:00:06. > :00:08.This week on the Politics Show: How to solve the euro-zone crisis?
:00:08. > :00:12.The Prime Minister has been in European capitals promoting his
:00:12. > :00:16."big bazooka" approach, but is it time we turned our back on a union
:00:16. > :00:19.that threatens our independence and prosperity?
:00:19. > :00:22.Over 1 million young unemployed and the economy flatlining - we will be
:00:22. > :00:27.asking the government's growth tsar Lord Heseltine how to kick-start
:00:27. > :00:30.the economy. First the row over lax controls at
:00:30. > :00:36.our borders, now big questions about whether the Government will
:00:36. > :00:39.be able to keep its promises on reducing immigration. It was a
:00:39. > :00:49.positive issue that we campaigned on at the general election, and not
:00:49. > :00:50.
:00:50. > :00:54.to deliver on that pledge would be a serious issue politically.
:00:54. > :00:58.In London, our local authorities using too many consultants? Half of
:00:58. > :01:02.Londoners cannot tell us how many work for them, nor what they do.
:01:02. > :01:12.And should police be given new powers to remove offensive gang
:01:12. > :01:15.
:01:15. > :01:18.With me throughout the programme are Sarah Sands from the Evening
:01:18. > :01:26.Standard and the broadcaster James O'Brien. First the news, with
:01:26. > :01:29.Good afternoon. There are reports that the violence in Syria has
:01:29. > :01:31.reached the capital Damascus, with a building believed to belong to
:01:31. > :01:34.the ruling Baath party hit by rocket-propelled grenades. It's the
:01:34. > :01:37.first insurgent attack on the city since the start of the uprising.
:01:37. > :01:47.Meanwhile, the country's President Bashar al-Assad has told the Sunday
:01:47. > :01:47.
:01:47. > :01:52.Times he will not bow to international pressure.
:01:52. > :02:01.The opposition movement to topple the Syrian regime continues
:02:01. > :02:08.unabated. As does the violent crackdown by the security forces.
:02:08. > :02:14.These protesters on Friday faced a withering barrage of fire.
:02:14. > :02:18.Thousands have been killed this year. But the Syrian President says
:02:18. > :02:23.the military operation will continue. We are not porkier about
:02:23. > :02:26.peaceful demonstrations, we are talking about militants. Whenever
:02:26. > :02:31.you have militants, you have killing. The role of the government
:02:31. > :02:37.is to fight both militants in order to restore stability and to protect
:02:37. > :02:42.civilians. This amateur video apparently shows a military vehicle
:02:42. > :02:47.hit by a rocket. Evidence the opposition is turning to guerrilla
:02:47. > :02:51.warfare. So will the president step down before there is full civil
:02:51. > :03:01.war? It is not about the president now, it is about the stability and
:03:01. > :03:06.unity of Syria. How can we keep Syria unified if the president is
:03:06. > :03:11.unifying the country? And now, deadlines set by other Arab leaders
:03:11. > :03:16.for an end to the violence in Syria have expired, with no sign that the
:03:16. > :03:19.president will comply. Bloodshed is set to continue.
:03:19. > :03:22.The violence in the Egyptian capital Cairo, which has claimed
:03:22. > :03:24.two lives, has continued overnight. Police used tear-gas and rubber
:03:24. > :03:30.bullets this morning to try and disperse thousands of protesters
:03:30. > :03:34.who remain in Tahrir Square. Egypt is due to hold its first elections
:03:34. > :03:37.since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak on November 28th.
:03:37. > :03:39.Voting has got under way in Spain this morning, with the country's
:03:39. > :03:42.centre-right opposition, the Popular Party, expected to oust the
:03:42. > :03:45.ruling Socialist government. Many voters accuse the Government of
:03:45. > :03:54.failing to prevent the economic slump and debt crisis that is
:03:54. > :03:58.engulfing Spain, where almost 5 million people are out of work.
