:00:07. > :00:11.The Government scheme to get young people into work is in trouble, one
:00:11. > :00:14.after another, companies expecting to take part in the scheme have
:00:14. > :00:18.pulled back, in the face of protests that work experience
:00:18. > :00:24.amounts to slave labour. Is doing this kind of thing,
:00:24. > :00:27.without proper pay, a way into regular work, or just the state
:00:27. > :00:33.subsidising private enterprise. Would you do it if you were on
:00:33. > :00:38.benefits? We will ask these three. The Greek Prime Minister pulls off
:00:38. > :00:42.his bailout, but could a minority of banks and hedge funds still kill
:00:43. > :00:46.it by refusing to co-operate, we will talk to their chief negotiator.
:00:47. > :00:50.It is not inconceivable if too many go in that direction, the system
:00:50. > :00:55.breaks down, we will not have a successful conclusion to this deal,
:00:55. > :00:59.and then where will they be? This nursery is run for profit,
:00:59. > :01:04.what is wrong with the idea of letting businesses run state
:01:04. > :01:09.schools on the same basis? And it is probably the most international
:01:09. > :01:13.city on earth, but do Londoners share anything beyond their streets.
:01:13. > :01:23.Author, John Lanchester, is here to talk about his big new novel,
:01:23. > :01:23.
:01:23. > :01:27.Capital. Last week they were delighted to be
:01:27. > :01:33.part of a Government scheme which earned them money for taking on
:01:33. > :01:37.young people on work experience, today, Tesco hurriedly changed its
:01:37. > :01:40.position, from now on a young person taken on will be offered a
:01:41. > :01:44.wage. By tonight numerous retailers had joined the retreat. The
:01:44. > :01:49.Government scheme to get young people into a job is still alive,
:01:49. > :01:58.but it is very battered. Those who oppose the device as sweated labour,
:01:59. > :02:04.are said a cabinet minister today, job snobs. We report.
:02:04. > :02:08.The bright lights of a bustling high street offer much, but not the
:02:08. > :02:14.one thing Ben Perkins is looking for. He has had just one paid job
:02:14. > :02:18.since he grad waited last year -- graduated last year. Christmas work
:02:18. > :02:23.with HMV. He felt undermined when job seekers on the Government work
:02:23. > :02:27.programme got taken on. And then as I found out, they said, this work
:02:27. > :02:33.programme is happening, people are coming in who are unemployed, on
:02:33. > :02:36.job seekers, come to do work, three people, like, that doesn't chime
:02:36. > :02:39.with work experience which is the whole idea of this kind of
:02:39. > :02:44.programme. The row began when Tesco placed an
:02:44. > :02:49.ad for a night worker, and they would be paid their job see,
:02:49. > :02:53.allowance, just �53 a week. The job was mistakenly described as
:02:53. > :02:57.permanent, in fact it was part of the voluntary work experience
:02:57. > :03:00.scheme. Plays.S of up to eight weeks, in return for benefits and
:03:00. > :03:06.expenses. The outcry over the ad proves there
:03:06. > :03:11.is such a thing as bad publicity afterall. Last week Tesco defended
:03:12. > :03:16.the scheme, now they are offering to abandon it. In future people on
:03:16. > :03:24.work plays.S can actually get paid for them, with the offer of a
:03:24. > :03:29.guaranteed job if all goes well. Tesco are calling their about turn
:03:29. > :03:33.a major confidence boost for young people wanting permanent work. The
:03:33. > :03:43.Government is putting a brave face on things. I'm pleased when a
:03:43. > :03:50.
:03:50. > :03:58.company expands what they do. If they do the work plays. Properly,
:03:58. > :04:02.they will have experience. We get a better offer than we had before.
:04:02. > :04:06.That is good news for unemployed young people. But there was no
:04:06. > :04:15.escaping the sound of gears going into reverse, as more high street
:04:15. > :04:20.names decide they too, like Waterstones and TK Maxx, will pull
:04:20. > :04:24.out of the placements, Matalan has paused the programme, in the face
:04:24. > :04:27.of what it calls, negative speculation, and Argos wants to
:04:27. > :04:31.make sure no-one is disadvantaged working on the programme.
:04:31. > :04:36.Sainsbury's has already opted out, but today it admitted it has had to
:04:36. > :04:41.remind local branches of that fact, after some of them signed up free
:04:41. > :04:44.recruits. This was after they had been approached by Jobcentre plus.
:04:44. > :04:48.Meanwhile, other private sector providers are to be the subject of
:04:48. > :04:53.an official complaint to the September for Work and Pensions, by
:04:53. > :04:58.Oxfam. The charity firmly declined to take part in the work programme,
:04:58. > :05:02.concerned that those who refused to join, or failed to complete a
:05:02. > :05:07.placement, would lose benefits. someone refuses to participate or
:05:07. > :05:14.needs to leave the scheme, their benefits can be stopped a minimum
:05:14. > :05:19.of 13 weeks and potentially 26 weeks. This cessation of benefits
:05:19. > :05:24.isn't compatible with Oxfam trying to overcome poverty. You had an
:05:24. > :05:27.opportunity to help young people get work and you turned it down?
:05:27. > :05:31.Absolutely not, it was nothing we could have accepted with the
:05:31. > :05:36.cessation of benefits and putting people into destitution for a
:05:36. > :05:41.minimum of 13 weeks, we Coventry consider that. With 700 --
:05:41. > :05:47.couldn't consider that. With 700 stores, Oxfam has been unable to
:05:47. > :05:53.prevent forced volunteering by the providers in the scheme. We would
:05:53. > :05:56.like to ask providers to stop contacting our shops about schemes
:05:56. > :06:00.with sanctions to benefits. You have a great voice. The Deputy
:06:00. > :06:05.Prime Minister was at pains today to show the coalition is tackling
:06:05. > :06:09.youth unemployment. Firms will be paid to take on 16 and 17-year-olds.
