to be deported? I

haven't heard from any government minister and they have done

everything to say that that would not happen. That suggests to me that

it is not a conventional negotiation because that's not what... The

weakness is that they know we are pretty hopeless at controlling our

borders. The idea that... We can't get around to deporting criminals,

so the question you have from Mark Harper, that would be wonderful if

we can guarantee taxpayers that. The idea that we've got the resources,

the ability, to track and no, let alone the willpower, let alone the

authority, to deport people who are doing jobs in the NHS is moonshine.

So we go into these negotiations week because at the moment we cannot

even defend our own borders. Lets not talk about the European Court of

Justice because that is one of the big sticking points about who would

have jurisdiction. Keir Starmer today, obviously Labour's

negotiating person to do with Brexit, has said, actually, why

can't be ECG -- the ECJ BB and force of the rights of citizens of the EU?

Because one of the things about coming out is that they wouldn't be

able to. To enforce the rights of EU citizens of the UK? The EU court

would office the enforce the decisions that are made for Brits

living abroad in Europe in the EU. Our Supreme Court, if it has any

meaning at all of being the Supreme Court, would actually decide those

issues are people who we actually want to stay, who we need to stay,

because we've not got a policy of making sure we are going to fill

vacancies with a skills programme and welfare reform programme, so

over time we would become less dependent. But I think we will come

to a position where the European court will decide the dispute in

Europe and our Supreme Court will decide those decisions needing to be

made in this country. This is the paper that has been put forward by

the government. Do you not see that it is a generous offer in terms of

safeguarding the position of EU citizens currently living in the UK

and that family members at some stage will be able to join them or

build up those years, out, and then apply for settled status, and

otherwise, broadly speaking, the rights they have now will be the

same? What is not generous about it? I think everybody is agreed that the

offer from the British Government isn't as good as that but on the

table by the EU. Who says that? Who is saying it is not as generous? In

terms of income thresholds, we don't know whether family rights will

apply to everybody or whether there will be an income threshold and if

so, what would it be. And actually, again, all of the members writing to

me from elsewhere in the EU, Britain is working abroad, are saying,

actually, they want Britain to make a unilateral offer because they

think that will be better for them. They don't see it as a trade. It is

about taking the high ground and doing the right thing. Do you think

the income threshold should be extended, if somebody was to bring

in a non-EU spouse, they have to have a certain income, should that

apply once Britain has left the EU citizens who come from the 27 member

states? I think that's the correct position to start our negotiations.