:03:58. > :04:02.The Royal College of Nursing claims almost 50,000 jobs will go in the
:04:02. > :04:06.NHS in England by 2015. It claims a number of frontline posts will be
:04:06. > :04:10.affected. But the government has accused the RCM of scaremongering,
:04:10. > :04:13.same efficiency savings can be made at the same time as improving
:04:13. > :04:19.patient care. The NHS in England is under
:04:19. > :04:22.enormous pressure. Managers have to find �20 billion worth of
:04:22. > :04:26.efficiency savings in the next four years. The money is meant to go
:04:26. > :04:31.back into frontline services, but the RCN believes patient care is
:04:31. > :04:35.being affected. It has been tracking job cuts since April 2010.
:04:35. > :04:40.Since then, it has heard of nearly 50,000 posts that are under threat
:04:40. > :04:47.or have been closed out of a total of 1.4 million. That is 30,000 more
:04:47. > :04:52.than a year ago. It believes that many are clinical staff. We cannot
:04:52. > :04:56.believe that hospitals can strip out, as in some cases, as much as
:04:56. > :05:00.nearly 25% of their workforce, and carry on as they have in the past.
:05:00. > :05:03.We believe this is extremely worrying. The Government says the
:05:03. > :05:07.NHS should be able to make efficiency savings and improved
:05:07. > :05:12.patient care at the same time. It accuses the Union of scaremongering
:05:12. > :05:19.over the size of the job losses. That seems fanciful to me. We have
:05:19. > :05:25.already taken out a number of managerial jobs, which doubled
:05:25. > :05:28.under Labour. We have cut those numbers, and the number of doctors
:05:28. > :05:32.employed has increased since the coalition was formed. We want to
:05:32. > :05:37.take money out of the back end and put it into the frontline. Some
:05:37. > :05:39.hospitals involved also dispute the figures, but the RCN says there is
:05:39. > :05:43.evidence of more jobs coming under threat.
:05:43. > :05:51.That's it. There is more news here on BBC One at 6 o'clock. Until then,
:05:51. > :05:54.enjoy your afternoon. It doesn't seem a very long time
:05:54. > :05:57.ago since the Church of England was described as the Conservative Party
:05:57. > :05:59.at prayer? Today, 18 Anglican bishops have written to the
:05:59. > :06:02.Observer to complain about the "profoundly unjust" government
:06:02. > :06:06.plans to impose a �500 a week benefit cap on families. They say
:06:06. > :06:13.they will try to make changes to the Welfare Reform Bill when it is
:06:13. > :06:15.debated in the House of Lords next week. Sarah, I guess it is familiar
:06:15. > :06:21.territory for the Government to find itself under attack from the
:06:21. > :06:24.Church? It is, with the added energy they have now since the St
:06:24. > :06:28.Paul's protest, they have realised that they can be at the centre of
:06:28. > :06:32.events. They have started to ask themselves, what would Jesus say,
:06:32. > :06:38.or what would Tom Hollander say? They think they are part of the
:06:38. > :06:43.debate. I do not think it is a bad thing. They say it is their job to
:06:43. > :06:46.give a voice to people who do not have one. In this case, it is the
:06:46. > :06:51.children, which is fair enough. I think they are wrong. It is a
:06:51. > :06:57.difficult place for them to be, to say that people should be getting a
:06:57. > :07:01.limitless amounts of welfare payments? Yes. As Sarah says, until
:07:01. > :07:06.you can children. A �500 ceiling regardless of whether you have five
:07:06. > :07:08.or 15 children does inevitably target the progeny. It does not
:07:09. > :07:12.matter how successful the Rettig brick has been in painting every
:07:12. > :07:16.unemployed person in the country as somehow having made a choice to
:07:16. > :07:18.live a life of indolence, their children haven't, and you would be
:07:18. > :07:25.punishing them by taking away what previous governments have decided
:07:25. > :07:28.they need to live on. You make a point about the relevance of the St
:07:28. > :07:34.Paul's protest, as if only now has the Church put up the courage to
:07:34. > :07:39.say we ought to be taking a moral lead. Exactly. Having been rather
:07:39. > :07:42.bemused and anxious about what was going on, they now see it as a
:07:42. > :07:48.great opportunity. But the government has to stand firm. If
:07:48. > :07:51.you have a moral debate as well as an economic debate, that is good.