:06:09. > :06:17.But more people are saying the emphasis of the work programme
:06:17. > :06:21.should be on jobs that pay. The riots that ripped through Haringey
:06:21. > :06:29.last summer, gave added urgency to the council's jobs fund, which will
:06:29. > :06:33.be launched this spring. It is sped spending �2 -- spending �2 million,
:06:33. > :06:35.directly subsidising people to create jobs. Young people need
:06:36. > :06:38.high-quality, long-term sustained experience. That is why we have
:06:38. > :06:43.been working with local and national employers based in the
:06:43. > :06:47.borough, to make sure we can put in place the year-long schemes.
:06:47. > :06:51.has moved back to his parents in Lincolnshire, and back on to
:06:51. > :06:55.benefits, he's volunteering at a radio station, to use his media
:06:55. > :07:01.degrees, but fears a double bind, as a jobseeker he may lose out to
:07:01. > :07:08.those doing unpaid work experience. He may be compelled to take up an
:07:08. > :07:12.official placement himself. With us now is the Conservative MP,
:07:12. > :07:14.Harriett Baldwin, on the Work and Pensions select commit year, and
:07:14. > :07:23.three people who have all experience of unemployment and
:07:23. > :07:29.Government work schemes. Do you understand why some people
:07:29. > :07:33.find these schemes offensive? have to understand where we came
:07:33. > :07:36.from. In terms of the inheritance with a lot of young people out of
:07:36. > :07:41.work. The situation used to be that if you were a young person, and you
:07:41. > :07:44.were offered work experience, you had to come off benefits, I
:07:44. > :07:48.actually think that is profoundly unfair and against social mobility,
:07:48. > :07:53.because, in fact, a lot of prosperous parents can afford for
:07:53. > :07:57.their parents to do work experience and lose those benefits. Where as
:07:57. > :08:01.those who rely on the benefits needed to keep them when they got
:08:01. > :08:04.the work experience. Do you understand my question that some
:08:04. > :08:07.people find this offensive? understand. Do you understand why
:08:07. > :08:10.people find it offensive? It is offensive that it has been
:08:10. > :08:14.portrayed by a lot of people as being something that doesn't help
:08:14. > :08:20.young people. You know, Jeremy, in an organisation like the BBC that
:08:20. > :08:24.employs a lot of people on work experience. We have contradictory
:08:24. > :08:30.experienced here, helps some and not others, but my question is, do
:08:30. > :08:36.you understand why some people find it offensive that somebody can be
:08:37. > :08:42.taken on, not be paid in a job that might at least be paid minimum wage,
:08:42. > :08:47.and be paid by the state, and the employer is able to use unpaid
:08:47. > :08:51.labour? Does the BBC offer work experience places for students.
:08:51. > :08:53.doesn't bother you? It is widely used for short work placements.
:08:53. > :08:57.These are very short work placements.
:08:58. > :09:04.OK, all of you three have had experience of these schemes, of one
:09:04. > :09:07.kind or another, it worked in your case, didn't it? Yes. Tell us what
:09:07. > :09:10.happened? My experience of volunteering was, it is not
:09:10. > :09:16.necessarily the scheme that is going out now, I wasn't forced into
:09:16. > :09:20.it, I actually went out and applied for a scheme called V-Talent, I was
:09:20. > :09:23.working for a year within youth services, that was something I was
:09:23. > :09:27.passionate about. Throughout that course I was guided, I was helped,
:09:27. > :09:33.I was given qualifications, I was given certificates, I was helped at
:09:33. > :09:37.the end of it on getting a job. What was it about being on a course
:09:37. > :09:40.like that, in that sort of environment, that changed things
:09:40. > :09:43.for you? I think because it was something that I was passionate
:09:43. > :09:47.about, and because it was voluntary, I think if you are forced into it,
:09:47. > :09:52.I think it will be negative, I think it will have knock-on effects.
:09:52. > :09:57.I think it will give you a negative view on the work environment itself.
:09:57. > :10:01.I think if you're not passionate about work, why would you do it.
:10:01. > :10:05.There should be more things voluntary for them to. Have you had
:10:05. > :10:12.experience of one of these schemes? I have, it was a complete waste of
:10:12. > :10:16.my time. Four weeks, well, if you get on to phase 2 job seeking,
:10:16. > :10:22.which is the point where you are put into these schemes, then you
:10:22. > :10:26.have four weeks, absolutely mandatory, you have no choice,
:10:26. > :10:32....Doesn't That get you into the habit, with the greatest of respect,
:10:32. > :10:35.of getting out of bed and going to a place of work? With the greatest
:10:35. > :10:42.of respect, I had eight years previous experience to this of
:10:42. > :10:46.getting up and going to a job. shouldn't get mixed up Work Fair
:10:46. > :10:52.and short periods of work experience for young people.
:10:52. > :10:58.talking about both schemes, I did the short scheme and now on the 26
:10:58. > :11:05.weeks one, both were ineptly handled. In what sense? Firstly
:11:05. > :11:14.they are, anyone who is involved in it gets dragged off to do things
:11:14. > :11:18.that, by force, basically. Secondly, they are administered badly.
:11:18. > :11:21.think we're confusing two things here, the work experience that was
:11:21. > :11:28.getting all the media attention today, is for young people who are
:11:28. > :11:31.given short periods of experience, so that they can have something on
:11:31. > :11:35.their CV to show to employers. are a young person, have you done
:11:35. > :11:40.any of these schemes? Actually the work programme is a re-established
:11:40. > :11:44.programme, it was run by a company called Caller UK previously, I was
:11:44. > :11:50.on the flexible new deal, and I signed to the programme. In about
:11:50. > :11:54.nine months of the programme, the company got liquid dated because
:11:54. > :11:57.they failed mis-- liquidated, because they failed miserably to
:11:57. > :12:02.get people employed. When you look at the current figures,
:12:02. > :12:07.statistically now, it was 2.3 million to 6.3 million. Let's talk
:12:07. > :12:11.about your experience, the argument, I think, if I paraphrase it
:12:11. > :12:15.correctly, is that at the very least, although the precise
:12:15. > :12:23.employment may be not exactly what you want, it at least gets you into
:12:23. > :12:29.the habit of going to work, and, re-establish ago work habit?
