14/10/2012 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. The battle lines

are drawn. The question has been sorted. There's to be only one, not

two. And if you're sweet 16 or 17 you might even get the chance to

vote. What am I talking about? The referendum on Scottish independence.

David Cameron and Alex Salmond will announce all the deal tomorrow.

We'll be asking both sides if they're happy with the rules of

engagement? This man has a tall order on his hands. He's charged

with leading the Conservative Party to victory at the next election.

We'll be asking Grant Shapps how he intends to do it in the Sunday

interview. And should it be on your bike, Thrasher Mitchell? The Police

Federation thinks so. But David Cameron does not, so far. We'll be

talking about the Chief Whip's future and much much more in the

week ahead. In London, after the Olympics, what legacy for the

jobless youngsters? And Paralympians Sophie Christiansen on

her battle to improve access on the They're articulate, they're plugged

in, they're the hackiest hacks known to mankind. And they can

tweet! Yes, three of the biggest brains in Pundit Land and they're

cheaper than Pound Land. Welcome, Nick Watt, Janan Ganesh and Isabel

Oakeshott. Let's go immediately to Scotland because tomorrow David

Cameron and Alex Salmond will announce the deal they've done to

facilitate a referendum on Scottish independence. In a moment we'll

talk to those campaigning for and against. But first here's Susanna

The battle lines have been drawn, and the guns loaded, metaphorically

speaking. But now the fight over when and whether Scotland should

have its own say seems to be over. The British Prime Minister and the

Scottish First Minister appear to have put down their weapons and

they are about to shake hands on a deal that will give Scottish people

a referendum on their independence. Ever since the Scottish National

Party trounced Labour at the elections to the Scottish

parliament last year, there has been mounting pressure for a public

vote. A Labour MP says it has been a battle well played. Alex Salmond

is a very skilful operator, and I think he has managed to manoeuvre

the UK government into a position whereby they are now forced to

recognise the magnificent mandate the Scottish government won in

order to hold this referendum, and that the referendum should be made

in Scotland and run in Scotland for the people of Scotland. Edinburgh

Castle has changed hands several times over the centuries and the

question of who should rule Scotland has long been a

controversial one. The deal on the table appears to be a referendum by

the end of 2014, by which time 16 and 17 year olds would get the

chance to vote. That is not what the SNP were fighting for - they

wanted a second question on whether there should be devolved powers.

One of those campaigning for a No vote on Scott and leaving the UK is

glad that idea is not making the deal. At the beginning of this

process Alex Salmond wanted to determine the timing, the body

overseeing it, and frankly it began to look as if he wanted to fix the

referendum in his own image. referendum could also be opening

the doors to 16 and 17 year olds voting, although the Scottish

parliament would have to decide on that. Some doubt younger voters

would make any difference to the result. There are not enough 16 and

17 year olds in Scotland. They only represent about 2.5 % of the

electorate. There are not enough of them to set up opinion-poll, which

at the moment are suggesting Yes vote might be as low as 37 %. Even

if every 16 and 17 year-old turned up and voted yes, they could not

swing things. A with the finishing touches on a referendum deal all

but complete, all that is left now is to fire the starting gun.

Now the deputy First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, joins us

from Glasgow. Can you explain, why have you agreed to forgo a third

choice on the ballot paper offering less than independence but a lot

more devolution and present mealy for votes for 16 year-olds? The SNP

have never said we wanted a second option on the ballot paper. We said

it should not be prematurely ruled out and we thought it should be

decided by the Scottish parliament. In any negotiation, both sides have

to compromise. I am satisfied the outcome we have reached is approved

by the First Minister and the Prime Minister tomorrow, guaranteeing a

referendum in Scotland. At the start of this year we had David

Cameron trying to dictate the timing, the wording of the question,

the franchise, and these things will now be determined in Scotland.

Have you not sold yourself short? The evidence suggests strongly that

in a straight yes No vote, you will lose. We have two years ago. If you

cast your mind back to the Scottish Parliament election, the SNP were

15 points behind in the opinion polls. We went on a few months

later to win a majority in the Scottish parliament. I am confident

we can win a majority for Yes vote. The Yes vote will enable us to

determine our own future so I am confident that is something we can

win. You are up against a shambles of the Labour Party at that time.

In the most recent reputable survey, it shows of 1000 Scottish people,

prop up bowling, support for the union at 53 %, saw -- support for

your position only 38. What will change? We now know there is a Tory

Labour consensus in Scotland to roll back the progress of

devolution. Whichever one of these parties is in government in

Westminster, they want to take away free personal care for the elderly,

bus passes away from pensioners, free health care at that point of

need so that is what the no vote means. We know that both of those

parties want to do that in the Scottish parliament and Westminster.

