12/06/2011 The Politics Show London

Hello and welcome to the Politics Show.

Last time he was here he threatened to resign over the Government's

plans for the NHS. Today Norman Lamb returns to the Politics Show.

Is he ready to declare victory? We'll also hear from Labour's

health spokesman in a tricky week for Ed Miliband and his party.

And, will we in 2015 be voting for peers as well as MPs? The leader of

the Lords joins us to talk reform of the Upper House. The Government

wants to limit the amount of benefits a family can get to

�26,000 a year. But find a why some Lib Dems want that scrapped.

He London, plans for a new private university have been causing a

storm. And there is a crisis in higher education. We ask whether

other higher education universities in the capital may have to go

Up And joining me throughout today's programme, Sarah Sands,

from the Evening Standard and the political commentator, John

Kampfner, but first the news. Good Morning.

The United States says Syria has created a humanitarian crisis

following weeks of repression of anti-government protestors. More

than 4,000 people have fled across the border to refugee camps in

Turkey, and witnesses say more towns have been attacked in the

last 24 hours. The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, says he's

extremely concerned. He says President Assad must respond to the

will of the Syrian people. Refugees along the border between

Syria and Turkey. They have fled with what they can carry, the

barest essentials. With them, they are bewildered children. This is

apparently what they fled. These pictures, impossible to verify

appear to show what activist say is the first use of Syrian helicopters

in the tax. There are reports of troops and tanks bombarding the

town of Jisr al-Shughour. The Syrian Government says it is being

confronted by armed gangs. Official estimates are of more than 4,000

refugees having crossed the border into Turkey. The US Government has

accused the Syrian Government of creating a humanitarian crisis, as

international concerns about events in Syria continued to mount. I am

deeply concerned and saddened by so many people have been killed in the

course of peaceful demonstrations. I again urge President a sad, his

Government authorities to take maximum care, to protect human

lives. I am urging again to allow the humanitarian assessment team to

enter Syria. For now, charities and the authorities are on the Turkish

side of the border continue to make preparations to help what could be

a further influx of refugees. At least 34 people have been killed

in two bomb attacks in Pakistan. The explosions happened minutes

apart in a supermarket in the north western city of Peshawar. Officials

say nearly 100 other people have been injured. The blasts happened

just after midnight in an area of the city that is home to army

housing. Police say the first explosion had

been small. But as bystanders gathered and emergency personnel

were arriving, there was a second, much larger blast.

I was passing through when the blast occurred. As we were near the

square there was a big blast. When we came back there was no rescue

team or officials. I saw a dead bodies lying under the transformer

and some four to five bodies were lying under the hotel building.

is the latest in a series of militant attacks across the country,

that have targeted both Pakistan security forces and civilians. Many

believe is Lammas groups are taking revenge for the death of Osama Bin

Laden, but there are other factors, include -- including a recent

upsurge in drone attacks and Pakistan are preparing to carry out

an offences against and North stronghold.

The chairman of the BBC Trust plans to Labiche -- lobbied the Foreign

Secretary over Government plans to end funding for the BBC World

Service. In an interview he said he considered the World Service to be

at the core of what the BBC does and is vital to project Britain

around the world. The Royal Family is marking the

Duke of Edinburgh's 90th birthday at a special service of

thanksgiving this morning. The Queen and more than 750 guests,

including the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, are attending the

service at Windsor Castle's St George's Chapel.

That's it for now, there's more news here on BBC One a little

earlier than usual at 4:35pm. Jon. So you have problems piling up for

the coalition with U-turns here and climb-downs there. And what do you

read in the papers this weekend? Labour in disarray. How did that

happen? It has been pretty torrid for Ed Miliband. He comes back of

his honeymoon, but the honeymoon is over? It has been Torridge, and he

has struggled before these headlines to make headway. They

could not be a more propitious time for Labour to show people they have

alternative. Ed Miliband is struggling to project himself and

is struggling to show it is different from the old, Tony Blair,

Gordon Brown days when you have these two clans fighting each other.

I liken it to bulls locking horns. It was an unattractive proposition.

Do you believe the brothers are fighting each other? A David

Miliband remains upset, I wouldn't put it any more stronger than that.

He intimates it from time to time. Labour's own focus groups suggest

that when they are asked to his Ed Miliband, they say he is the one

who did over his brother. He has got to move away from that.

serious is it? He comes down to Original Sin issues that if Tony

Blair was rejected in a way to what Margaret Thatcher was by

illegitimate means, it does leave a legacy. Again, you have David

Miliband done over by his brother. You think, this is ancient history,

personalities and let's talk about the issues. But it is in issue.

is also a reprisal of the Tony Blair, Gordon Brown rivalry. Most

of the detail was known to people in the political inner circle, and

have been written about in books. But it showed a party not at ease

with itself. If there is someone co-ordinating all of these events,

it is like an at sales operation. To get from a position where Labour

say, we want to change the leader. From getting from A to B will be

difficult and bloody? It is, and it is ripe to have this long-term

policy review. But at the same time there has got to be a sense what

Labour is advocating is qualitatively different from the

Conservatives and also the joint coalition message. As long as he

struggles to get that across and struggles to show that actually

they have moved on hugely from the New Labour era, then he is not

going to succeed. Thanks for the moment.