:12:29. > :12:35.didn't get me into the habit of going to work. It demote vaited me,
:12:35. > :12:40.it took away my e-- demote vaited me, it took away me equal
:12:40. > :12:43.opportunity of rights, you don't have the freedom to choose
:12:44. > :12:48.something that would practically work. What was getting the media
:12:48. > :12:53.attention today, was a voluntary scheme for young people to get work
:12:53. > :12:56.experience. We are hearing about historical experiences of work
:12:56. > :13:02.experience under the last Government, it wasn't working well
:13:02. > :13:04.and was complicated. The new thing is a black box approach. If you
:13:04. > :13:08.penalise someone who agrees to start the programme, by saying if
:13:08. > :13:13.you don't carry on turning up in an efficient and satisfactory manner,
:13:13. > :13:17.you will lose your benefits, that is coercion, isn't it? I think you
:13:17. > :13:22.have to have turned down several jobs before that starts to happen
:13:22. > :13:25.to you. That is not true. That is not true. I have sat in, with
:13:25. > :13:35.people on the four-week scheme, I have seen people thrown off
:13:35. > :13:39.
:13:39. > :13:43.placements. One for speaking too loud, and they had not been to
:13:43. > :13:46.several interviews. These were all young people on the young people's
:13:46. > :13:50.scheme. There was two separate young people's scheme that we
:13:50. > :13:55.encountered. One of them was volumity, the work programme ones
:13:55. > :13:58.that -- voluntary, the work programme ones that were there were
:13:58. > :14:02.not voluntary, they were all mandatory, you had to turn up and
:14:02. > :14:06.take part. It was part of the suppliers' contract with the
:14:06. > :14:11.Department of Work and pension, that the person they sent to them
:14:11. > :14:21.will be there for a four-week period, and will have a four-week
:14:21. > :14:24.
:14:24. > :14:32.work placement. This is different from what we were talking about
:14:32. > :14:36.with young people. It is a four- week work period, it is not
:14:36. > :14:41.voluntary, anyone who says it is voluntary is lying. We looked at
:14:41. > :14:43.the rules earlier and it clearly says it is voluntary?
:14:43. > :14:46.Department of Work and Pensions sends you to a supplier, the
:14:46. > :14:50.supplier has in the contract that they will send you for a mandatory,
:14:50. > :14:53.not a voluntary, mandatory work placement. I think, to be fair, I
:14:53. > :14:56.think we are confusing two different things here, we are
:14:56. > :15:02.talking about the work programme that was put out to new contracts,
:15:02. > :15:06.starting in June, the early indications on that are that about
:15:06. > :15:11.28-30% of people are put into jobs, compared to about 1.2% at this
:15:11. > :15:14.stage for the flexible new deal. would like to ask you, why you
:15:15. > :15:20.think it is that it is an outrage that Governments and departments
:15:20. > :15:24.acting on behalf of the taxpayer, who afterall has to fund benefits,
:15:24. > :15:29.shouldn't expect people to do as they are asked and get a job?
:15:29. > :15:33.I believe it is a complex situation, and what they are doing is to use
:15:33. > :15:38.the lower percentage of the population who are unemployed, as a
:15:38. > :15:41.scapegoat, because you still have these bankers getting big lump sums.
:15:41. > :15:45.Bankers are irrelevant? It is relevant because, they are the ones
:15:45. > :15:51.you should be penalising for this, not us. We didn't cause the
:15:51. > :15:56.recession in the first place. So why should we be forced and imposed
:15:56. > :16:00.a system to force somebody to do something voluntary, for 30 hours a
:16:00. > :16:04.week, for four weeks consecutively, without a proper wage. I think it
:16:04. > :16:08.is great that these employers are offering work experience to young
:16:08. > :16:14.people. They are not, they are now saying, one after another, one big
:16:14. > :16:18.recoginsable name after another, is saying, this is too embarrassing
:16:18. > :16:23.for us to continue our connection with the scheme? That is very sad,
:16:23. > :16:27.because it will mean, from now on it will be people who can afford to
:16:27. > :16:32.subsidise their children to do work experience, it will hamper social
:16:32. > :16:39.mobility in this country. So you assert, but if these companies
:16:39. > :16:43.consider it to be an embarrassment to them, some sort of besmirching
:16:43. > :16:50.of their name, it is failing? sad that a lot of people waving the
:16:50. > :16:53.copies of the Socialist Worker have put paid to these companies
:16:53. > :16:56.offering workers peerence to young people. It is important to get it
:16:56. > :17:01.on your -- experience to young people. It is important to get it
:17:01. > :17:05.on your CV early on in life. It is hard to know whether to laugh or
:17:05. > :17:11.cry if you are a Greek, the other countries cobbled together an
:17:11. > :17:16.agreement which will make sure the Greek Government get a shed load of
:17:16. > :17:21.cash and the people will have to work for the foreseeable future.
:17:21. > :17:28.How can Greece, which couldn't pay existing debts, will pay off an
:17:28. > :17:33.additional 130 billion euros. A problem for another day.
:17:33. > :17:37.They talked for 14 hours, which in itself highlighted the gulf between
:17:37. > :17:42.what creditor countries such as Germany and Finland wanted, and
:17:42. > :17:46.what the embattled Greeks wanted. In the end the 16 other eurozone
:17:46. > :17:51.Governments agreed to lend 130 billion your yr roars and pay it
:17:51. > :17:56.out in tranches over the next two years. Greeks wouldn't have to pay
:17:56. > :18:00.back loans to banks worth 100 billion euros. In order to get it,
:18:00. > :18:03.Greece has promised a programme of austerity, unseen in a western
:18:03. > :18:08.democracy in a generation. Including mass privatisation of
:18:08. > :18:13.ports, airports and some public utilities, on top of widespread job
:18:14. > :18:19.and wage cuts. The lenders, who will oversee that, the IMF, the
:18:19. > :18:24.European Central Bank and the EU, known as the troika, hailed this
:18:24. > :18:29.morning's hard earned deal. Today's deal is a key remaining building
:18:29. > :18:35.block of our comprehensive crisis, and with this agreement we have a
:18:35. > :18:39.real chance to turn the corner and move from stablisation to boosting
:18:39. > :18:43.sustainable growth and job creation. But the agreement depends crucially
:18:43. > :18:48.on a number of key, and some might say, optimistic assumptions.