:07:51. > :07:55.The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has this morning weighed in to the
:07:55. > :07:57.debate about how best to solve the euro-zone crisis. He says he is
:07:57. > :07:59.against the Prime Minister's "big bazooka" solution - decisive
:07:59. > :08:03.intervention from the European Central Bank - and against closer
:08:03. > :08:05.political ties between members of the single currency. The
:08:05. > :08:13.disagreement highlights the acute political sensitivity of dealing
:08:13. > :08:18.with this crisis. So what is the best way to battle
:08:18. > :08:21.for Britain's interests in a Europe plagued by economic ills? On Monday,
:08:21. > :08:25.David Cameron was telling the City that the euro crisis represented an
:08:25. > :08:31.opportunity to get stuck in and champion reform of the EU, and that
:08:31. > :08:34.Britain's membership allowed it to fight for free trade. And the PM
:08:34. > :08:41.has been travelling a lot this week to Brussels and then Berlin,
:08:41. > :08:43.jousting with Herman van Rompuy and Angela Merkel. So who is the better
:08:43. > :08:46.Euro-sceptic, the pugnacious David Cameron, who wants to lead his
:08:46. > :08:48.crusade across the Channel, or those in UKIP and some
:08:48. > :08:51.Conservatives who want to withdraw from the EU and lower the
:08:51. > :09:00.portcullis, arguing that that is the best way to avoid the Teutonic
:09:00. > :09:03.domination that Nigel Farage fears? The Euro-sceptic Chancellor George
:09:03. > :09:06.Osborne has even argued for more political integration, but only for
:09:06. > :09:08.the euro-zone, to avoid financial ruin in the future, while at the
:09:08. > :09:11.same time resisting Franco-German demands for a levy on financial
:09:11. > :09:21.transactions which the British say would hurt their moneylenders in
:09:21. > :09:23.
:09:23. > :09:32.the City of London. So where is the patriotic cause - fight or flight?
:09:32. > :09:37.Sally forth or pull up the drawbridge?
:09:37. > :09:42.We are joined now by the EU Gidley de Nigel Farage. We know where you
:09:43. > :09:46.stand - you would like to pull up the drawbridge. No. You are
:09:46. > :09:49.implying that by leaving political union, we are somehow isolating
:09:49. > :09:53.ourselves from Europe and the rest of the world. But is not what we
:09:53. > :09:56.are saying. We are saying, let's amicably divorce ourselves from
:09:56. > :10:00.political union and replace that with a genuine free trade agreement
:10:01. > :10:05.not just with Europe, but the rest of the world as well. But isn't the
:10:05. > :10:08.real Euro-sceptic thing to do, which is what David Cameron and
:10:08. > :10:12.George Osborne are saying, is to say, we are fighting for Britain's
:10:12. > :10:17.interests within Europe and trying to get the best deal, and that is
:10:17. > :10:21.how we doing? They have been urging the Eurozone to go faster and
:10:21. > :10:25.deeper into a political union. I have warned that if they do that,
:10:25. > :10:30.it will lead to the destruction of democracy across Europe. In the
:10:30. > :10:32.last few days, we have seen two democratic governments failed by
:10:33. > :10:37.the bureaucrats and their Mackie's put in place. The Cameron policy is
:10:37. > :10:40.urging more and more Europe. have often cited Norway as the
:10:40. > :10:46.example Britain should follow. The Prime Minister there has described
:10:46. > :10:51.his democracy as a fax democracy, where they are white -- wait for a
:10:51. > :10:56.fax from Brussels to tell them what rules they have to apply. Norway is
:10:56. > :11:00.one potential model. Norway is not in the EU. She pays a tiny amount
:11:00. > :11:08.of money to be a member of the European economic Area. She has her
:11:09. > :11:13.own fisheries, controls her own European rules on that portion of
:11:13. > :11:17.their trade that is with Europe. But Norway is obliged to accept all
:11:17. > :11:21.European legislation, and yet has no say in what that legislation is.