Now, the last time Norman Lamb appeared on the Politics Show all

hell broke loose. Eight weeks ago, Nick Clegg's political adviser told

me he might have to resign if there weren't big changes to Andrew

Lansley's plans for the NHS. Since then Nick Clegg and David Cameron

have been signalling furiously that there will be. And when the

Government's review on the subject is published tomorrow we'll have a

better idea exactly how the revised proposals will look. So will they

go far enough for Mr Lamb and his colleagues? We'll ask him that

question in a moment, but first a reminder of the controversial

proposals and the likely changes. The Government's original plan

would have transferred control over most of the NHS budget to a

consortia of GPs. Private companies would have a bigger role under the

idea any willing provider could offer NHS treatment. And the

regulator monitor would have been responsible for promoting

competition. But after our objections from Liberal Democrats

and NHS professionals, the reforms will paused to allow a chance to

listen to concerns. Nick Clegg's senior adviser, Norman Lamb told

The Politics Show he would resign unless there were changes. I have

said if it is impossible for me to carry on in my position, I will

step down. I don't want to cause embarrassment but I feel very

strongly about this issue. This week, David Cameron confirmed the

plans will be altered. The interest of patients will override

competition in the NHS and there will be no American-style

privatisation of health care. recognise many people have had

concerns. Tomorrow the Government will receive the report from a

panel of experts to have been reviewing the reforms. Then we will

find out whether the Lib Dem partners are satisfied, but also

whether his own backbenchers are happy about the change of direction.

And Norman Lamb joins me now from Norwich.

You said last time a few weeks ago through controversy, he would

resign if there were not substantial changes. Have you won

those substantial changes? It is not a question of people winning

things. Raise the number of concerns. Concern shared by many

people within the health service and I am satisfied the concerns

raised have been met. It has been a constructive process. Nick Clegg

has been effective in the way he has engaged both with clinicians

but then argued the case for the Government. The first really

significant shift, which I raised on The Politics Show was this sense

of a top-down, imposed reorganisation. That will no longer

happen, it will be a voluntary process moving away from top-down

restructuring. The patient, the patient's voice will be heard more

effectively with the changes coming through. There will be no special

favours for the private sector. I was really pleased to hear the

Prime Minister earlier this week or last week, talking about the

central importance of integrating care. All of the leading countries

in health policy terms are moving towards a system of integrated care,

particularly for patients with long-term, chronic conditions. We

will be able to pursue that route and it is quite exciting. Sorry to

interrupt, do you believe your party, your fellow MPs will now

accept this? They have been discussions all the way through

this with the party, both in Parliament and outside Parliament.

We had a discussion last week, I think the changes were very well

received, the changes that looked like happening. This isn't a case

of triumph and Phyllis and, it is improving the policy. We heard

about the storm clouds that gathered over the reforms and it

was right that we stopped. This is a good demonstration of why the Lib

Dems are in Government. We can be effective in Government, achieving

changes and acting as a safety valve. Norman Lamb, you say it is

not a moment of triumphalism, or are moments of declaring victory

and you are not responsible for briefing the Sunday papers, but

every paper is full of "Nick Clegg declares victory". Where did they

get that from? I have no idea. My concern is protecting the health

service and making sure it is sustainable in the future.

Improving it where it needs to be improved. I think the changes we

have secured, in the decisions with the Conservatives will improve

reforms. We have said all along, reform is necessary because rising

health costs with an ageing population, it is essential we make

the money go further. Otherwise we will end up with a crisis in the

health service with services being lost. We have to avoid that. Was it

you, the BMA, the King's Fund or the RCN that change the

Government's mind? It has been an effective collaboration. I have

attended meetings with Nick Clegg and other Lib Dems meeting with

connections, the King's Fund, the Nuffield Trust and the Royal

College of Nursing, talking through the changes people felt it

necessary. -- clinicians. What I have been impressed by is the

people I respect in the NHS have said they feel the changes meet

their concerns. By collaboration and negotiation with the

Conservatives in Government, we will have ended up securing a much

more effective set of reforms. you explain one thing? How come on

a devoted against it when these proposals originally came before

the Commons? Every Liberal-Democrat MP seemed happy. The heart of

reforms, they are good principles, devolving power from the centre.