:18:48. > :18:52.Firstly, that the cocktail of austerity, fresh loans and bank
:18:52. > :18:58.haircuts, will bring Greek national debt, as a percentage of its annual
:18:58. > :19:03.income, down from its current level of 160%, to an equally high 120%,
:19:03. > :19:07.by the end of the decade. That assumes a fair wind at its back. A
:19:07. > :19:12.leaked internal EU document says it is more likely that debt will be
:19:12. > :19:16.129% by 2020, and worse, if Greece's run of bad luck continues,
:19:16. > :19:21.the leaked debt sustainability report says that it may end up
:19:21. > :19:26.owing exactly as much in eight years as it does today. Or 1.6-
:19:26. > :19:30.times GDP. The bailout deal also assumes that
:19:30. > :19:33.the private sector will grow enough to make up the shortfall from a
:19:33. > :19:36.dramatically shrinking Government sector. That is a big ask, given
:19:36. > :19:40.the massive capital flight that Greece has endured over the past
:19:40. > :19:44.two years. We really don't know what might happen in eight years
:19:44. > :19:48.time. It is very hard to project. Even the projections made in 2010
:19:48. > :19:51.at the time of the first loan are very far from the reality we now
:19:51. > :19:55.see. I would have thought it is quite difficult, particularly when
:19:55. > :19:59.tax receipts are falling, VAT and other tax receipts are falling
:19:59. > :20:03.quite sharply, it is very difficult to know that austerity would
:20:03. > :20:07.deliver much of an improvement at all. The Greek Finance Minister,
:20:07. > :20:10.Evangelos Venizelos, says today's deal means his country avoids a
:20:10. > :20:14.nightmare scenario. It is true, they do get the bailout, and they
:20:14. > :20:18.stay within the warm embrace of the eurozone. But with unemployment at
:20:18. > :20:22.21%, GDP shrinking rapidly, and private wealth abandoning the
:20:22. > :20:25.country, it is hard to think of any other description for the current
:20:25. > :20:33.situation other than a nightmare scenario, that is before you drill
:20:33. > :20:37.into the detail of today's deal. Like will the Greek populus accept
:20:37. > :20:40.on the ground what their leaders have Bartered in Belgium. With
:20:41. > :20:45.elections planned for late April, opinion polls suggest a big lurch
:20:45. > :20:51.to the extreme parties. Who may want to tear up today's deal.
:20:51. > :20:55.This second bailout also assumes that Greece's creditor banks accept
:20:55. > :20:59.write-downs in the face value of their bonds of 53.5%. Something
:20:59. > :21:03.that they themselves ruled out only last autumn. I think for Greece the
:21:03. > :21:12.50% nominal reduction is, in my view, at the border line of what
:21:12. > :21:17.could be reasonably viewed as voluntary. Any further dereduction
:21:17. > :21:21.in -- reduction in value and losses would be put at non-voluntary.
:21:21. > :21:25.begs the important question, how many of Greece's lenders will sign
:21:25. > :21:28.up for the proposed haircut, which is looking like an all over blade
:21:28. > :21:34.one. Greece said at least two- thirds of the creditors have to
:21:34. > :21:37.sign up for the debt write-off to work. If they don't reach that
:21:37. > :21:40.threshold, it might be Greece's banks, rather than the political
:21:40. > :21:44.elite that will pull the plug on Greece.
:21:44. > :21:48.To find out, earlier I spoke to the man at the forefront of the Greek
:21:48. > :21:52.debt talks, the managing director of the Institute for International
:21:52. > :22:01.Finance, Aaron Delahunty. I asked him, how much -- Charles Dallara, I
:22:01. > :22:07.asked him how much of the 200 billion cuts in Greece he
:22:07. > :22:09.represented? We represent under half of that, just under 100
:22:10. > :22:14.billion euros. We have communication with an investor base
:22:14. > :22:17.much larger. Our formal representation is just under 100
:22:17. > :22:23.billion euros. Is this deal dependant on a certain level of
:22:23. > :22:29.participation? Certainly it is. We have not judged, nor has the Greek
:22:29. > :22:32.Government set a particular minimum threshold, but certainly I think we
:22:32. > :22:36.all realise, that for this economic programme to work, and for the
:22:36. > :22:40.cloud of debt burden to be sufficiently cleared off the Greek
:22:40. > :22:45.horizon. That we will need very high participation in this deal, we
:22:45. > :22:48.will work to achieve that. But you have no guarantee you will get a
:22:48. > :22:52.very high level of participation, do you? No, no guarantee at all.