Where I am critical of the Papal is it's not as strong as David

Cameron's resolution, part of that deal that he put the referendum was

on child benefit. Now that has been thrown away. It would penalise you

-- UK citizens... That's the main criticism, the extent as the

government really got this is the overwhelming job of the government,

driven by Prime Minister and colleagues, and if they had, these

sorts of general statements would have been made at the very beginning

of her stewardship and we would have now worked through to a position

that when she went to the European summit, she would have very detailed

proposals. I think the direction can this be the government is going, is

not good. In March this year the government's

overhaul of trade union law, designed to tighten the rules around

balloting for industrial So have the changes,

which proved controversial when they passed through Parliament,

had any effect? But discord with the Government

over plans to change 40% of strike days in 2016

were down to the new junior Strikes may seem fairly common

nowadays but figures show they're at an historic low,

and new rules could mean The Trade Union Act

came in this March. It means that industrial action can

only go ahead when there's been And for important public

services like health, education and transport,

there's an additional threshold, meaning at least 40% of eligible

members have to support the action. The RMT union are holding

their annual general meeting here in Exeter this week

and preliminary research by a Bradford University academic

suggests that at least three of their strikes have been averted

because their ballots failed The union represents

transport workers. Recently, a Tube strike couldn't

happen because not enough members The Trade Union Act is an attack

on working people and it's an attack on organised labour

in the United Kingdom. It's a deliberate attempt to try

and disarm the trade unions so that we can't take effective

industrial action to defend our members and move

forward our agenda on pay, How much of a challenge is it

for your union to reach those We've got a record of getting

very high turnouts. We've just got to up our game a bit

to make sure that we're fit to face these challenges that

the thresholds put down We will continue to be

a fighting trade union, no matter what the impediments

that the Government Unions may feel these rules

are suppressing their members' rights but some people think ballot

thresholds are the right way The right to go on strike is a very

important one but we also have to make sure that the public

is protected from a small number of people potentially making radical

threats that essentially hold the public to ransom,

especially when its tax money that's been used often to prop

up these services. The Trade Union Act has come

in at a time when union It fell by more than a quarter

of a million in 2016. That's the biggest

annual drop in 20 years. And this coincides

with self-employment Those types of people are just much

more difficult to organise. They don't have a fixed workplace,

they don't have a fixed manager and they don't necessarily relate

to the same group of people like employees do, so they're much

more difficult to organise collectively, which is the way

that trade unions work. If the current trend continues,

then around one in six employees will be in a union

in a decade's time. This compares with one

in three in the 1990s. For now, though, strikes aren't

a thing of the past. At least eight ballots

have reached the voting thresholds in recent months,

with commuters facing rail We're joined now by the Conservative

MP Robert Halfon - he was a minister until he lost his job

in the reshuffle earlier this month and he's called for his party

to embrace the trade unions. And, of course, Frances O'Grady

of the TUC is still here. Three RMT strikes have been averted

due to the trade union Bill, falling below the threshold, would you have

rather the strikes had gone ahead? I would rather the problem never arose

in the first place... Strikes are always a last resort. But what I

think is unfair is union being saddled with this old-fashioned

postal balloting, when we know, and all good Democrats should want this,

that would give massively improve participation in ballots if we had

the right to secret, supervised workplace ballots or indeed eBay

letting, or we are the only organisation in Britain banned from

balloting online to conduct votes, under strict conditions, it seems

wrong and unfair, and as democratic we should all want to see it. Don't

you want to see that you want to see more conservatives join trade

unions, if you went down the road she is outlining, with more

accessibility, then they would exceed the threshold on ballots? Let

me make a first point, it's not about stopping people going on

strike, it's about turnout and threshold and about workers' rights

and welfare, that means all workers, if you have a cheap strike, it

affects millions of workers and people going to hospital and so on

and so forth, that's why the threshold and turnout was

introduced. But I am fully in favour of online voting for trade unions, I

have spoken to her when I was in government about this and I know

there was an enquiry at the moment that the government are carrying out

and if we are saying the trade unions that we want a fair threshold

and turnout, especially in important services like the underground and

emergency services, then it's right that there should be online voting.

Should you have voted to bring in a trade union law on raising the

threshold for turnout until those things came into place? Online

voting is quite complex, I think it's right that they look at the

best options for it but I have always supported it and I think the

principal had to be there, because local cheap strikes were affecting

leans of people unfairly, I think they were right to get that

principle... And if people felt really strongly about voting in a

ballot for strike action, they would do by any means. Hasn't this law, in

the way he said, just stop militants holding unions and taking action for

granted? I think what clear as I said before is all we know, we have

evidence, that we can improve participation with online balloting.

Do you accept that militants have held unions hostage? I don't accept

that. Part of the problem here is that we are addressing strokes

rather than the cause of strikes, if you look at some of the recent

ballots, we incidents human rights being victimised for supporting a

pregnant colleague, people facing pay cuts for six years in a row and

the rise of insecure working, zero hours people do have grievances. It

can't sweep them under the carpet through a bureaucratic device on

ballots, you have to address the grievances. Precisely not, we are

saying that what we want is a fair turnout and fair threshold is

because if there is a local dispute and then a small number of people,

millions of Londoners or wherever it may be, workers' rights must apply

to everyone. They must also apply to the worker/ to get about their daily

business who have nothing to do with the dispute. The problem with this

trade union act, which was amended hugely partly because people across

the parties, churches, employers, didn't want it either, but even so

it remains a pretty Draconian act in one of the countries where we have

the toughest legislation on unions in the developed world. I think the

mood has shifted, I think people recognise that the problem is not

about over mighty tree genes, it's about minority of bad employers who

are exploiting workers -- it's not about over mighty trade unions. It's

about stopping the injustices, you name it. I think with Tube and

Sports Direct, Parliament has played a huge role... It was union

organisers, we wouldn't know about it. I have no problem with that,

it's a good thing. To highlight abuse and to look at the problems of

those people in private companies who are possibly being abused in

terms of employment practice, those are good things but separate from

saying we want a fair turnout... On the turnout... The government was

looking for a fight and picking a fight unnecessarily. But there are

some who feel unions are doing the same thing. If we look at, since the

law has come into place, there have been a number of votes on industrial

action involving the NUT, the RMT, they have surpassed the threshold. A

recent RMT ballot failed big rush old. If it had gone ahead, only 20%

of eligible Unionists would have supported it so the law hasn't

stopped industrial action because the ones I talked about Mr threshold

and went ahead. The RMT one didn't and will endeavour much support.