Labour had created this highly bureaucratic, centralised NHS,

25,000 people working... You all went along with it? What I'm saying

is good principles behind the reforms. It became very clear.

bill wasn't just principles, it was details. What I'm saying is, people

in the NHS came forward and said, we don't think the way the

principles are being implemented in legislation as our right. We think

changes are necessary. Surely the Government should be applauded for

stopping, listening and getting them right. The old traditional way,

governments plough on regardless. In this coalition the Lib Dems have

acted as a safety valve and we have secured changes that will improve

Do you think Andrew Lansley can carry on? I think you should be

applauded for taking on the concerns that many people were

racing, and being prepared to go along with that. Politicians are

often accused of being stubborn. He has listened, taking it on board

It looks like the government, the Conservatives, have won over the

Liberal Democrats now. Very skilfully handled. If you let the

Lib Dems say it's a victory, you can achieve what you like as long

as you don't want to take credit for it. I would hope that reforms

now go ahead as planned. He hasn't mentioned the 20 billion a year

that they are trying to save. The only thing that worries me is that

we all talk about co-operation rather than competition. I hope it

makes the same thing and competition goes on. If the private

sector of providing services more cheaply and effectively, I don't

think they should be penalised. you think there was an element of

political confection about this? When Norman Lamb said he might

resign, that actually he knew change was coming and therefore the

Liberal Democrats, you look at the Sunday papers, they are all saying

Nick Clegg claims victory over the NHS. And how come all this appeared

in the newspapers. The spin-doctors of all parties in government and

opposition, they briefed the Sunday papers on Friday afternoon and then

they have another go on Saturday morning. But there was a lot of

politics in what Norman Lamb said. Your point about how come he didn't

see this coming when the Bill went through in the second reading is a

valid one. I would put that down to the fact that there was collision

practice before May and the elections and the AV referendum was

lost, and there was practice after. Before, the Lib Dems didn't want to

cause trouble. They saw it almost as a badge of pride, being seen to

be very close to the Conservatives. Now they make a point has been seen

to make a difference. Norman is happy and so it seems on many of

the professional bodies formally against the Lansley proposal. What

about Labour? John Healey, Shadow Health Secretary, joins us from

Leeds now. Are you happy? I'm going to say, and I think doctors and

nurses and patients will wait and Judge David Cameron on what he does

and not what he says. We need to see what changes the government

suggests after this unprecedented pause in which they were forced to

hold on to the changes they were making. My fear is that we will

hear the Prime Minister claimed these are substantial and Signet

have been changes, but the long term, ideological plan to turn the

NHS into a market, to open up all parts of the images to private

companies, will remain. The test will be not whether the Lib Dems

back Cameron but whether his own Tory backbenchers back him on the

bill in the future. If they don't, won't that convince you that these

are very substantial changes? Rather than appeasing the

Conservative right, David Cameron has been very centrist about this

and consensual. Let's see. People have seen David Cameron make and

break promises on the NHS before. He promised the NHS a real rise in

funding, he promised to protect the NHS and stop top-down

reorganisations. In the end, if he is going to force this

reorganisation through the NHS, whatever pace he does it, whatever

the details of the Health Bill, then he will be forcing hospitals

to make deeper cost cutbacks this year and next, and he will be

wasting nearly �2 billion on the cost of reorganisation, when that

was promised for patient care. Could you envisage Labour

supporting these proposals now? less David Cameron is prepared to

change the fundamentals of what underlies his plans, breaking of

the NHS as a national service with national standards for patients

wherever they live, turning the NHS into a full-scale market so private

companies can move in on any part, and making the NHS, as it should be,

in all parts properly and publicly accountable. He has answered that,

hasn't he? And no, he's made a series of I Love the NHS speeches.

We will judge David Cameron on what he does and not what he says, and

by how far he's ready to listen to the very serious concerns from

doctors, nurses, patient groups, argument I was making and Labour

was making almost alone back in the autumn, it's been made in the

spring by these other groups. That's what David Cameron needs to

respond to. You say you need to see the detail before you can comment

further. In a sense you've kind of exhausted where we can go with this.

No, with respect, underlining the whole of this legislation is that

basic Tory belief - private sector, good, public sector, bad. Unless

you remove that... I was going to move on to another... On to another

subject. You mentioned private involvement. It more or less

doubled under Labour in 2007, when it was �2.4 billion from the

private sector involved in the NHS rising to �4.1 billion. Let's get

this into perspective. Fewer than one in 20 operations were carried

out by non NHS providers this time last year. We were prepared to use

the private sector and competition where it could clear waiting lists

and bring benefits for the patience. But it was always properly planned,

properly managed, publicly accountable and the very different

system and the want the Conservatives want to set up in

David Cameron's Health Bill. It's been a tough week for the

government over the NHS, promote - this -- criminal-justice - you name

it. Why is all the focus on Labour's woes? I don't think it is.

This was David Cameron's new Conservative policy. They are

seriously on the back foot on that, like they are on crime and police

cuts. What about Labour? We are forcing the government on the areas

where people are most concerned. We are not just the official

opposition but the only opposition at the moment. So why is there some

of whispering about the ineffectiveness of Ed Miliband's

leadership? There's no whispering or plots against Ed Miliband.