Yes vote is a vote for Scotland to be in charge of the decisions about

the future of our country. I think if we spell that out, opinion polls

will start to turn around. You can take these decisions now, that is

up to the Scottish parliament. have a budget that is year on year

being reduced, and that is what is putting John Lambert for example

from the Labour Party into a straight jacket. This will give

Scotland control of our own resources. We can choose to invest

in tackling child poverty, rather than �100 million a year on Trident

nuclear weapons. You ditched the third choice in return for votes

for 16 and 17 year olds because your party thinks teenagers in

Scotland are more nationalist, but a recent poll of school children

who will be 16 and 70, we found a small percentage wanted

independence. -- 16 and 17. don't favour of votes for these

people because we feel it gives us an advantage, we favour that

because we feel it is right. Where we have had power to do so

previously, we have already extended the franchise to 16 and 17

year olds. We think it is the right thing to do and I'm glad the

Scottish parliament will be in a position to make that choice.

made the negotiations so you carry the can if it goes pear-shaped, you

must be worried you threw away the choice of devolution Max. I don't

think I am giving you an exclusive when the SNP's favoured

constitution for Scotland is independence. That will be on the

ballot paper in a referendum, the timing of which, the question for

which will be determined in the Scottish parliament. A referendum

made in Scotland, that is what we set out to achieve. Except for the

fact it will be yes no question. In doing this deal with Westminster,

and you were at the heart of the negotiations, did you seek and were

you given reassurance... For that is a question for Labour and Tories,

parties arguing against yes vote. They have to set out what the no

vote means. They need to spell that out. I think we see those people

that want more powers now beginning to turned towards Yes vote. We see

more people in the Sunday papers today with that view because people

who want change know that the only way of getting guaranteed that

change is to vote yes in the referendum. Who said this quote?

didn't hear the first part of it. This is not a referendum about

national identity. I am a proud Scot, but this is a referendum that

will determine where economic and political power resides. We want to

make sure that just as we take decisions now over the future of

the health service, so too can we make decisions about the future of

the economy. It was Robbie Burns. Thank you for joining us this

morning. The man charged with persuading

people to keep the UK together, Alistair Darling, is now in our

head in the studio. Do you agree with Michael Forsyth that David

Cameron has washed his hands of the referendum like Pontius Pilate?

know, I don't. Am pleased we have got this agreement particularly on

there being one question about staying in the UK or leaving, and

that is something the nationalists recognise they didn't have the

support for a second, more muddled question. I am anxious to get on to

the merits of it. Listening to Nicola Sturgeon, she rightly keeps

going on about the economy, which is central, but I just wonder if

she has reflected on the fact that their policy of keeping the pound

within the fiscal union actually means that the Scottish parliament

would have to have its budget agreed with what would remain with

the UK as they are doing in the eurozone. A currency union takes

you to a political union so it demonstrates that the sooner we get

on to the merits of this argument and cut through the bluster and

nonsense, the better it will be. have to years to get on to the

substance, I'm just interested, given what will happen in Edinburgh

tomorrow, more about the process. In your view was it sensible to

hand over to Alex Salmond the wording of the question, votes for

16 and 17 year olds, and to agree to delay the vote until 2014? Again,

Michael Forsyth described it as a pawn in negotiation. The key thing

at stake in these negotiations was to get the single question. As you

have raised these other matters, let me deal with them. I would have

preferred to have this referendum in the autumn of 23rd team because

it two-year election campaign, longer than they take to elect the

President of the United States, will try the patience of the public.

In relation to 16 and 17 year olds, I personally don't think we should

change the franchise for one particular referendum or election.

However, I understand and it is perfectly understandably

philosophically what the UK government has said we will not

seek to block the Scottish Parliament for extending this

franchise if that is what it wants to do. If they do do that, they

will have to do rather more than what we have at the moment, whether

it is Shia chance if the 16 or 17 year-old is on the register. In

relation to the wording, and in relation to the spending, I am

clear that you can't be both a player and a referee in this

contest at the same time. The electoral commission has got to be

arbitrary here and both sides, no matter how inconvenient it may be,

needs to stick to that. The would you settle for the question that

has been floated - do you agree that Scotland should be an

I would prefer a question that is not tilted either way. A newspaper

carried out an opinion poll using Alex Salmond's chosen words and the

result was worse for him than the previous poll. I think we can win

this on merits. But it's important in relation to fairness, people in

Scotland feeling this is a fair campaign and they are hearing

arguments on both sides, that both sides should agree the Electoral

Commission is the arbiter here. They are independent, they have no

axe to grind. Any attempt to weasel out of that would be very bad

indeed. Your campaign is called Better Together. Why isn't Gordon

Brown playing a major role? He has, he made two speeches in August in

relation to this, two very good speech as they were as well. The

reason we call that that is because it is what we believe her. We are

proud of being both Scottish and British. We believe that Scotland

has a lot to contribute to the UK. We are far more than the sum of our

parts. The UK has done tremendous things and has got tremendous

potential to do things. At a time like this, when you have

unparalleled economic uncertainty, to set off in an uncertain

direction, a step that would be impossible to leave, I think it

would be a disaster. I think that most people in Scotland believe we

are better together. If you are better together, would you shared a

platform with David Cameron? I have no problem sharing platforms when I

agree with others. I disagree with David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick

Clegg, for what it matters, on the relation of the economy at the

moment. But on the issue of what is best for the people of Scotland,

best for the UK, we are better at together. If you look at the

evidence, that is an argument we can win. We have 100 weeks in front

of us before we can get into the polling stations. I think if we can

put the arguments across convincingly, people can see that

we are better as part of the UK, Scottish and British together, I

think we can win the argument. Scotland does not take your advice

and votes for independence, where does that leave your career? What

would you do? It isn't about me, it's about the next 300 years, when

me and you are long gone and forgotten. You will be around for a

while yet! I hope I will be. But for the next two years, what I have

focused on his winning the argument, the biggest single question that

people in Scotland are going to be asked for the next 300 years. It is

profoundly important and I think we can win that argument as long as we

get on to the merits. Frankly, the other lot have had 80 odd years,

since the SNP were set up, and they seem quite thin when it comes to

the answers. Nick, is the Alex Salmond strategy,

they say it is a referendum made in Scotland, but having to agree to

yes or no, does that mean his strategy is beginning to unravel or

not? I think it is a strategy of failure. Do you remember the slogan,

free by 93? His slogan for this was that you should have the three

questions, in or out and then the devo-max question. He, as a

separatist, could not make the case for devo-max, massive evolution but

short of independence, he could not make that case. He wanted civic

Scotland to make that case. There was silence from them, so he's back

to it in or out. He's not happy with a few things, but he's happy

it's one question. It seems to me that Mr Cameron was prepared to

give on everything, as long as he got the yes or no question and no

third option? London took the view that it was worth giving everything

away to get that? Then a significant thing from the SNP's

point of view is the timetable, which gives the SNP, they hope,

long enough to build up a real momentum for their campaign. I

think the votes for 16 and 17-year- olds is a bit of a red herring. It

is the timescale they are pinning their hopes on. The problem is, a

lot can go wrong in two years, as well as right. Since Alex Salmond

announced the campaign, support for independence has gone from 38%,

down to 28%? Alex Salmond can only build that momentum by answering

the substantive questions which Alastair Darling alluded to.

Questions to do with currency, who stands behind RBS if the worst

comes to the worst. The Government down here deserves some credit.

Over the course of the year they have put a lot of pressure on the

SNP on those questions and found them wanting. In January, Alex

Salmond was seen in Westminster as an intimidating and shrewd operator.

His reputation has not diminished entirely, but it is not quite as

formidable as in January. A lot of that comes down to David Cameron

applying pressure. He speaks 2014 because the Ryder Cup takes place,

it's the anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, is the Commonwealth

nations of the United Kingdom. But it is also the 100 anniversary of

the First World War and the 75th anniversary of the start of the

Second World War, in which Scots were clearly part of a British

project? I think the thing about Alex Salmond is that he is a

brilliant opposition politician. But when it comes to confronting

responsibility, he crumbles. The great independent, separatist Alex

Salmond, they will have the same Queen. They will keep the pound.

The great independent Alex Salmond, it turns out they would have to

join the European Union, said they would have to have the euro. The

reason why we are not happy about this is that it would mean that he

would have to go through passport control to come and present this

programme. You think I come from Scotland to present this programme?

Strange character! 2014, we have had the referendum debate, Scotland

votes for independence or not, how does it vote? I am sure there will

vote to stay within the Union. I think it's as much an emotional

issue as a logical one. The only opportunity for the SNP is

persuading people that Scotland would be economically better off

under independence. You are saying they would vote no? I think they

will vote no, but the 'Yes' vote that there will be sufficiently

large that the SNP will call for the third question later on, more

power for the Scottish parliament. I think there will vote yes to

remain in the United Kingdom, just look at the polls. Three no boats,

but none of them have a vote. And how much they know about Scotland

is another matter. The man tasked with sharpening up

the Tory party image is having a tough ride. Trailing behind Labour

and the polls, faced with a more confident Labour leader, the new

chairman has some tricky tasks building up in his in-tray.

Grant Shapps was made chairman and the September reshuffle. He had two

years as housing minister. Known to some as the Duracell Bunny of the

party because of his energy and optimism. His reputation has taken

something of a knock from embarrassing revelations that he

operated a marketing company under the pseudonym Michael Green. He's

now in charge of Tory HQ and has bigger problems. First, there is

the tricky mid-term challenges, like the local European elections

and next month's by-election in Corby. Beyond that, he has to get

the party into shape to win the elusive overall majority at the

2015 election, something the Tories last manage 20 years ago. He's even

had a clock installed in Central Office to remind party workers that

they have only 935 days to go. In Conservative Party chairman Grant

Shapps joins me now for the Sunday I'd like to look at the mountains

you have to climb to get that elusive overall majority at the

next election. Do you accept that if it is not mission impossible,

you can hardly say that, it is a pretty tall order? Yes, it's going

to be a difficult election. Let's not underestimate it. But I think

them are some things that are encouraging, at the same time,

reasons why we can win. We are middle term and that is always

difficult, right in the middle of the parliament. If you look at

historic trends, let alone a government where we are having to

make difficult decisions on deficit and the rest of it, we are not

Poling as badly as 83-87, when we were probably 10 points shy of

where we were in the polls. It's not impossible. We need to work on

the fact that we have a lot more MPs in place. We won 100 seats last

time, people working hard for their communities on the ground. That's

another reason, the incumbency factor, while there is a little bit

of advantage and outside. But it's not going to be easy. How much more

difficult has it become from the coalition's failure to redraw the

boundaries and cut the size of the Commons? I think we drawing the

boundaries is more than about cutting the size of the Commons.

People should be able to vote and constituencies that are broadly the

same size. It has made things more difficult for you? At Simile, it

makes it harder. First hour we have a strategy in place that says we

have a path to winning even on the existing, old boundaries. That is

why we are getting candidates selected very quickly in the new

year. We will have candidates in our most marginal seats we need to

win. The second thing is that we haven't given up on boundaries. I

think they are right, they are fair, we should have a smaller parliament,

it would be cheaper to run and there are lots of reasons to have

boundary changes. Are you in confidential talks with the Lib

Dems about bringing back boundary reform in return for helping the

Lib Dems that party finance? No. discussion at all? That, for a

start, the vote has to take place next year, in October, when we know

the final shape of the boundaries. It has to come back to Parliament

and there will need to be a vote through the lobbies. A year is a

long time, a week is a long time in politics and a year is a lifetime.