:22:52. > :22:57.You do the best you can in designing these deals. We respect
:22:57. > :23:01.the right that each investor, including the members of our own
:23:01. > :23:06.steering committee, who have endorsed the basic perameters of
:23:06. > :23:10.this deal, has the right to look at the documentation and value wait
:23:10. > :23:14.the costs of the deal, and make their own judgment. We feel
:23:14. > :23:18.confident once investors have sorted dlu the documentation, and
:23:18. > :23:21.looked at the -- through the documentation and looked at the
:23:21. > :23:26.perameters and benefits, that a large number of investors will come
:23:26. > :23:32.in. What proportion of their loans will investors lose? They will lose
:23:32. > :23:37.just over 50% of the nominal value of their current claims, in terms
:23:37. > :23:41.of the net present value, the economic value of the loans, they
:23:41. > :23:45.will lose north of the value of 70%. There is substantial loss embedded
:23:45. > :23:51.in this deal, there is no use trying to hide that. It was
:23:51. > :23:56.necessary, if we were to deal effectively, and determinately,
:23:56. > :24:02.with the scale of debt burden, which Greece is simply unable to
:24:02. > :24:06.cope with. By your own admission, you only represent about half of
:24:06. > :24:12.the total debt exposure here. What is to stop someone like a hedge
:24:12. > :24:15.fund or someone, who has bought Greek debt, trying to trigger the
:24:15. > :24:21.insurance involved in a Credit Default Swap? There is nothing that
:24:21. > :24:27.I'm aware of, Jeremy, that will definitively stop someone who wants
:24:27. > :24:32.toe stake such action. There is no iron -- to take such action. There
:24:32. > :24:36.is no iron-clad guarantee as we discussed earlier, that individual
:24:36. > :24:41.investors might not contemplate counter-productive activity here.
:24:41. > :24:45.They have the right, the legal rights, the market judgments to
:24:45. > :24:51.make, but we are convinced that when you look at the total picture
:24:51. > :24:54.here, that the overwhelming bulk of investors will consider this a
:24:54. > :25:00.favourable transaction, which benefits not only the narrow
:25:00. > :25:06.contours of the balance sheet, but the broader conure tours of the
:25:06. > :25:12.market place, which is -- contour of the market place. If the
:25:12. > :25:15.insurance system worked, they could recoup 100% of the money they lent
:25:16. > :25:19.the Greeks, instead of something like 30%? It is not inconceivable,
:25:19. > :25:24.if too many go in that direction, though, the system breaks down, we
:25:24. > :25:29.will not have a successful conclusion of this deal. And then
:25:29. > :25:33.where will they be. Judgment calls have to be made here. I'm
:25:33. > :25:38.encouraged that the overwhelming bulk of investors we have been in
:25:38. > :25:42.communication with, not just those we formally represent, but those
:25:42. > :25:45.outside the formal umbrella of our Steering committee and investment
:25:45. > :25:49.committee, with whom we have been discussing the broad strategy, see
:25:49. > :25:53.the broader benefits of this. We will have to wait and see, of
:25:53. > :25:57.course, it will be up to the Greeks working with their agents to go out
:25:57. > :26:01.and mobilise support, but once we see the formal, final details of
:26:01. > :26:05.the offer, we are also going to give support to this deal as best
:26:05. > :26:09.we can. But Mr Dallara, of course European
:26:09. > :26:14.Governments believe in saving the euro, it is the only game in town.
:26:14. > :26:21.It is a political project. You are acting and talking as if these
:26:21. > :26:25.financial institutions are some sort of charity? No, I just think -
:26:25. > :26:29.- No, I just think that most of the CEOs that we work with, it is a
:26:29. > :26:33.wide range of financial institutions. It includes state-
:26:33. > :26:37.owned insurance firms, it includes prove detention insurance firms,
:26:37. > :26:42.banks, hedge funds, Asset Management firms, not just head
:26:42. > :26:46.quartered in Europe, but the US and elsewhere. The bulk of the CEOs
:26:46. > :26:49.have a broud perspective of what is in the interest of -- broad
:26:49. > :26:54.perspective and what is in the interest of their balance sheet and
:26:54. > :27:02.investor base. That is why they do not consider it an issue of charity,
:27:02. > :27:06.but an issue of looking at long- term cost and benefits.
:27:06. > :27:10.The Education Secretary claimed today that the Government was
:27:10. > :27:14.Marching towards the sound of gunfire, there speaks a scrappy
:27:14. > :27:17.little Scot and reformed journalist. But the readiness to have a fight
:27:17. > :27:20.with the educational establishment is yet to lead to the wholesale
:27:20. > :27:24.reform of the schools system in England, which we were promised
:27:24. > :27:30.when the Tories asked for our votes. The favourite wheeze of Free
:27:30. > :27:35.Schools, set up independent of local authority control, has so far
:27:35. > :27:39.yielded a grand total of 79 such establishments. Tomorrow the
:27:39. > :27:45.organisation called David Cameron's favourite think-tank, will suggest
:27:45. > :27:49.they could make more programme if the Government wasn't so allergic
:27:49. > :27:52.to get -- progress, if the Government wasn't so allergic to
:27:52. > :27:55.letting private companies get involved. Shrove Tuesday in central
:27:55. > :28:00.London, not an unusual nursery, it is funded through a mix of public
:28:00. > :28:03.and private money, and profits can be made. They are, in is over half
:28:03. > :28:10.of our nurseries. These kids will grow up and go to schools less
:28:10. > :28:14.unusual. Fully funded by the state, and unlike at nursery level, there
:28:14. > :28:19.is no chance of companies that might make a profit getting
:28:19. > :28:22.involved. Why do we left profits in caring for our tiniests, but not
:28:22. > :28:27.further up. That is the question think-tank exchange is asking, they
:28:27. > :28:32.think the Government's flagship policy, setting up Free Schools
:28:32. > :28:37.outside state col could learn from this. This is the right thing to.
:28:37. > :28:40.Do we urgently need more state schools in Britain, the Government
:28:41. > :28:47.doesn't have money to spend, bringing in private money could
:28:47. > :28:51.bring in expertise. Advocated point to Sweden, there, they say there is
:28:51. > :28:57.a massive rise in children attending Free Schools, because
:28:57. > :29:01.they were run by profit-making sectors. We could do this, we know
:29:01. > :29:09.we could, because we have been doing it successfully, parents have
:29:09. > :29:12.bought into it. The Cameron Government is in a hurry to deliver
:29:13. > :29:16.policies before the next election. Free Schools are not working as
:29:16. > :29:21.they would like. Many senior advisers think they should go the
:29:21. > :29:24.whole way, bring in profit-making companies to Free Schools and allow
:29:24. > :29:29.the policy to flourish. The politics of putting children's
:29:29. > :29:36.learning in the hand of profit- making companies has a fraught his
:29:36. > :29:42.treatment some in the Government pushed it but Lib Dems ruled it out.