There's a lot of speculation in the Sunday papers... Coming from where?

You talk to these people and I don't. Many of the figures quoted

today have denied absolutely what is attributed to them in the papers.

What Labour has at the moment is a unity and determination that we've

never had before at this stage, soon after losing our period in

government. It's a determined to try and stop the worst of what the

government is planning. And it is determined also to develop an

alternative, a vision for the future that is different to the

Tories and the Liberals. That is what Ed Miliband is concentrating

on. What is your message to those people who may think they're being

helpful in Labour circles, who may be special advisers or whatever,

who are denigrating Ed Miliband's leadership? I get around the

country a lot. There is this determination to confront the

Conservatives. Ed Miliband has this long-term vision, a very clear view

that we, Labour, and only we, will be talking about the things for the

future that matter to people. The millions of people in Britain who

are working hard put under more pressure because of this

Government's plans. The promise that Britain has always made to the

new generation that things will be better and with more opportunities

than for their parents. Finally, you will hear this tomorrow from Ed

Miliband, a determination that we don't lose sight of what is most

important in our communities and pulls us together. All of those

things are at risk under this government. Ed Miliband is starting

to talk about those big things that matter for the country for the

You'd think after the crushing defeat in the fault macro

referendum, Nick Clegg would want to steer clear of any more

constitutional wheezes. But House of Lords reform is very much on his

mind, perhaps to convince his party that the coalition can deliver on

cherished Lib Dem goals. But peers of all parties have been lining up

to tell anyone who will listen what a terrible idea it would be to

elect the second chamber. The coalition draft bill suggests

replacing the existing Lords with 300 new members. 80 % of there

would be elected by proportional representation, with the rest

appointed. Critics say this would damage the Lords, whose membership

currently includes independent- minded peers with a wide range of

political and life experiences. Worse still, wouldn't it inevitably

lead to tensions between the Lords and the Commons because of the

enhanced democratic legitimacy of the second chamber? It's a hard

sell, not least for Mr Clegg's How well is the House of Lords

working at the moment? Rather well. And has done consistently over the

course of the last few years. One of the difficulties the Government

has in explaining the reason why we want to make this more democratic

change. There's a lot of resistance in both houses it Parliament. In

part, it's because the House of Lords does the job it is asked to

do and does it well. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's been

running for over 100 years. But that doesn't mean that a

responsible government, which we are, should not look very carefully

at our political institutions. At the last general election, all

three main parties stood on a platform, there should be a

democratic reform of the second chamber, either wholly or

substantially elected. That's the promise that we are putting through

on this draft bill. Lord Strathclyde, when did you change

your mind? Shall I do the quote from 1993? They are answerable to

no one, members of the House of Lords speak for themselves entirely.

Not for lobbies, not for groups, not what interests, unions - they

are there on their own behalf. a good quote but it's nearly 20

years old. Since then, life has changed. We now have a house which

is almost entirely appointed. I think it's entirely right for the

government to ask the question - if political power is to be used in

the 20th century, 21st century, you should do it with the permission of

the people. So you would have elected peers. How independent-

minded would they be? One of the strength of the current House of

Lords is that people are generally more independent than the House of

Commons. In order to preserve that, we should get them elected but

elected for long term, say up to 15 years, and not re-elect them. That

preserves the element of independence but creates the

democratic legitimacy that is important. But will it change the

type of people they are? You will get people who appealed to the

Labour Party, Conservatives all Liberal Democrats. They won't be

the same people who had a lifetime in business, the lifetime in

whatever it happens to be, and bring that special and their

expertise to the Lords which makes their debates feel so different to

the Commons. There's an element of truth in that, but no one seriously

suggests that the House of Commons is devoid of people of expertise or

experience. It's full of people who've worked as The Searchers. --

researchers. But while I'm keen on 80 % is we should retain that for

the kind of people who would never normally choose to stand for

election. The Chief of Defence Staff, the people who run the army,

the Cabinet Secretary, our top civil servants, even the art trade

unionists who wasn't part of a political forum. I think that is an

important preservation within Parliament of those kinds of people.

What about the argument that is so often made - if you have an 80 %

elected House of Lords, it's not going to accept that the will of

the Commons should prevail. It's going to say, hang on, we've got

democratic legitimacy as well. do read that there's a problem in

Parliament as a whole, that many people regard the form of the House

of Lords is an issue of the House of Lords, winning some extent it's

about the House of Commons and the relationship between the two houses.