You haven't given up hope? because it was in the coalition

agreement, Nick Clegg said it was right for the basis of fairness. I

believe him, absolutely right that it should happen. But I'm putting

in place a strategy for us to win the election, regardless. In 2010,

it was in the midst of a deep recession which you blamed Labour

for. You were against a third term Labour government, a deeply

unpopular Prime Minister. You now need 126 seats for a bare majority,

not even a working majority. You need another 20 seats, minimum. You

actually need a lot more after spending cuts, tax rises, squeezed

living standards, anaemic growth, when I put it like that I'm

beginning to think it his mission impossible. Let me convince you the

other way. The mountain to climb last time was huge, but we got the

biggest increase in the number of Conservative MPs at any time since

1931. I already mentioned that I think in politics nowadays

incumbency means more. MPs, like a generation ago, will work on

everything from international, national affairs, down to the pot

hole in your street. MPs are in touch with their constituents a lot

more. It didn't work for the Spanish Prime Minister, the

Socialist Prime Minister? 50% of European governments that have been

up for election since the crash have lost. Incumbents lose. Let me

put it this way. In the last election, regardless of political

party, encumbered members of parliament had swings that work to

buy 5% to 3% less against them because they were the incumbent.

Incumbency is important. I want to slightly challenge the maths.

Although you are right, you would think that 326 was the boundary,

actually we are not that far short of where we need today. I can

reveal a strategy, that we are going to defend on those marginal

seats, but we are going to attack the 40 seats that we will need to

win. We are going to focus and target on their seats in a way that

we have never done before. I think targeting it is very important and

it comes down to pavement politics and winning it, seat by seat. We

are the party, we are the candidates that can best represent

the community. The failure to get boundary changes is one millstone

around your neck. Let's look at another, the budget of 2012. What

that shows is that you are actually neck and neck with Labour until the

Budget. Since then, Labour's lead is widening. I would suggest that

what that shows is that people will accept hardship if there is

competence. But after they saw this Budget, they thought, this is

incompetence, we are not going to accept hardship for that? Well, you

make reference to installing the countdown clock in Conservative

Central Office. That is absolutely true. We are still slightly in the

first half of the parliament. There is an awfully long way to run.

Before we get obsessed with what is happening in mid-term, let's

actually think forward two years, two and-a-half years, when people

will be saying, has this government managed to deal with some of the

overriding issues? The deficit, where we have taken a quarter off

the deficit. Have we got a plan for the way forward? Has the Prime

Minister described some of the real challenges? I thought in David

Cameron's speech, when he was saying, our challenge is not

arguing about Greece and all of that, as important as it is, China

is producing an economy the size of Greece every three months. That is

the big picture. How has this country going to compete? When you

look at that graph of polling opinions and projected forward

against the fact that we have a plan, compared to a fairly well

received but empty speech by Ed Miliband, people are going to say,

actually, who understands what is going on in this country? Who

understands the position in the world and who has the big plan?