Unions always judge the outcomes of those ballots anyway, if we don't

get a high turnout, we're not going to get good support for a strike.

But the web at -- you would have had a strike... You have had strikes by

the RMT held on low thresholds, not all of them, which have been held

even with a low threshold and they have gone ahead with however much or

little support. The less support you have, the more you show you a week

so unions are very smart at looking at the turnouts of those ballots.

They need to make sure they have got the probable they take action. You

said you wanted the Conservative Party to be the party of workers,

what makes you so confident that will happen? I would like to be

modern trade union and how we offer membership services in the way trade

unions do and although trade union membership has declined, it's still

many millions and political parties would dream to have that kind of

membership but we did introduced the national minimum wage, that cut

taxes for learners, millions of apprenticeships... That was really

an extension of what Labour introduced, the national minimum

wage... It is much higher than what was being proposed then...

Introducing millions of apprenticeships for young people to

get on that letter. Are you pleased to see the back of manifesto

commitments made in the last election to drop the pensions triple

lock in favour of a double lock? I am, I was concerned about that, I

made my feelings clear that brought the manifesto was published that

many pensioners are not on pension credit, not necessarily well off,

and I was very worried that because we didn't put the figure on, that

people would... So you agreed with your colleague, it was the world

first manifesto? There were a lot of good things in it, particularly on

apprenticeships and skills, but I was glad that in terms of the

pension, fuel allowance and the triple lock, yes. You agree people

of that up with austerity? I think people have struggled for many

years, it's not austerity, it's about living within our means, we

can only spend the money we have. But it's been particularly hard on

people, particularly public sector workers.

Now, we heard a lot after the election about how

young people had finally made their voice heard.

And it seems they want to shout about rather a lot.

So what are some of the main issues facing younger people in society -

and how do their fortunes compare with their elders?

Despite low mortgage costs, young people in the UK

are struggling to get on the housing ladder.

In 1991, 36% of people aged 16-24 owned a home -

that had fallen to 9% by the end of financial year 2014.

Over that same period, the number of homeowners

among 25-34 year olds fell from 67% to 36%.

University tuition fees are also often cited as a millstone around

The average amount of debt in England for each

graduate is now ?32,220 - but of course they won't have

to start paying this back until they rise

After an initial fall in the number of applicants

when the tuition fee cap was raised, the sector rebounded quickly

and each successive year has seen record numbers accepted -

including those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

And young people in Britain are more likely to be in work

the unemployment rate for 16-24 year olds is 12.5%,

That's compared to the EU average of 18%, or more than 40%

So is this a bleak time to be a young person,

or have they, in the words of Harold Macmillan,

We're joined now to discuss this by Sean O'Grady

from The Independent, and Frances O'Grady

Neither is quite alone Neil but they both have plenty to say on this

subject! Eight was a big dividing factor in the election, wasn't it?