We've come forward with a plan that will preserve the House of Commons,

maintain the conventions that apply with the relationship between the

two houses. But I think the House of Commons needs to be convinced

that they are not creating a competitive body but a compliment

to one. I don't know whether you are a betting man. I am not. If you

were to have a tiny wager, when would you say we will see the first

elected peer or senator or whatever you want to call him or her?

have every intention of having the first elections to a Senedd, a

second chamber, in May 2015. -- Senate. If they are senators, it

will be a third elected. It will be a great moment and the end of a

story that's run for well over 100 years. Do you believe that will

happen? I think there's every possibility and livelihood. I think

we are all sensing wiggle room here. I'm trying very hard not to say, we

mean it this time. But we do need it. That's why the publication of

this Bill has been so important and is a real milestone in the debate.

For this has been going on for so long. If you could explain what you

want from the second chamber and whether you need it at all...

What's it for? To do the things that it currently does, which is to

revise legislation, to scrutinise the work of government, to provide

a forum for debate from serious- minded people, to give Parliament,

government, an opportunity to have another look at legislation. All of

those things it does well, it should continue. It's about the

methodology of how we will get that. So the people don't like the faces,

basically. We want the electorate to be more involved in that process,

and the best way of doing that is through an election. I've always

thought there was something a bit bizarre about the idea that because

the House of Lords is not elected, therefore it has no democratic

legitimacy, therefore it has very little power. Well, that's all a

good thing, it gives the House of Commons primacy. All modern

equivalent countries - Germany, the United States, France - they have a

perfectly flourishing elected system, different kinds of

elections exactly as you are envisaging. What's the problem with

having a fully elected House of Lords, albeit elected Evenley, but

In the House of Commons in particular, there is a genuine fear

if you create a substantial, or a wholly elected second chamber, it

would begin to take power away from the House of Commons. Why would

that be about thing? You don't have to be much of a historian, in 1968

there was a Lord Reform Bill shut down in the House of Commons by

Enoch Powell and Michael Foot. We don't want that to happen again.

could do though, couldn't it? All sorts of people opposed to this

very idea? The interesting thing is how the divisions exist within the

parties. So this manifesto, the last election, all three parties

sticking together on this substantial reform. But there is a

huge disagreement between the houses, within the parties and no

clear consensus, but we are working on it. The fact Nick Clegg has

published this bill for the first time laying out what a second

chamber would look like, is an important milestone.

Strathclyde, great to have you with There is no area of policy more

important to the Government and welfare reform. David Cameron

reiterated this week to impose a limit on the benefit a family can

receive. This cap is set at �26,000 and is a key part of the

Government's strategy to bring down the welfare bill. The strategy that

allows it will enter its final stages in the Commons tomorrow.

While this policy may chime with the public, the Liberal Demo Heart

-- Liberal Democrat part of the coalition is worried.

Can you live on �26,000 a year? Tax free? The Chancellor, George

Osborne things a family on out-of- work benefits should get each year

as explained at the Tory party conference last year. Unless they

have disabilities to cope with, no family should get more from living

on benefits than the average family get them going out to work.

Will it get such a rapturous reception in Chingford on the Essex

border, which happens to be the constituency of the work and

pensions secretary, Iain Duncan- Smith. Why should people get it for

nothing? If they want more than that, go out and work for it and do

what everybody has to do. Some people have up to 10 children and

they are getting thousands of pounds a year. And that is just

living on the state. I would love to be living on 26,000. I work hard,

running my own business and 26,000 is a very nice number indeed.

planned of the cap will come into force in 2013. It will affect

benefit claimants who are unemployed but there will be it

exemptions for war widows and disabled. Figures show 50,000

households will be effective and the majority of them with three or

more children. �93 a week is the average amount each family will

lose. Paul is from one of them. receive housing benefit which

covers a part of my rent and council tax. I receive child tax

credits on child benefit which is more than 26,000 a year. He gets

all of those benefits because his parents are not around and he gave

up work to become the guardians to his six half-brothers and sisters

and it means he will be caught up in the cap. The effect would be

enormous from where the children go to college, to how they are brought

up. It wouldn't alter the way I love them, but we live in a world

where money does speak and school trips do cost large sums of money.

It would hinder myself and the children on a social level, I am

thankful they are helping us, the Government. It would be unfortunate

if they do not look at individual cases. Cases like this are causing

tension in the coalition because they concern many Liberal Democrats

at Westminster. Jennie Willett it is a spokeswoman for work and

pensions. We need to make sure those larger families, were there

are exceptional circumstances, they get the benefits they need rather

than it being capped the too low so they don't have enough to pay for

the daily cost of living or even to pay enough for their housing.

legislation paving the way will go into its final stages in the

Commons in the next few days. Then, it is heading for the Lords and we

have spoken to several Democrat -- Liberal Democrat and crossbench

Peers who are unhappy about it. is a process we have engaged with,

in talking to Government, making sure they understand it and we will

be raising it obviously in the chamber. But what we want to see is

the Government recognising this problem and coming back and

reflecting that when it makes its decision at the end of the bill.