:29:42. > :29:45.It is probably dead. Here is why. In one poll in the National Union
:29:45. > :29:55.of Teachers, an organisation against Free Schools. Parents were
:29:55. > :30:04.
:30:04. > :30:08.Policy Exchange think they have come up with a compromise. We don't
:30:08. > :30:12.have to choose between a traditional for-profit model, we
:30:12. > :30:15.could have something in the middle, schools owned and run by the
:30:15. > :30:18.teachers who work in them. We have a situation where a third of
:30:18. > :30:23.children in some parts of the country are missing out on their
:30:23. > :30:27.preferred school, as the number of children needing school places go
:30:27. > :30:30.up in places like London increase, we will have a schools' places
:30:30. > :30:34.crisis, unless we have new money from somewhere to bring into the
:30:34. > :30:38.state sector to increase the numbers of places. Critics say it
:30:38. > :30:42.is about ideology rather than basic education needs. There are clearly
:30:42. > :30:46.issues in the school system that need reform and we need improvement.
:30:46. > :30:50.But bringing in the private sector is not necessarily the way to do it.
:30:50. > :30:53.We have plenty of robust national evidence which shows the best way
:30:53. > :30:57.to improve schools is improve the quality of teaching, bring in
:30:57. > :31:02.effective school leadership, provide clear accountability to
:31:02. > :31:10.parent, there are plenty of ways of doing it which don't involve the
:31:10. > :31:14.private sector. The The balance of evidence shows in Sweden that Free
:31:14. > :31:23.Schools bring up standards, and in the US for-profit schools increase
:31:23. > :31:26.standards. The support for Free Schools coming your way is not high.
:31:26. > :31:30.The Conservatives believe by 2015 they may have as many as 500 Free
:31:30. > :31:35.Schools, without the need for help. In their darker moments, when
:31:35. > :31:40.Tories worry about their legacy, they reach for palatable ways to
:31:40. > :31:44.implement their own agenda. As policy makers come up with things
:31:44. > :31:48.to sell to the Liberal Democrats. With us now is Graham Stuart, chair
:31:48. > :31:53.of the Commons Education Select Committee, and Mary Bousted,
:31:53. > :32:00.general secretary of the general teachers union, the ATL. What can
:32:00. > :32:04.the private sector do that the state can't? Two things Policy
:32:04. > :32:11.Exchange identified, additional capital and a shortage of places,
:32:11. > :32:14.and we want parental support we have to have surplus of places, and
:32:14. > :32:18.additional expertise and innovation from the private sector. Those are
:32:18. > :32:21.the two key benefit that is could come from allowing the profit
:32:21. > :32:25.sector into education. Given that money is short, school places are
:32:25. > :32:30.going to get short, it is an obvious solution, isn't it? Not at
:32:30. > :32:33.all, the problem with the profit motive is schools could be set up
:32:33. > :32:38.where they are not needed. In that case they will fail? Children are
:32:38. > :32:42.not cans of beans, you don't want them in schools that fail, you want
:32:42. > :32:46.regulation of quality. They will only fail because there are not
:32:46. > :32:50.enough children? If there are no enough children, you don't have the
:32:50. > :32:54.staff, or the curriculum. So it is a commercial misjudgment, not the
:32:54. > :32:59.state's problem? It is the children's problem and the state's
:32:59. > :33:04.money paying for schools to fail. Profit is for profit, schools
:33:04. > :33:07.should be more pupils. Your objection is ideolgical? No based
:33:07. > :33:10.on research evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever, that report
:33:10. > :33:13.was wrong from the director of Policy Exchange, there is no
:33:13. > :33:16.evidence that for-profit schools raise standards, they haven't done
:33:16. > :33:22.so in America, they certainly haven't done so in Sweden. What do
:33:22. > :33:27.you make that have? I think Mary's perhaps wrong on that issue, the
:33:27. > :33:30.evidence is mixed. I think is the best you could say. The for-profit
:33:30. > :33:35.sector it is not obvious that standards have been raised in
:33:35. > :33:39.America and Sweden, we have probably got the largest sector of
:33:39. > :33:44.for-profit schools there. They are not leading he Lee lights globally,
:33:44. > :33:47.in terms of he had -- leading lights globally in terms of
:33:47. > :33:51.education. If we look at the best countries in the world for their
:33:51. > :33:56.education system, what you don't find in Korea or Singapore or
:33:56. > :34:02.Finland is a big for-profit sector. On the other hand, if we can bring
:34:02. > :34:05.in extra capital and do what Policy Exchange says, we can have a social
:34:06. > :34:08.enterprise model, pilot it and see if the extra money and expertise
:34:08. > :34:15.can raise standards, that is surely what it should be about. It
:34:15. > :34:20.shouldn't be a right, left, ideolgical bat, between luddite
:34:20. > :34:25.unions on the one side. Luddite unions, here we go again, it is odd
:34:25. > :34:29.that if it is such an attractive model your own party hasn't
:34:29. > :34:33.embraced it in Government? It is a coalition Government. Left to your
:34:33. > :34:36.own devices you think they would? think there are many in the
:34:36. > :34:39.Government who would be sympathetic to it. As I say, the evidence is
:34:39. > :34:43.mixed, and Policy Exchange is suggesting a social enterprise
:34:43. > :34:47.model where half the profits are retained by shareholders and the
:34:47. > :34:50.other half reinvested in the schools. If the private sector
:34:51. > :34:55.concentrates on schools serving the poorest, and must underprivileged
:34:55. > :35:00.areas of the country, and they can bring improvement to those children
:35:00. > :35:04.who need it most, surely, even people like Mary, who have a knee-
:35:04. > :35:07.jeark opposition to anything to do with the private sector, could set
:35:07. > :35:11.that asite, put the children first, instead of her own members'
:35:11. > :35:14.interests for once. You have said yourself that there is no evidence
:35:15. > :35:19.it would put the children first. Let's be clear there are real
:35:19. > :35:24.dangers. Let's do pilots like Policy Exchange suggest. There are
:35:24. > :35:27.real problems. Even the pilots are dangerous. Look in America with the
:35:27. > :35:34.charter schools, $400 million for charter schools, what have they
:35:34. > :35:39.found out, school management companies raking off between 5-18%
:35:39. > :35:45.of the school's income. Lack of resources, kids being taught in
:35:45. > :35:50.huts, kids not having books, children being charged $600 to
:35:50. > :35:55.gratd wait. What they found in flour -- grat wait. What they found
:35:55. > :35:58.in Florida is no real control. that was the true picture in Sweden
:35:58. > :36:02.and America there would be wholesale desire to get rid of for-
:36:02. > :36:07.profit. If you go to Sweden, historically socialist Sweden, is
:36:07. > :36:10.there anybody in the political landscape who think you should get
:36:10. > :36:15.rid of the for-profits, I don't think you are painting a fair
:36:15. > :36:19.picture, let's have pilots, stop opposing all change just because it
:36:19. > :36:23.proves for-profit. They don't think they should get rid of Free Schools
:36:23. > :36:27.in Sweden, but they issued a report and investigation into how Free
:36:28. > :36:31.Schools and the management company of Free Schools in Sweden are
:36:31. > :36:36.cutting corners in order to make profit. He said we are finding they
:36:36. > :36:39.don't have libraries, or school nurses, they don't have a rigorous
:36:39. > :36:44.curriculum, they are letting the kids do what they want. Strange
:36:44. > :36:48.they don't want to get rid of them. They want to regulate them better.