:11:21. > :11:25.If we sell goods to America, we have to conform with their
:11:25. > :11:29.standards. Being like Norway would guarantee us free trade and give us
:11:29. > :11:34.a chance to negotiate the kind of deal that Switzerland has, where
:11:34. > :11:38.they do not have to have any of the rules. Let's talk about the
:11:38. > :11:43.transaction tax that would affect the City. That would have serious
:11:43. > :11:47.consequences if Britain were outside the European Union, because
:11:47. > :11:51.any transactions denominated in euros would still face that tax.
:11:51. > :11:56.heard all this ten years ago. that wrong or right? We were told
:11:56. > :12:02.that if we did not join the euro, London and the City would collapse.
:12:02. > :12:06.Actually, the amount of business we do has grown bigger. If we have the
:12:06. > :12:11.financial transaction tax imposed on the City of London, we will lose
:12:11. > :12:16.our biggest single industry. But if Britain were outside the European
:12:16. > :12:20.Union and Europe goes ahead with the transaction tax, that will hit
:12:20. > :12:24.the City of London very hard. the City of London would then
:12:24. > :12:28.become like an offshore island, and everybody would come to London.
:12:28. > :12:33.That is how business works. Business goes where it is efficient
:12:33. > :12:38.to do business. But if you talk to people in the City, they say the
:12:38. > :12:42.opposite. I spent 20 years working there and I know quite a few of
:12:42. > :12:50.them myself. But they say if Britain does not fight its corner
:12:50. > :12:53.by being part of the EU, and the transaction tax get impose,
:12:53. > :12:57.anything denominated in euros would be subject to VAT tax and the banks
:12:57. > :13:02.would go elsewhere. You are suggesting that the Eurozone will
:13:02. > :13:05.turn in on itself. Whatever they do, they will not be able to stop
:13:05. > :13:09.products denominated in euros, dollars or sterling being traded in
:13:10. > :13:14.the City of London. We are a flexible financial community. We do
:13:14. > :13:17.not want Brussels closing it down. You have said you do not want to
:13:17. > :13:21.live in a German-dominated Europe, which is what we have now.
:13:21. > :13:26.certainly is, because there is a vacuum of leadership in Brussels.
:13:26. > :13:31.They have power, but no authority, because no one is elected. Angela
:13:31. > :13:35.Merkel is now in charge. That is bad for Europe. The European Union
:13:35. > :13:40.was supposed to hold Germany's power in. Do you think Germany
:13:40. > :13:44.would have less power if Britain were to withdraw from the EU?
:13:44. > :13:48.Adding Germany is in a totally dominant position within the
:13:48. > :13:51.Eurozone, and the only way to get democracy back is for countries
:13:51. > :14:00.like Greece and Italy to leave the euro. You are inflaming prejudice
:14:00. > :14:04.by talking about Germany rather than the Europe. In Greece and
:14:04. > :14:10.Italy, democracy has been stripped out of those countries. That is
:14:10. > :14:17.something that ought to worry us. With the Germans in charge, no one
:14:17. > :14:21.should be in that dominant position. You have a tension between an
:14:21. > :14:24.emotional argument, because to care about the nationality of who is
:14:24. > :14:28.providing economic leadership is emotional rather than intellectual.
:14:28. > :14:32.The intellectual argument is, who is best suited to deliver economic
:14:32. > :14:35.benefits to this part of Europe? You would have a tough job
:14:35. > :14:38.convincing me that any of the current crop of politicians at
:14:38. > :14:43.Westminster are better suited to economic management and Angela
:14:43. > :14:47.Merkel and her team. To take an implement, they have greater two
:14:47. > :14:51.jobs in Germany for every job lost here. It might be a generational
:14:51. > :14:55.thing. I do not mean to sound insulting, but I don't particularly
:14:55. > :14:59.care about the nationality or the geographical origin of sound
:14:59. > :15:05.economic leadership. I do not think it is sound economic leadership.