There could be trouble for the Government when the cap comes

before the Lords. But, the Conservative peer who is one of the

architects of the welfare reforms hinted to us that there may be some

changes. We have quite a lot of protections in this. If you are in

work, you are not affected. If you are a disabled person or there is a

disabled person in the household, you are not affected. If you are a

war widow or widower, you are not affected. We are looking at

exceptional circumstances which some people may find themselves in

and we will be putting out arrangements for that later in the

year. What form could they take? is where ever we think there is

something happening that is undesirable. We are looking very

carefully at how to draw up those protections. The problem with that,

is that watering down the policy will anger its many supporters and

will save less money. The coalition has discovered that cap doesn't

always fit. Will they change? I think they will

introduce some help, but this crackdown on benefit scroungers

makes for good populist politics. But what annoys me and others who

are critical of this policy, the Government and all governments seem

to focus on this end of things, the welfare end of things, they don't

deal with the super-rich, but bankers and others who are the ones

who have screwed the country financially. I was talking to a

Labour MP who said they don't get banker's salaries raised on the

doorstep, they get people who may be living up the road? Because it

they are living next door. If you are in an unpleasant job and the

person next to you has chosen not to, it is hard to take. As long as

there are exceptional circumstances taking into account, but I think it

is high time and I have no trouble with it.

We will be back later on, time for the Politics Show where you are.

Hello and welcome to the London part of the programme, were coming

up later - the Lib Dems needs a candidate for mayor fast. Can

anybody stopped OPM bit? Plans for a new private university

in London have been causing a storm. A smoke bomb thrown by a protester

halted one of the launch events in a bookshop. But it is clear quite a

few publicly-funded universities in the capital may have to consider

the private route. Feeling with cuts to teaching grants they can no

longer make the sums add up. This college in Sidcup has 1000

students and offers a range of students, acting, costume design,

lighting, sound and more. But they are under great financial strain.

At the moment they get a teaching grounds worth about a few million

pounds worth from the Government. But in 2012 it will stop and drop

by a third. After that, they simply do not know. Indeed, according to

the university, even if they charge �9,000 a year it wouldn't be enough

to cover costs of the course. It would lose money for every student

they taught. The result is the college is considering a radical

move. Abandoning the Government and going it out alone as a private

university. The Government would no longer be our paymaster. We would

go it alone, charge our own fees, set our own fees. A private

institution has tremendous flexibility. There are all the in

build quality control measures of any public institution, but a whole

lot of reckoning we no longer have to do. Other public universities in

London are looking at going the same way. The Central School of

The idea of public education as we know it is quickly disappearing.

Whether a future Government or a Labour Government puts it back into

place, it is hard to imagine. But once we move to 2012 and beyond we

are in a totally different world and finance world. Universities

have to become to some extent, like businesses. We have to look at

profit and loss, look at the customer and the student will be

the customer. Any private university in this country,

Buckinghamshire, all regions College in London to look at their

students in that way. Not in a negative way, the student

experience of those two institutions is always at the top

of the list. This week, an influential committee of MPs said

the new funding arrangements could force some universities to close

completely. Others wonder in the circumstances, the institutions may

go private bench shut their doors. The chair of the committee told us

her concerns about the growth of private institutions. There is a

concern about access. If you are charging over �9,000 and your

student body cannot get help with that, either in meeting a fee

upfront or in having help with living expenses and you off from a

poor background, you won't go to their university. She also fears if

there were too many private universities, society as a whole

may suffer. All universities are private institutions. The way in

which Government and the state has an interest is because the money we

put in. Government does have an interest in ensuring people have

the appropriate skills that are needed in the economy of today and

of tomorrow. So Government does have an interest in what is taught

in universities. If the university sector is entirely privatised, it

would inhibit Government's capability -- ability to influence

what was taught in our universities. In the last week, the philosopher's

A C Gryaling's plans for a private university had caused much debate.