:36:48. > :36:51.That is a different argument, we should pilot it, try to get the
:36:51. > :36:54.framework right, we have to incentivise the right behaviour, if
:36:54. > :36:58.we can target it at the children who are most often being let down
:36:58. > :37:03.by the system now, it is surely something, across the divide, we
:37:04. > :37:08.should all be able to join together on and see piloted. We will do that,
:37:08. > :37:12.if you do something for us, stop local authorities being denied the
:37:12. > :37:16.opportunity to run a school. They can't even bid to run a school.
:37:16. > :37:20.Even if it is a parents-preferred choice, that good local authorities,
:37:20. > :37:24.are not allowed to set up and run schools. There is no place planing,
:37:24. > :37:28.these Free Schools, largely secondary schools, where we have an
:37:28. > :37:32.explosion of Primary School places needed, there is no place planning,
:37:32. > :37:36.there is no sensible way of managing and organising place
:37:36. > :37:40.planing in the system at the moment. It is at tomorrowised, it is
:37:40. > :37:43.fragmented, and the result will be, never mind the profit motive for
:37:43. > :37:47.whatever else, children won't have school places, that is because
:37:47. > :37:53.there is no way they can be controlled. You uniquely -- neatly
:37:53. > :37:57.changed the subject to place planning. I have no thoits on that.
:37:58. > :38:04.The man who is tired of London is tired of life, there is no London
:38:04. > :38:08.all that life can afford. The old place has changed a bit since Dr
:38:08. > :38:12.Johnson's testimonial, it has changed astonishingly, where it is
:38:12. > :38:16.unrecoginsable in some places over the last few years. What is it that
:38:16. > :38:20.making Londoners Londoners, they are as likely toe come from Poland
:38:20. > :38:26.and Ecuador as Ealing. It seems more plugged into the rest of the
:38:26. > :38:32.world than the rest of the country. The gap between rich and poor yawns.
:38:32. > :38:38.A big fat London novel is how John Lanchester describes Capital, the
:38:38. > :38:43.saga of the residents of Pepys Road, an ordinary street in south London.
:38:43. > :38:48.The housing boom, that British obsession has made its residents
:38:48. > :38:52.rich, because all of the houses in the road, as if by magic, were now
:38:52. > :38:56.worth millions of pounds. The new residents, including a banker
:38:56. > :39:01.waiting anxiously whether his bonus will top �1 million, it is not
:39:01. > :39:07.strictly, to him, a bonus, but a vital necessity. But the novel
:39:07. > :39:14.opens on the eve of the financial crisis. Enthusiastic reviewers have
:39:14. > :39:19.seen the book as a post-crash state-of-the-nation novel, in which
:39:19. > :39:25.Asian shopkeepers rub shoulders with Zimbabwean traffic wardens,
:39:25. > :39:30.and Polish builders lust after Hungarian nannies. The last
:39:30. > :39:34.locally-born resident dies mid-way through, while they are artist
:39:34. > :39:40.grandson, basks in the attention of a trivial middle-class. What do
:39:41. > :39:45.these people have in common, do they share anything beyond
:39:45. > :39:49.capital's rather grubby air. The author of Capital, John Lanchester,
:39:49. > :39:54.is with us now. From your novel we are not all in this together, are
:39:54. > :39:59.we? I don't think we are, no. most striking characteristic of
:39:59. > :40:09.Londoners portrayed in your novel is how at tomorrowised it is?
:40:09. > :40:09.
:40:09. > :40:14.is my own view of London -- atomised it is. That is my own view
:40:14. > :40:18.of London. I always think about when politicians talk about
:40:18. > :40:22.community, people live in parallel solitude, they don't know the
:40:22. > :40:27.people around them and they are on these parallel tracks that barely
:40:27. > :40:32.brush up against each other. centres on one road, built for
:40:32. > :40:37.people of relatively modest means, and because of the London profit
:40:37. > :40:43.boom they have all got wealthy, there is the banker, Polish
:40:43. > :40:48.builders, the Hungarian nannies, the Zimbabwean traffic warden, they
:40:48. > :40:58.all lead very independent lives, do you get any sense of what it is
:40:58. > :40:59.