Yes, it was and what we found for pretty much the first time was young

people registering to vote and then getting out to vote and tending to

road Labour and many of them were voting Labour I think because Jeremy

Corbyn put an enormous pile of money on the table and asked them to help

themselves in terms of reduction of so-called student debts, in terms of

reintroducing allowances for sixth formers and that sort of thing. So I

think they were basically bribed but I don't mind about that but I think

that in a world where we're becoming a world where each generation has to

fight their own corner, if that's what it's going to be, my generation

does have to do that to. Does that indicate that they felt extremely

aggrieved? Paying tuition fees, being saddled with student debt, as

many of them see it, even though they don't pay it back until they

reach a certain threshold, the prospect of buying a home if that is

what you want to do is now extremely remote. That wasn't the case when I

was younger. Well it was the case when I was younger and maybe both of

us were younger if we think back hard enough. There is an idea abroad

that the 1960s to 1990s were a sort of wonder period in which nothing

happened that was bad mother went wrong. I lived through, as you may

have done, the Thatcher era, which was very hard. We have mass

unemployment. I've been through a couple of housing booms but also

couple of housing crash is. I don't want to sound like the

Yorkshireman... I'm about to get the violins out! When you tell young

people today about some are called negative equity, where your mortgage

was higher than the value of the House and the bill each month was

bigger... We went through that. Is a matter fairer exposition of the

situation for young people if you look at it across the decades? I've

got grown-up children and I'm not keen on this story of generation

wars, often because it is the parents who are supporting young

adults and so on. But also because inequality within generations is

bigger than any inequality between them. But this is looking at younger

people, comparing it to today. Without doubt this is the first

generation that looks like it is going to end up worse off than its

parents. We have seen big hikes in housing that to push them out of the

housing market and young people are three times more likely to be on an

insecure contract, and that very often means low paid, too. So I

think there are reasons why young people did get energised during the

election and I don't think it was so much the tuition fees, by the way.

On our polling, that was way down the list. Was about decent jobs and

the chance of a good home. Hasn't it always been the case that

generations say, we are better off than our parents? No. For most of

human existence, most of what you might call the modern era, even,

children didn't expect to do far better than their parents and when

they talk about housing, I agree that housing costs in real terms are

much higher than wages, no doubt about that, but there is a sense of

entitlement attached to it and I think that nobody has a right to own

their own home and a second rewrite to make a vast amount of untaxed

profit on the back of it. That's what they are really talking about.

They see what has happened to previous generations and forget

about hardships and sacrifices and large deposits and what the building

society used to demand of you in the days before 100 as mortgages and

they want a piece of the action. If you are on zero hours contract or

self-employed, as you know, it is really hard to even get through the

door to get a mortgage. Let's talk about employment because it is

surely a credit to the government in some way that create the jobs that

more people are in work, certainly compared our European counterparts'

average, not Germany but suddenly the southern European countries. I

think everybody wants to see everybody having a chance of a job

but I think the conversation has moved on. We launched our great jobs

agenda this week. So you mean that has been priced in? Everybody just

assumes there won't be high youth unemployment? I think people are

saying that having no job -- having a job in and of itself shouldn't be

the limit of our ambitions. We want everybody to have a good job on a

secure job and the kind of job you can raise a family on and four

delivered his life. Isn't there something different in terms of

accessibility now? We look at education and tuition fees you said

wasn't a high priority. Accessibility is much better, too,

compared to when we were students. Do you think people have taken that

on board? If you are young person you will only see what is a young

person you will only see what is around you at the time. No, they

haven't taken it on board at all. Was very hard on the old days for

people to get into Europe and -- AE -- into a university. We used to

have Polytechnic. 50 years ago, one in 2018-year-olds, usually boys, got

into university. We have doubled or tripled or increase the size of the

higher education sector in 20 years or something and you expect nobody

to pay for it. You have to make a contribution for it. Isn't that the

realpolitik in terms of material wealth, opportunities to travel and

work abroad? All of these things are now accessible to more young people

than they were 30 years ago. But isn't the real issue about what's

going to happen when they become pensioners, and if we haven't got

occupational pension schemes and of the state pension isn't high enough,

if we haven't got time is to sell to pay for social care, what then?

There you go. The point is that people my age and older I in a

situation where yes, they may have built some assets and wealth up in

their home and so forth but as soon as they get dementia or some other

long-term illness, they will lose the lot. Where is the fairness in

that? And every single thing you can think of, apart from housing, from

cars to computers, entertainment, meals out, anything you can mention,

is miles better than it was 30 years ago. Social mobility? Sean O'Grady,

they give very much. -- thank you very much.

You may recall this time last week we were talking about the former

Labour leader Ed Miliband's appearance as guest presenter

He was listening to people flushing the loo, among other things.

Well, this week it's the turn of the former Conservative

Let's have a listen to how he's been getting on.

Hello, this is Iain Duncan Smith, sitting in this

We want to hear your views, as you're listening to this,

Are negotiations with Europe over Brexit much tougher than we thought?

The argument that I made, and I'm pretty sure I remember

You refer to the Iain Duncan Smith who's outside the studio,

I'm Iain Duncan Smith, sitting in for Jeremy Vine.

So, what does flying a flag say about you?

Does it make you patriotic or is it something else?

Actually, in the studio they're all running around looking

Whether it's Cornish, Scottish, Manx, Welsh or the Union,

not to mention Northern Ireland, where we know you love your flags.

Are you there with it ready to hoist?

I am here and I am ready to hoist it.