The Government is turning education into a market... Combined with the

possibility of public institutions going the same way, it may be

private universities come to change the face of higher education in the

capital. Simon Hughes is here, Liberal-

Democrat MP for Bermondsey who is the Government's advocate for

access to education. What is your thoughts on that idea? Good

afternoon. He is a constituent of mine, I have known him for many

years. It is a maverick idea. He is entitled to do it, this country has

one private university, it is possible for people to set up. It

is not where we should be looking, we should be concentrating on what

will be the main places, delivering the main courses for most of the

students. That is where most readers will go. It is a bit

distracting, some are suggesting the fees could be �18,000 a year,

it is not going to be for end-of- body but other than a handful of

people. If the academic world feels there is a need for it and at

universities have got too complacent, isn't it a good liberal

idea? In a free society, of course. That is why we have an independent

school, we have an independent university. You cannot ban people

from setting up an independent institution. The real challenge is

what sort of student experience does it give? It was referred to by

one of the people from Rose Bruford. A lot of people I universities say

they are not getting a good enough product. When the new regime for

pain comes in it will be much more obvious whether they are being

overcharged for what they are getting. Do you realise and accept

we could be, and would you welcome if it had to happen, lots more

universities that become private? think it is unlikely. I think if

you might. I think a few universities who have struggled to

make their books balanced, may disappear. Or the universities may

realise putting on courses may not be good. The Government funds a

certain number of places and even if more people wanted to go to do

that course, there aren't places there. Sometimes there are places

unfilled. It is not driven by the demands of the students. You hear

the Rose Bruford, we have heard from the central dramatic Arts

institution as well, institutions will work intensive on staffing and

the number of hours taught. Many of them thinking they won't survive

because of the reduction in teaching hours, are you happy with

that? Of course not, we would like to be in a position where there was

central money going to universities. Universities have had to take a cut

just like local Government have had to take a cut because we have to

meet the deficit. You hear it on your programme every week. We are

paying �120 million a day just on the interest we owe. It will lead

to a number of those institutions, the Rose Bruford, even if they

charge 9,000 it does not cover their costs. They only have that

option. They can go private and then charge whatever they like?

is a whole set of procedures. If they want to charge over six

thousands they have to get an access agreement. Let's see if they

get that. But it 9,000 isn't enough? If it isn't enough, they

have that choice. A lot of them will cry foul at the moment.

Whereas, in fact what they need to do is give good value for money.

Lots of universities have highly paid vice-chancellors, highly paid

lectures, not lecturing for many hours a week. Universities need to

do more costing themselves and not spend money on things that are poor

products. If this is accepted by the Liberal Democrats in the

coalition that higher education has to pay more of its own weight which

is accepted by all parties, that will lead people to make very hard,

financial decisions. It will lead the way to more private

institutions or looking into private funding and coming out of

the public system. You must accept My old university now asks its

students to make a contribution. Many universities do that. There

will be a request for donations. Would you expect an expansion in

private endowments? Private companies involved? Universities

will have to go out, as they already do, you get that privately

funded. Philanthropists are very willing. If we are going to start

to go down this route, and you can see whether it succeeds or fails,

this New College can charge what it likes, does this give you any cause

for unease in terms of the kind of people that can go and access?

kid on the Old Kent Road in the estate opposite where I live or to

have the same chance of going to university as you or me or anybody

in the studio or anybody watching. The question is - what is the cost

to that person going to university? I'm not so bothered as to what is

charged for the course, I'm bothered as to what the cost is.

The really good point about the change, there are difficulties that

we all know, but the good point about it is in future you will paid

in this country according to your ability to pay. So if you earn 22

grand, just over the threshold, your pay �7.50 a month out of your

taxes to go to university. If you earn 100 grand, you will pay more.

The potential for private institutions, at the moment you

would not let students going to private institutions get the

maximum 9000 loan. There's only a �6,000 loan available. Surely you

need to accept and offer students the opportunity and give them the

same. You are confusing two things. The cost of fees is one thing. No

fees, you know what the new regime is, nobody will pay fees up front,

not whether you were doing a part- time course or full-time course.

You will only pay from your income if you have... The second issue is,

do you get a grant or loan to help you with your living costs? That is

based on the income of your family. The whole idea is it your family

has a bigger income you get more that you have to pay back. If your

family has a lower income, you get more that your family doesn't have

the payback. If there are lots of private players in the market in a

few years, the system will be looked at again. Other testers -

are we making sure we cover the cost of youngsters that of poor,

but universities go out and reach out to every school in London. I

want us to see that every school in London and England will have

scholarships on offer for universities, for pupils from that

school. I'm recommending that a government. If that happens, we are

going to make some progress. Simon Hughes once tilted for this ground,

but the 2012 London mayoral race is still short of a Liberal Democrat

contestant. The party's selection process has been somewhat delayed

but resumes this week. We know that the former M P Lembit Opik has

declared, and some say the Lib Dems are very keen to find someone

substantial to go against him. Have they at last found that person?

Liberal Democrats, 236,000. Many have accused previous Liberal

Democrat candidates for male of underperforming. I think I'm going

to win. The highest vote every chip was 50 % in 2004, when Simon Hughes

stood for the party. This time around they may be looking to

improve on that figure. The most high-profile candidate to throw

their hat into the ring is the former M P Lembit Opik. We've got

to differentiate, we have looked different to the Conservatives. I'm

left-leaning and libertarian. With a package of policies which really

is an alternative to Ken and Boris, we can do better than we've done

before. Last time we got 9%, that wasn't a good result. This time we

are even more under the pump in terms of the national polls. The

only way we will do better is by being colourful and really quite

challenging, and hopefully by having someone high profile. That's

why I want to do it. Lembit Opik is considered a maverick and party

outsider who the high command of the party are said to be less than

enthusiastic about. Another Lib Dem candidate to declare this week his

London Assembly Member Mike Tuffey, who has served in the assembly

since 2002 and is the former leader of Lib Dems at City Hall. He is

knowledgeable in London politics, but for critics he may lack the

presence and name recognition needed to make an impact on the

election. Mike Kufri joins us now. Have you been under a lot of

pressure to make a race of this, to stop Lembit Opik? I've been

thinking about what I should do. I'm happy to tell you that this

week I will be announcing that I'm throwing my hat in the ring to be

the Lib Dem candidate. A certain amount of pressure... And no

pressure at all, we are a democratic party. The thousands of

members across London will now decide who they want to be their

candidate, I'm hoping it will be me. Are you standing for the assembly

again? And I'm not. There are two different jobs. There's an assembly

election going, there's two elections happening in 12 months'