Let's look forwards from that chart and talk about UKIP. That is

another threat to your overall majority. Tory inclined voters were

clear about this in Birmingham. They want a clear choice of a

referendum and they want it sooner, rather than later. But all they get

from your leader is weasel words about fresh consent and no

timetable. Undeniably, there is a lot changing in Europe. We have 17

countries in the eurozone. At some of the unbelievable flocks. We need

to see what that resolution will be. As others have said, we need to be

clear about the fact that we want to run more things from the UK,

from the British Parliament. We think that we should be able to

return powers. We should be able to put all that together and either at

the election, or shortly after at the referendum, knowing what we are

negotiating terms of powers that should be with the British

Parliament, either put that to election or referendum. But you

would get a referendum before the election? Two and-a-half years,

very long time. We need to know what will happen in the eurozone

and they need to settle that position. We to be out there saying,

actually, these are the areas that need to be looked at. You ruled out

and in or out referendum question are Britain's best interests are

served by being in control? But as the years and get close together,

you are trying to arrange a settlement in which we are more

semi-detached. If you put that to people in a referendum, what is the

choice? You vote for the semi- I can't tell you the details

because they have not been negotiated. If you vote no, what

happens? At the moment we have a situation where powers that could

be better run in Britain can be taken in Europe. The answer is you

would carry on as you are. We are saying we would either in the

election or the referendum put in a new settlement that returns some of

those powers. It you don't sharpen your message, you could lose a lot

of the UK. Let's have a look at this opinion poll. 60% of your own

supporters want a packed with UKIP in marginal seats because they are

frightened that with a less than sharp message you will lose votes

to UKIP. There whole issue of Europe moves around, and you asked

people how important the Sears. I remember a poll a month ago when it

came up with 3% as the most important issue. At other times it

goes higher. I tend to be Euro- sceptic, I think we should have

more powers but I think we should be in Europe. I am not going to do

a pact with UKIP any more than I will be with the Lib Dems. There is

a problem that the country, the government is a bunch of out of

touch posh boys. The result of the Andrew Mitchell incident is that it

reinforces that - do you agree? take knocks in government. We are a

party of aspiration, we are behind people who want to strive. But do

you accept Mr Mitchell has not that? Clearly, these incidents are

not helpful. That is true, but before we take that to a ridiculous

extreme and say there for this party can't support people who want

to work hard in this country getting on and doing the right

thing - people who work long hours... I want to stick to the

subject for the moment. How many MPs have said to you Andrew

Mitchell should go? I can't recall a single one. There were many MPs

calling for this. Were you in the hall when his picture went up and

euro and activists were booing at him? What does that tell you, your

own people? About that whole affair, clearly he should never have been

rude to the police. He would be the first person to accept that now. He

was, and he apologised. The individual policemen concerned has

accepted the apology, and other people are now piling in and saying

that is not good enough. It is time to draw a line and move on. Let's

look at Euro position. This book, How to create your own money making

mint, how Michael Green is doing it right now. This is your book. Most

people like to be got their business record. Look at Mitt

Romney at the moment in the US. What was so embarrassing about

yours that you had used a false name? I am not embarrassed, but

firstly my main business, a printing company, as a hobby my

wife and I started publishing business online which turned out to

be relatively successful and it was about publishing some very boring

things like how to write a newsletter. Why did you use the

name Michael Green? Simply for the fact that I wanted to keep my

interest in politics, which I wasn't in at the time, separate. I

actually wrote on lying in my biography this is not my real name,

the reason is that I am going into public service. You gave interviews

as Michael Green, and your book you said would show people have to make

$20,000 in 20 days. How do you do that? A There is a serious business

which is in the context of online marketing is about creating a

product online, putting it up and marketing it. There was a 45,000

word manual. Have you done this? is certainly possible to do this

online. Shouldn't you be Chancellor of the Exchequer if you can do

that? This is largely marketed to the US market. The they are more

gullible? Let me answer your question. My final question - isn't

your whole affair, another embarrassment to your party, too

posh and privileged we can now add Grant Shapps' sharp business

practices? No, not at all. Everything we produced in business

was about helping other people to get on. People could produce online

guides, sell them on the internet. There was a massive market place in

the United States, and so it was very brash. Do you wish you have

used your real name? I was very open about it at the time, and now

people are curious about it. Thank you for joining us.

For it is coming up to midday, you are watching Sunday Politics. In 20

minutes I will be looking at the week ahead with our political panel.

Until then, the Sunday Politics across the UK.

Welcome to the London section of Sunday Politics. Coming up, are

disabled people being taken seriously when it comes to getting

around on the London transport network? We will be hearing from

Paralympian Sophie Christiansen. Instantly it is a problem. With me

for the duration this week, Diane Abbott and Greg Hands. Firstly, the

problems young people face in finding a job are proving hard to

overcome. One in four under 25s in the capital is out of work. Next

week, the TUC is holding a margin the capital. The Youth Contract is

being created to help young people, but it could prove quite a task.

For the last two years, the number of unemployed young Londoners has

remained high. The current figure is 25%. It is a slight improvement

on last year when the rate reached over 27%, but since 2010 there has

been an overall increase. There are 10,000 people not in education,

employment or training, so we went to knew when to find out what it is

like for young people finding work. I was unemployed for most of the

year. There are no jobs. If the job centre can be offered jobs, I will

start tomorrow. I will be there. have applied for 20 jobs in the

last week, had one interview and didn't get that because someone was

more qualified than me. By just one to have enough money and go home

and give my family food. I want to earn that money and take it home to

my family. Earl's Court is the setting for an event called Youth

Enterprise live this weekend, a Business For targeted at young

people and Stephen Farrow has been setting it up. Welcome to you. What

have you been picking up? The have noticed we have a lot of young

people attending, mostly unemployed or looking for alternatives of

going to work. We also have a lot of employers and we are picking up

there government incentives like Youth Contract are not well known.

People do not realise there is something out there to help young

people and businesses. What, 2000 or a little bit more? For �2,000

based on a minimum of 26 weeks placement of the young person.

Offered to the company? Yes, as an incentive. I don't think it is

enough. There are alternative ways this could have been handled to

encourage businesses. One of the other problems is that businesses

don't really trust hiring young people because they feel they may

be lacking in certain skills. We need to look at how we can bridge

that. There are a lot of schemes about bridging the gap. Is it the

financial incentive that is not enough, or do businesses know about

the scheme? Businesses don't know about it, and that is what we have

heard this weekend. Even young people are not aware of it. When

you do research into Youth Contract and look at the system of how you

go about getting it, it is not simple. As a small business, if you

only have a few employees and you have an option to bring someone on,

to go through the rigmarole of setting it up, to wait for the

payment, the incentive is not necessarily there. Greg Hands, we

are hearing problems. A lot of my colleagues are doing jobs fairs in

their constituencies. I did one in Imperial Wharf down the line from

Earl's Court, it happens every year, so they can add a great deal. Youth

unemployment is obviously a big problem and through the UK there

are just over 1 million young people unemployed. The government

is laying on a lot more apprenticeships. 500,000 new

apprenticeships in the last year had started, a record number, and

it is making a big difference on apprenticeships. Particularly if

your main new scheme, no one knows about it and the incentives are not

strong enough, there is a lot to be done. Doing things that job fairs,

making sure we are doing whatever we can to match jobseeker's with

the vacancies. There are 1 million young unemployed in this country,

and that is a problem we inherited from the previous government. It is

getting worse and we are concerned. These problems are very stubborn no

government has been successful at dealing with this in recent years.

That his true, but the current policy is not helping. When you

make cuts of this government is making, it makes it even harder for

young people's find jobs. This week I went to visit people on the work

programme in Hackney, and the problem many of these people have,

they are not necessarily job ready. We have to face the fact that so

long as you continue to slash the public sector, and young people in

boroughs like Hackney will find it even harder to get a job. Should it

be the case that when you have to cut public spending in the public

sector, it enabled the private sector to step in. We are moving in

the right direction with apprenticeships. Yes, but the

economics of a borough like Hackney is that the public sector has been

the largest single employer for 25 years. Private companies will not

be suddenly walking into Hackney and employing people. When Greg

talks about apprenticeships, my father had one, young men doing

real jobs. Some of these so-called apprenticeships are not really at

the standard for public imagines. It is about sitting in a classroom.