I've loved this and I know that you've probably spotted

all the deliberate mistakes but I'm looking forward to being

We're joined again by the Telegraph's radio

critic Gillian Reynolds - she was with us last week

to review Ed Miliband's performance on Radio 2.

And by the former Conservative minister

Welcome to both of you. Would you say that Ian Duncan Smith is a

natural broadcaster? No, I wouldn't. He coughs a novel, for a start,

which makes all the grounds of the country, me included, really nervous

and we would like to send him some cough mixture and lozenges. He is

not at ease with someone chatting down his ear, "Go to Madonna".

Music, as a man who was an aficionado of many genres of music,

is not that easy if you've never done it before. I felt sorry for

Iain Duncan Smith when he was Tory leader and I feel even sorrier for

him now he is a broadcaster. It proves the point that anybody can do

it. When I started doing 606 on Radio 5 live, David Hatch said to

me, "Enjoyed it but remember 1000 people can do it just as well". He

wasn't very good at the start but he was with Danny Baker. Gillian is

quite right in what she says, it is not easy. What skills do you need,

would you say, David? I asked Terry Wogan for advice and said, what I do

to prepare for it? He said, "You just turn up and you will find you

can either do it or you can't". But at the end of it all, it depends

what you're doing. In terms of music you got to have ownership of the

product. I did programmes on Radio 3 and then I thought I wanted an

audience I moved to classic FM. I heard that Digg! I want ownership of

the music. To be told it is Andy Neal and the Street warmer saying

so-and-so in your ear, I couldn't do that. For Iain Duncan Smith, he has

talked about some of his favourite topics already. Do you think that is

a good thing? I think he is at a disadvantage because he's much more

called on to be a spokesman on serious affairs like Brexit and

stuff so he is bound to feel inhibited trying to keep people to

the point and to time and not expressing his own opinion because,

of course, he can't. But he really warmed up towards the end. He had a

very sad item about should you take a holiday when you get a terminal

illness and he actually listened and you could hear him relax into that

and when he got to the end, the item about flags, he came into his own

and the nation learned what a flag expert is. Do you know what it is?

Of Excel Logistics. I do know because we have had one on! It comes

from the Latin root, meaning a banner. When you say he was talking

about Brexit and perhaps you go into automatic politician mode because he

had to spell out his impartiality credentials, which is never a good

sound on the radio, you might say. It was the only word he got in

because the two of them went head-to-head, Daniel Hannan and

Sarah Ludford, went head-to-head and he couldn't get in at all. Will he

improve over the week? I don't know. I wouldn't expect so. He's going to

sign you up as his PR agent! I resigned from the Tory party when he

became leader. Thought he would be hopeless as leader and he was and I

think he is the same as a broadcaster but he is doing his

best, as we all try to. But the point is, actually, that programme

began with Jimmy Young, who was a friend of mine, a constituent of

mine and even voted for me. But Jimmy Young created an atmosphere in

which people would give out, as they always used to do with David Frost.

You can't expect someone like him or indeed Ed Miliband to create that

kind of atmosphere. Do you admire him for having a go? I admire anyone

for having a go but don't you think they should recruit for a bigger

pool? Where are the women? I think Ruth Davidson would've been a much

better booking. Tory, balance. FE, balance. Interesting, very good

balance. And young. Who would you have if you are looking at

politicians? People who have genuine talent and not just doing it because

it is a geek. Ken Clarke was very good on Jazz FM. It was a passion. I

think broadcasting cannot just be a job, it's got to be a passion and I

just don't think that he or, indeed, Ed Miliband have much of a passion

for it and the other problem is that until you develop a voice of your

own and you're just in the hands of the producers, you could just as

well be a ventriloquist's dummy. Thank you both very much for coming

in and being our critics for the day, marking Iain Duncan Smith's

card! There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. And yesterday saw a first

in Parliament - an MP made their maiden speech and claimed

to be the first MP ever to sit I know it is not David but I am

really hoping it is Wayne. It is Darren. Darren Jones. You didn't get

it right but nor did I when I was looking at it!

Thanks to all my guests, especially Frances.

The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.

I'll be back at 11.30 tomorrow with Andrew for the first

Prime Minister's Questions of this new Parliament.

Brexit means Brexit. We did it!

To pretend that it's going to be plain sailing is such

knuckle-headed lunacy. Happy days are here.