:15:05. > :15:10.is better than ours. Those Mediterranean countries need to
:15:10. > :15:17.leave the Eurozone. It does not matter how much money Germany
:15:17. > :15:21.throws at it. The whole thing is failing. But would you accept that
:15:21. > :15:26.that is an emotional argument, that you do not want to live in a
:15:26. > :15:32.German-dominated Europe? It sounds like there is a bit of racism there.
:15:32. > :15:37.I am married to a German. I would not take a strong anti-German line.
:15:37. > :15:42.But it is a strong anti-German line. We have had to Pi German ministers
:15:42. > :15:45.been abusive about our status, telling us the pound is dead and we
:15:45. > :15:55.must join the euro. The time has come to say to German politicians
:15:55. > :15:57.
:15:57. > :16:04.and EU politicians, we have had It is to Tonic pragmatism. It is
:16:04. > :16:08.not an insult. -- Teutonic. I take it as an insult. I think we are
:16:08. > :16:12.going to draw stumps on that particular issue. Thank you very
:16:12. > :16:16.much, Nigel Farage. The crisis in the eurozone was cited this week as
:16:16. > :16:19.one of the major factors behind sluggish economic growth at home,
:16:19. > :16:24.and the Bank of England has downgraded its prediction for
:16:24. > :16:29.growth in 2012 to just 1%. Later this month, the Chancellor will
:16:29. > :16:33.unveil his Autumn Statement. All eyes around him to deliver
:16:33. > :16:36.something that will give a big bazooka to the ailing economy.
:16:36. > :16:41.Joining me is the Government's Growth Tsar Lord Heseltine. Can I
:16:41. > :16:49.get your view very quickly on this idea that we are now living in a
:16:49. > :16:56.German-dominated Europe? One of the great arguments for this country
:16:56. > :17:01.joining the European adventure was to balance Europe, to create a
:17:01. > :17:06.Europe where war, which was the characteristic of 1,000 years, was
:17:06. > :17:13.made extraordinarily unlikely, so France, Germany and Britain would
:17:13. > :17:20.have provided a huge stability. We turned the offer down, although
:17:20. > :17:24.later, of course, we did join, and it has proved, in terms of the
:17:24. > :17:33.broad historic sweep of what has happened over the last 50 years, a
:17:33. > :17:38.remarkably successful venture. Chancellor Kohl once said to be in
:17:38. > :17:43.a private conversation that he represented the last generation of
:17:43. > :17:46.Germans that felt the impact of the Second World War, and there would
:17:47. > :17:54.come another generation who said, we don't need this feeling of guilt,
:17:54. > :18:00.why don't we just shed this into European responsibility and go it
:18:01. > :18:04.alone? And he said that to him, that would be a tragedy and to the
:18:04. > :18:08.generation of Germans he represented it would be a tragedy.
:18:08. > :18:15.I share that view. Sorry to interrupt you, but you think we
:18:15. > :18:19.ought to be part of the euro as well? Still? No, I think we will
:18:19. > :18:24.join the euro. I think the chances are, and it's a balance, the
:18:24. > :18:28.chances are the euro will survive, because the determination,
:18:28. > :18:32.particularly of the French and the Germans is to maintain a coherence
:18:32. > :18:37.that they have created in Europe. They have got a hell of a problem,
:18:37. > :18:42.let's be frank about that, but my guess is they will find a way
:18:42. > :18:48.through. I hope they will, because the downside for the British
:18:48. > :18:53.economy of the euro going under is catastrophic, and people have no
:18:53. > :19:03.idea of the scale of money that the British banks are owed by European
:19:03. > :19:09.banks. Sorry to interrupt... If the European banks start going, it will
:19:09. > :19:13.be our banks that are run the line, our government on the line. -- on
:19:13. > :19:18.their line. I don't think that is going to worry on that programme.