time. You were going to give of your political career, but this

isn't just a thank-you gesture to the party you've served so well?

don't call it giving up my political career. I was first

elected to the GLC more than 25 years ago. I've been battling Ken

Livingstone and now Boris Johnson to try and get the things that

Londoners want - whether it's the housing, jobs or health care that

they need. It's been difficult, we have a Simon Hughes who stared at

once. It's difficult to break through. This two horse race, big

personalities, big characters. not a two-horse race. It's entirely

up to Londoners. What I will be putting forward are very strong

policies cover serious solutions to the problems we face in London. We

have a massive housing problem, we have 300,000 on the waiting list

while prices and friend race ahead taking the prospect of a home out

of reach. We need some serious solutions. We got the land in

London, we got a mayor with the planning permission to make it

happen. The two things we don't have is an ambitious mayor who is

ambitious for London, and we don't have the private money. It's time

that the bankers, that we've all bailed out, to put the money into

London housing of a 30 year period. You've been watching him up close,

how is this mayor doing? He turns a good joke but when it comes to

serious solutions we don't see the housing. What about unemployment?

We now have 400,000 people unemployed in London. It was the

same under Ken Livingstone, London has had the highest unemployment in

the country. Isn't that a scandal! I'm talking about the issues.

part of a coalition, will you make it clear that voters understand it?

This election is about the big issues that face London, so that

this city can continue to grow, house people and continue to be a

great place to start a family and grow up in. The next 12 months, we

need a serious debate about these issues. On that point, because it's

one of the features of the electoral system in London that you

have two votes. So that has been an issue in the past. It may be more

relevant here because we now have a coalition. At what stage when you

make clear that he would be the second choice? We are 12 months of

the election. Intricacies of the system... Have you decided yet?

putting my policies out there for Londoners to decide. Do they want

something done about housing, unemployment and the transport

system? What we have 700,000 people coming into the city over the next

10 years, it will seize up unless we really move ahead, which the

present mayor is not of doing. The upgrade is a shambles at present.

We need serious action. I'm not going to ask you to choose between

candidates or whatever, but at least it looks like there's going

to be some kind of contest. Why has there been so delayed? There is

going to be a contest, that's good. The party wanted to concentrate and

other things first. We now need to get on with it. I've always taken

the view that you don't need to select years and years before. In

the old politics you have to because you didn't have the media.

Has there been some kind of legal challenge that has held his prop --

process up? Someone complains he's been taken procedure. There was a

small issue which barely crossed the radar. I wasn't involved. We

now have Mike... What was that? Honestly, it would be unfair for me

to comment because I don't know the details. Is that what held it up?

No. You start of this election process back in October and no one

came out that was appropriate. There were a selection of people,

but it was thought that the field ought to be widened. Then it was

thought to decide upon concentrating on the London mayoral

elections. Mike, who I've known for 30 years, has put his hat in the

ring, that's very welcome, he's a serious contender. You need a very

safe pair of hands, someone who will serve the London Assembly very

well and knows the ropes. You just need to get through this election

without Lembit Opik perhaps. want to win the London mayoral

election. I hope we will win it next year. Who knows what's going

to happen? It's quite possible that Ken will put his foot in his mouth

or self-destruct. It's quite possible that Boris will self-

destruct - they're both that sort of character. It should be judged

on policy. In terms of how you deal with, you try and match them for

all their gags and stands? I think London has always looked to the

policies first. -- Londoners. I live on the Old Kent Road. We have

desperate housing shortages, desperate shortages of people in

training and jobs. The government is doing a lot to go in the right

direction but the mayor ought to be concentrating on the sort of issues

that Mike has talked about. I'll give you about 30 seconds. Imagine

you are there, you will have the first hustings with these

characters. Everyone thinks it's Boris against Ken again. What are

you going to say to attract some attention? I will put out the

things that we need to do. Do you one more housing, because I have a

plan to get that. Do you want things done about unemployment, do

you want job security? Do you want to bring down the cost of living in

London, which is racing ahead, and the present mayor was pushing up

fares to pay for the investment. I don't think current communities

should pay for the investment, we And that is it for today. Jo Coburn

will be in the chair next week at the usual time of 12 noon. In the