Some of what the government is talking about are not really

helpful. Also, the apprenticeships are Again, young people don't know

how to go about gaining an apprenticeship so we saw on the

clip young people saying they go to the JobCentre and if they could get

a job tomorrow they would start. That is true, those jobs are not

available like they were 20 years ago. We understand that, but the

problem is if somebody is not offered an alternative, an

apprenticeship, a lot of the apprenticeships are being given to

school leavers were they have had some vocational training. That is

brilliant because that effectively, OK, we could say we will be

freezing and niche figure, talking about not employment apprenticeship

It becomes a social disorder problem, and employment. We saw

that last year. The background to this is the appalling economic mess

that has been taken over from Labour. Oh, please. Since the

General Election, creating 1 million private sector jobs has

more than offset the number of public jobs lost, it is an

absolutely necessary rebalancing of the economy that had to take place

for longer term benefit. We have not seen... A longer term benefit

stop at their we have not seen that Now, the Paralympic Games was seen

by many as a watershed in the way we understand disability. Its

legacy should be a better city for disabled people. According to one

of our most successful Paralympians, equestrian triple gold winner

Sophie Christiansen, the capital is difficult to get around. In one

Thank you. My little boy is in a wheelchair, so I think you are

amazing. We are repositioning the train, say you have more room to

Instantly, there is a problem. There is no access to the

underground that isn't steps. So we now have to take a taxi or a bus to

the nearest accessible tube station. Buses are normally accessible. But

they operate on a first-come, first-served basis. So if there is

another wheelchair or pushchair on the bus, I have to wait for the

next one. It also means that I can't travel with another friend in

a wheelchair. So, now I'm going to get a taxi. But that is much more

expensive than getting the Tube in Here I am, finally. This is a good

station for accessibility. But there could be more like this. I

went out last year and came back absolutely disgusted at how

inaccessible London was for Transport. London's Underground

system is much older than Vienna's. But the UK should be leading by

example. I've come to meet Chris Wright from a disability campaign.

He thinks that things can be done without spending a massive amount

of money. Adjustments for every station would be unreasonable. But

there are other things that can be done. You can make sure that if you

are dropped off at a particular station that there is not a bridge

with steps on it from one platform to another, or that gates are not

closed at the wrong time. Ramps have to be available. I was hoping

that with the Paralympics coming to London, it would prompt Transport

for London to make drastic improvements. For the sake of

everyone who took part in the Games, I'm pleased to say that Sophie is

with us, along with a lot of gold medals. Also here, TfL's

commissioner, Peter Hendy. Sophie, here is your chance, what could p

to be doing to provide or make things better for you in the

capital? Well, my understanding is that Ken Livingstone pledged that

by 2013 a third of the Underground to stations would be Stef Reid. But

when Boris Johnson came in, that was reduced. -- Step-free. I would

like to know why, and what your plans are to make it more

accessible. So, the target of a third of Tube stations was actually

never completely funded. In the spending review, we took out,

regrettably, work on four or five Tube stations. But that does not

mean we have not done anything about accessibility. What we do is

never enough, because it is a very old system, it is very inaccessible

for many people. In the next five, six, seven years, what we are going

to concentrate on his making the big stations accessible, places

like Victoria, where we are spending �5 million or �6 million.

As a consequence, many more journeys will be accessible than if

you did three or four smaller stations. We learned during the

Paralympics that one of the things people valued was better

information. The journey planner was adapted so you could find out

where to put the wheelchair, where the steps and accessible parts of

platforms were. We need to do more of that. We also discovered people

liked those manual ramps that got you onto the train. We pledged to

keep those. We have new trains coming, level with the platform.

All of that is on its way. heard that the promise that was

made his unfunded, he is saying. So the money is not there. What would

you say about that? Obviously, from my point of view, step-free access

should be made a priority. But I think the Paralympics have a legacy

and I think the ramps are perfect. Are you definitely keeping those

ramps? As far as the manual ramps go, we said we would not take them

out. We need to make sure that the stations have staff on them in

order to use them, but we will do that because it is an obviously

good thing to do. You are right, it is never enough. What London, what

the world has learned from seeing the Paralympics is that you can

facilitate people's lives by giving access and travel, access to jobs

and so on. Actually, Boris is always on to me to do more about

these things. But money is a finite supply. But it did expose London's

weakness. Nobody is going to deny that we had a good games dozed the

witness commit the money is not there, why isn't it found?

explains one thing, we have a very old system. If you had done these

games in many parts of the world that had AMEC resistant built in

the last 15 or 20 years, you would have had 100% accessible.

managed to transform a large part of the system, we know what the

problem is. We did, it is full of people. You need to make

adjustments on what you spend money on. If you do Victoria, as we will

do, as we have done King's Cross, suddenly thousands of journeys

become accessible. Many of them have two entrances, the day they

open, they make thousands and thousands... Are they all going to

be absolutely incorporating all disability needs? Yes. All the way

along the line. Maidenhead, Crossrail station? Yes, it is

really good because they have the staff are trained to deal with this.

Obviously when I get to Paddington, I'm stuck. You are saying there

will be no excuse with this? The trains and new stations constructed,

Crossrail will be folly accessible, along that route? Absolutely. The

other point that is very important is that both mayors have been

committed to stations that are staffed during all hours of

operation. That is a big difference with once controlled by the mayor,

as opposed to one outside the mayor's control, we are committed

to having staff there that means that people can get assistance.