:19:18. > :19:21.We are here to talk about growth. Youth unemployment hit one million
:19:21. > :19:29.this week, the Government is in vague -- engaged in battles with
:19:29. > :19:37.the unions. Does it feel like 1986 all over again? No, I think this is
:19:37. > :19:41.seen as a world crisis of a very major concern, and I think that the
:19:41. > :19:46.Government is pursuing the only sane policy is in macro-economic
:19:46. > :19:49.terms. They inherited an impossible position from the last Labour
:19:49. > :19:56.government and they have to retain confidence. If that goes and
:19:56. > :19:58.interest rates start rising, the effect on confidence in this
:19:58. > :20:03.country and investment would be very serious, so I am totally
:20:03. > :20:10.supportive of what the Chancellor is saying. We although he is
:20:10. > :20:14.looking for ideas in order to get whatever he can, in terms of
:20:14. > :20:18.momentum into the economy -- we all know. I did put forward some
:20:18. > :20:23.suggestions he would like to consider. Very briefly, give us a
:20:23. > :20:27.flavour of what needs to be done to bring it growth back. That is the
:20:27. > :20:32.glory of these programmes, very briefly! As though you can deal
:20:32. > :20:36.with these matters like that. One thing I did say is that I think
:20:36. > :20:40.within Whitehall, there are a stack of decisions that are just being
:20:40. > :20:44.thought about, consulted, talked about, analysed and I think
:20:44. > :20:49.ministers should say, I want to know every decision that has been
:20:49. > :20:56.in this department and hasn't been taken for three months, so we can
:20:56. > :21:01.accelerated. Secondly, I think that the Government should look at the
:21:01. > :21:04.available cash it has got available already in the reduced levels of
:21:05. > :21:13.expenditure and try to use more of that in a competitive environment,
:21:13. > :21:19.in order to get gearing from the private sector. Thirdly, and it has
:21:19. > :21:25.hardly ever been done, but I think the Government could look for 10
:21:25. > :21:29.big planning decisions, which preferably they would discuss with
:21:29. > :21:35.the leader of the opposition, so they got relatively non-
:21:35. > :21:39.controversial ones, and if they could find 10 such examples, then I
:21:39. > :21:43.think they could ask parliament to give planning permission in a
:21:43. > :21:48.matter of months. It can be done, the legislation exists, and he
:21:48. > :21:52.would have to be careful, but they are looking for a stimulus to the
:21:52. > :21:57.economy and I think the urgency of the situation, the job situation,
:21:57. > :22:02.which is very worrying, demands the politicians looking at innovated
:22:02. > :22:08.needs of stimulating growth. Then people setting it out so eloquently
:22:08. > :22:13.of what the choices are -- thank you. You gave a speech to the
:22:13. > :22:16.Manchester Business Growth this week and said perhaps you need to
:22:16. > :22:23.recognise that the enemy is within the fortress. Who is the enemy
:22:23. > :22:26.Within? That is the point I am making. Quite understandably,
:22:26. > :22:30.everybody is focused on the world situation and the eurozone
:22:30. > :22:35.specifically. It can give people the impression that there is
:22:35. > :22:41.nothing we can do. I want to know who the enemy Within is. Yes, I
:22:41. > :22:46.know, you are trying to get ahead and I am trying to explain. I was
:22:46. > :22:51.using the wartime example of Churchill, please prevent to meet
:22:51. > :22:56.this day on a single heart sheet of paper this answer to the question -
:22:56. > :23:01.- present. I gave answers to the question that David Cameron could
:23:01. > :23:07.ask of that sort and three I have indicated to you. What I was really
:23:07. > :23:14.talking about was feet in their share in the system, and if people
:23:14. > :23:17.could see the emergency required -- the inertia, if the officials in
:23:17. > :23:21.Whitehall could, and really try and remember what it is like to be