:40:59. > :41:02.draws people to London. I once spent an afternoon in the pub, I
:41:02. > :41:07.was locked out of the house, and there was a misunderstanding about
:41:07. > :41:11.the keys. I got chatting to a Polish woman working as a nanny,
:41:11. > :41:15.although she was a qualified teacher, she had a doctorate. She
:41:15. > :41:18.talked about her reasons for being in London and reeled off these
:41:19. > :41:22.things, and the expression became whist. And said there is also the
:41:22. > :41:25.London dream. There was a striking sense, once people would have
:41:25. > :41:29.talked like that about America. Now there is a sense that the UK in
:41:29. > :41:31.general, London in particular is a place where people come to make
:41:31. > :41:34.their fortunes. It seems, I don't know whether it
:41:34. > :41:40.seems like this to you, it seems a city that is not really plugged
:41:40. > :41:46.into the rest of Britain so much, as plugged into the world? I worry
:41:46. > :41:52.about that aspect, the Manhattenisation of London. In the
:41:52. > :41:56.way that Manhatten is the financial centre and is much more ethnically
:41:56. > :42:02.diverse and regarded as a special case by the rest of the US. London
:42:02. > :42:12.could go in that direction t might almost be an island floating of the
:42:12. > :42:19.rest of the UK. Does it matter? might as inequality grows, not just
:42:19. > :42:22.the 0.1%, but the 0.01% of those, with the wealth and privilege there
:42:22. > :42:28.and the rest of the country struggling. I get a slight whiff of
:42:28. > :42:32.that already. There are parts of the UK you go to and it feels like
:42:32. > :42:37.1976. If we move apart from each other, that does matter.
:42:37. > :42:40.There is in your portrait of this straight, there is no such thing as
:42:41. > :42:46.what used to be called the host community, is there? No, I think
:42:46. > :42:50.that's a thing you notice in London too. That a lot, it is like those
:42:50. > :42:53.things when you used to see diagrams of the neutron bomb
:42:53. > :42:57.radiating out, and leaving buildings intact, but killing all
:42:57. > :43:02.the people. Money has done that to London, the people who used to live
:43:02. > :43:06.in centre now live further out, the people who used to live in the
:43:06. > :43:13.periphery have largely dispersed, it has changed the pexure of London
:43:13. > :43:17.life. It has -- texture of London life. And in a factual way changed
:43:17. > :43:21.the people who live here. What about changed moral codes? That is
:43:21. > :43:24.an issue, one of the things that can happen in the modern world, if
:43:24. > :43:28.you never go anywhere or do anything and stay in the same place
:43:28. > :43:32.all your life, you still look out of the window and don't recognise
:43:32. > :43:36.where you are. That can happen, the sleepiest, most rural parts of the
:43:36. > :43:39.country, people have that experience. I think a big part of
:43:39. > :43:44.it is that sense that the stories we tell each other, and the values
:43:44. > :43:50.we have, are no longer shared. mention that the opportunity that
:43:50. > :43:55.London seems in the minds of many people to offer to realise a dream,
:43:55. > :44:01.it also offers sanctuary, doesn't it? That's true. I pine for a
:44:01. > :44:05.simple letter day when we speak straight forwardly about refugees -
:44:05. > :44:10.simpler day when we talk about refugees, and people noi talk about
:44:10. > :44:14.asylum seekers and it is a contested -- now talk about asylum
:44:15. > :44:19.seekers and it is a contested issue. It is about the places people want
:44:19. > :44:26.to get away from and to, and the second catagory is a better thing
:44:26. > :44:30.to be. Do you feel optimistic about the future about this
:44:30. > :44:37.increatesingly heterogeneous, -- increasingly hettro genius
:44:37. > :44:45.straining at the seems city. I was born in hoing Kong and brought up
:44:45. > :44:49.in Germany, I'm from where else, the hettro genius -- hettro genius
:44:49. > :44:53.is a strength. It will be a difficult few years for everyone in
:44:53. > :45:03.the UK, but there is so much energy, talent, enterprise and appetite
:45:03. > :45:05.
:45:05. > :45:10.here, I'm optimistic. That's all from Tuesday night tonight, nothing
:45:10. > :45:14.so exciting as the political career of the former Prime Minister of
:45:14. > :45:19.Belgium, Herman Van Rompuy, his time has President of the European
:45:19. > :45:22.Union's council has been such a glittering success it is to be
:45:22. > :45:30.extended for another couple of years, it seems no-one else wants
:45:30. > :45:34.the job. What a man. # As I walk along the street
:45:34. > :45:41.# With my naiyo in this case and frittes
:45:41. > :45:46.# You can tell I'm as happy as can # It is a shame about the weather
:45:46. > :45:54.# But we all live in harmony # It is great to be a Belgian
:45:54. > :46:04.# I'm not English, French or Dutch # I'm not Polish, Italian ordainish
:46:04. > :46:07.
:46:07. > :46:14.# I'm a Belgian, so thank you very Wettest conditions in western
:46:14. > :46:20.Scotland and the Cumbrian fells during the day.
:46:20. > :46:27.Surface water flooding, easing off across the North West later, patchy
:46:27. > :46:31.mainly light drizzle, gusty winds possible. In East Anglia dry, but a
:46:31. > :46:36.cooler day to come compared with today. Temperatures only around 9-
:46:36. > :46:42.10, strengthening winds. After a reasonably dry start to the south
:46:42. > :46:46.west, here the rain will develop widely, heaviest to be across
:46:46. > :46:52.Snowdonia. In the Northern Ireland rain to be heavy all morning, light
:46:52. > :46:56.in the afternoon. 12-13 possible in the westerly winds. Scotland 12-14
:46:56. > :47:01.is likely. Damp across western areas, not as wet as the morning,
:47:01. > :47:04.the north-east dryer and brighter. Changes into Thursday, not as wet
:47:04. > :47:08.across parts of North West England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but
:47:08. > :47:11.the western coast jal hills damp and drizzley, same too across
:47:11. > :47:16.England and Wales, Thursday set to be dry, brighter and that is going
:47:16. > :47:19.to have a huge impact. Even with the outbreaks of rain across the