Let's bring in our guest, Greg Hands. Peter Hendy can only do what

he can do if he gets enough subsidy or help from you guys? The number

of stations that a wheelchair accessible under Boris has

increased under the last four years. I think I'm right in saying that

every single London bus has a ramp and is accessible for people in

wheelchairs. Not only for people with wheelchairs, mothers with

prams, luggage, it's a big question, making the whole network more

accessible to everyone. This will be an enormous benefit to them.

Progress is happening. It's very expensive. Green Park, making that

wheelchair accessible, cost about �50 million. It is a lot of money.

It can't happen overnight, how would you prioritise this? We did

manage to achieve more under a Labour mayor, and then very

sympathetic to what Sophie said. On the one hand, the Government is

putting pressure on the disabled, benefits, DLA, saying that more

people should go out to work. But they don't have hope of going out

and getting a job and playing their part in society if they cannot move

I appreciate your work, with a really old system. But are there

any short-term schemes that you can put in place while these stations

The best they we can do is concentrate on better information.

It's clear to me that we did better during the Paralympics than we had

before in making the journey is that they can make. A lot of people

that were not using the system, who found themselves able to use it

through better information about which stations had stairs, where

the lifts were and all of that kind of stuff. I think that is easy to

do. Will we have to get off two or three stations away from our

destination? What about cheaper taxi fares or schemes like that?

think in London, the fact that the bus fleet is wholly accessible is

one of the right answers to that. Outside of London, it is infinitely

more difficult. I'm not sure I cannot -- can answer that, but

fortunately I don't have to. What else has been happening this week?

The biggest thing since Justin Bieber. The Boris express pulled

into Birmingham to a rock-star reception. He fought his way to his

gig, where he regaled Tory party members with stories about what he

did to become London's number one. We stopped our capital from falling

once again into the hands of a Cabaye of semi reformed Marxists

car haters and bendy Bush -- bus fetishists! He went on to give full

marks to Free Schools. The new Transport Secretary says it is full

steam ahead with the new high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham.

He said the project has not been derailed. Dealer Dicks may have

been pure gold, but for some of the tourist attractions they could not

compete, seeing a drastic drop in business over the Games. -- the

To borrow a formulation from another programme, was Boris

Johnson's appearance at the highlight of the week? If I was

David Cameron, I would be beside myself. You can't do better than

quote Max Hastings, who has known Boris for over 20 years. Charming,

funny, but unfit to be Prime Minister. Max Hastings, no less.

you agree with Ken Clarke, that he should be less concerned about

photo opportunities and put his nose to the grindstone? He's doing

a brilliant job as mayor for London. He got re-election in a really

tight race, at a very difficult time. Very popular. But should he

get his nose to the grindstone? Very popular in the Conservative

Party command as is the prime minister. They are both doing their

jobs very well indeed. Both will do those jobs for many years to come.

About this rock-star thing, the photo opportunities, should he get

his nose to the grindstone? nose is very much to the grindstone.

He is working incredibly hard. We talked about Tube and bus

improvements, crime improvements in the capital. There has been no let-

up after re-election. Boris is working amazingly hard for the

benefit of all Londoners. Will he be the next leader of the

Conservative Party? We will have to wait and see. There is no vacancy.

It is two-and-a-half years until the next election, let alone

further than that. At the moment, David Cameron is very secure in

that position. I don't think people north of the Wash, in the north of

the country, would vote for Boris in a month of Sundays. The polling

shows him to be very popular in the North of England. Does he get to

parts that the leadership doesn't? Boris is very popular right across

the board. You have to say that. It's a different job, being mayor

for London, and being Prime Minister of the country. Both are

in the right position. Thank you both very much indeed. With that,

In a moment we will be looking ahead to the big stories that will

dominate politics next week, but firstly the news with Tim Willcox.

Five Royal Marines have been charged with murder in connection

with an incident that took place while they were on after duty in

Afghanistan last year. -- on active duty.

This is a unique and troubling case for the Ministry of Defence, the

first time British service personnel on operations in

Afghanistan have been charged with murder. The alleged murder took

place in Helmand last year, at a time when the men of 3 Commando

were out on patrol. There was an engagement with an insurgent. It is

understood the Royal Military Police have obtained footage from

the time showing British personnel what to do with a captured and

wounded man. Now that five marines have been charged, the Defence

Secretary would only say it related to the question of whether the

rules of war were properly followed. We are determined rules of

engagement will be properly followed and abuse will be dealt

with and that is what is happening now. For those rules of engagement

set out the circumstances in which British forces can open fire.

Though never made public, the rules mean that in most circumstances

British forces can only open fire when indirect combat and the threat

of an imminent attack. The director of services public prosecutions is

likely to recommend this takes place behind closed doors. If found

guilty, they could be sentenced to life.

It has emerged that BBC executives question Jimmy Savile about

allegations he had abused young girls. The former head of Radio 1

said he asked Jimmy Savile about this in 1970s.

Jimmy Savile was the DJ at Radio 1 from 1969-1989. For the first time

we have learnt that questions were put to him by a senior executive

about rumours that he was having inappropriate relationships with

under-age girls. Derek was the Controller of the network at the

time and said he challenged the DJ about the rumours. For what all

these rumours we hear about you? And he said that is nonsense. It is

easy now to say how could you believe him just like that? There

was no reason to disbelieve him. He was the sort of man who were

attracted rumours, after Raul. Another former Radio 1 executive

has described that meeting as a formal one. The BBC says the issues

raised here will be looked into as part of its two independent reviews.

The Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has said allegations that

former military chiefs offered to help aren't companies in -- wing

defence contracts are deeply damaging. -- win. There will be

more news on BBC One at 6:25pm. MPs will be returning to

Westminster tomorrow as fresh as a field of daisies from their long

party conferences. Has politics changed? Did the conference season

pass you by a in the blink of an eye? He was a reminder. -- here is

a reminder. To make blue go green, you have to include yellow. Oh look

one problem, whereas my speech? One nation, we do not preach about one

nation but practised class war, we just get behind people who want to

get on in life. That is my faith - One nation. Let's get Britain on

the rise. I am pleased to see you called me a blonde-haired mop. If I

am that, then you are and Broome, David, clearing up the mess left by

the Labour government. Let's get out there and do it, let's go for

it. Thank you very much. The party conference season of 2012. Has the

conference season changed anything, Nick Watt? Yes, in the sense that

the party leaders have emerged from this much more confident. A good

performance from Nick Clegg, a very good speech by Ed Miliband and a

good speech by David Cameron, but how have the tectonic plates

shifted? There has been a mild shifting for the Conservative Party.

People are talking about how his speech was a lurch to the right, I

don't believe that but it was a repositioning when the

Conservatives were saying a few years ago we were scared of New

Labour so we were going to copy them, but now they are not scared

and they can be more confident about talking about the traditional

areas of welfare. Do you agree with that, Isabel? They most important

thing about conference season was Ed Miliband's position. Now the

Tories take Ed Miliband as Labour leader far more seriously and they

see him as a proper threat. Nothing has changed for Nick Clegg, his

position is still really dire. He has not even had any movement in

the polls. Nick Clegg did all right, but he is not all right? Which

means the net impact the conference season has had is close to zero.

Have could you say such a thing? Miliband is in a better position

than he was a few weeks ago, that is cancelled out by the fact David

Cameron is also in a better place. Nick Clegg is the only one who

challenged the instincts of his party, but as ever he will receive

no credit for it. The public have stopped listening to him, and the

question for the Lib Dems is if and when he chooses to step aside

before 2015. Ed Miliband gave a good speech, and the theme was

pretty clear, but has he changed his beliefs? Has he shifted? No, he

hasn't, and the danger for him is that would be the sort of speech

Peter Mandelson would describe as a spray job. Nothing has really

changed. The return of Westminster means the return of Parliament and

Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday. Look at this picture of

this man who will have to sit beside the Prime Minister at PMQs.

Andrew Mitchell, not looking very happy. Let me ask you, we'll do our

man be sitting on that bench on Wednesday? I think so. The Prime

Minister must regret not having been able to sack him at the time

of the event. It is too late now. Nothing has substantially changed,

he has done nothing worse and there are no new revelations so they are

stuck with him. New Labour are determined to carry that Raul on.

It is the gift that keeps on giving for Labour, isn't it? If he gets

rid of Andrew Mitchell, he will receive no moral kudos for it

because it will be seen to have been done reluctantly. If he

doesn't get rid of him, he is lumbered with someone who will

prove to be an ineffective Chief Whip. And he will be there every

Wednesday. The gift that keeps on giving. The Tories struggled with a

chief whip problem for the last few years. They have now compounded the

problem with the reshuffle. Reports of 10 Cabinet ministers wanting him

to go, report from Birmingham of Cabinet ministers on the record

saying he should go. Andrew Mitchell was one of those

Maastricht treaty whips. Downing Street have made a raw decision,

they believe it is not the individual police officers driving

this because they accepted the apology, they believe it is the

Police Federation behaving like trade union. Very quickly, come

Hallowe'en, will Mr Mitchell still be there? I think so, yes. To just

about. I agree because David Cameron wants him to be there.

my experience that means he will almost certainly be gone. Let me

show you the front page of the Mail on Sunday this morning. Michael

Gove - we are ready to walk out of Europe. He has not said that, it is

his friends who have said that, probably a special adviser, someone

close to him or someone like that. They are trying to sound Euro-

sceptic without giving people like us a'. What is going on here at is

a lot of political positioning in the run-up to a couple of big

showdowns, EU wise in December, when David Cameron will go in there

and say we want a new deal for Britain and then he will either get

it, in which case it will be presented as a great victory for

David Cameron, or he will not get it and have a hissy fit. He was a

be under pressure to put a referendum in the manifesto. Yes,

it is increasingly certain that will be in the manifesto. Funny, it

is the most obvious thing that you threaten to leave this part of your

negotiating position. I would not get my hopes up about the idea that

this will work. They could say if you want to go, you go. We don't

care. Even talking about this prospect, he is raising

expectations which I don't think can be met. This was given to a

very Euro-sceptic paper, and it does not have Michael Gove's

fingerprints on it, but what are they up to? The they are

deliberately raising the Barre of expectations of what they can

deliver very high, but the reality is it will be very low. We are

about to get three European summit back to back, and none of them will

be leading to this new settlement because that will not be on the

table until after the German elections next year. Then what will

they deliver? The best the UK will get is possibly the repatriation of

social and employment laws. If they think that is going to be a grand

new settlement, I think they will struggle. I will be astounded if

they even get that. This is the problem David Cameron is deferring.

The why is it in Westminster and Whitehall, does everybody not yet

realised if an attractive young woman is going around offering

lobby contract she is from the Sunday Times with a hidden camera?

There Sunday Times has an amazingly skilful insight team. It is

something to do with pretty women. That is your lot for today. We will

be back tomorrow with the daily politics and live on Wednesday for