:23:21. > :23:25.faced with a wartime situation, when everybody comes together and
:23:25. > :23:30.the whole nation throws itself into trying to find solutions, it is
:23:30. > :23:36.that sort of urgency that is needed in order to get whatever we can out
:23:36. > :23:41.of existing levels of expenditure and out of existing procedures and
:23:41. > :23:48.legislative arrangements. Do you think there is also a political
:23:48. > :23:51.impasse? We had proposals about liberalising employment laws, so it
:23:52. > :23:55.is easier to hire and fire. Those have been blocked by the Liberal
:23:55. > :24:01.Democrat partners in the coalition. Isn't that the sort of measure that
:24:01. > :24:07.you need? So that employers find it easier to hire and fire people,
:24:07. > :24:10.that would act as a stimulus to the economy? Well, I have been
:24:10. > :24:13.responsible for one of these deregulation initiatives for many
:24:14. > :24:18.years and I would be very frank been telling you I didn't think we
:24:18. > :24:22.achieved much. I must also tell you that many other people have been
:24:22. > :24:27.responsible and haven't achieved much either. When you start looking
:24:27. > :24:36.at the details of regulations, you realise that there are a huge range
:24:37. > :24:46.of regulations which are positively banal, for example, the compulsory
:24:46. > :24:51.use of skid lids on motorbikes was socially desirable. Modern society
:24:51. > :24:54.uses regulations to protect standards that are regarded as
:24:54. > :24:59.politically acceptable and desirable. At the other end of the
:24:59. > :25:06.scale, there is gold plating, there is a over-bureaucratic enthusiasm,
:25:06. > :25:11.and what I did when I was Secretary of State was to say to a huge range
:25:11. > :25:15.of people, including professional bodies and trade associations, you
:25:15. > :25:19.come before work with the regulation that exists and show me
:25:19. > :25:25.a different craft that achieved what you want, and nobody ever put
:25:25. > :25:31.it up -- draft. It would be worth another go. When you start talking
:25:31. > :25:35.about enabling people to sack people, I have two observations.
:25:36. > :25:39.The first is this, the company is that I understand do not sit there
:25:39. > :25:44.saying, we must be able to get rid of people so we mustn't invest
:25:44. > :25:48.because the risks are too high. If you are an enterprising business,
:25:48. > :25:54.you invest because you think it will be a success. You may have to
:25:54. > :25:57.readjust, but you can do that, as is happening throughout industry,
:25:57. > :26:00.as significant numbers are being laid off. But you want to be
:26:00. > :26:05.careful in political terms that you don't get the reputation that all
:26:05. > :26:09.you are trying to do is to make life rougher and tougher for large
:26:09. > :26:14.numbers of people who, in the end, you want to vote for you. Let us
:26:14. > :26:18.return to Europe, one of the areas where growth will be deeply
:26:18. > :26:21.affected his with what happens in the euro-zone. In terms of the
:26:21. > :26:26.negotiations conducted by David Cameron, does he remind you more of
:26:26. > :26:30.John Major or Margaret Thatcher in Europe? He reminds me of David
:26:30. > :26:33.Cameron, I don't think that is surprising. It is silly to think
:26:33. > :26:38.that one Prime Minister is the mirror image of another, they are
:26:38. > :26:45.all very different. How do you think negotiations are going? It is
:26:45. > :26:49.a difficult time... Let me show you that the lunacy of your question,
:26:49. > :26:55.if I may say so, Margaret Thatcher led this country into the single
:26:55. > :26:59.European Act, which was the biggest sharing of sovereignty, economic,
:27:00. > :27:04.in the history of this nation. John Major secured opt-outs in the
:27:05. > :27:10.Maastricht Treaty for social policy, which midget -- Mrs Thatcher, as
:27:11. > :27:15.she then was, did not secured in the Single European Act. Which of
:27:15. > :27:20.the similarlys do you think is relevant to your question? Do you
:27:20. > :27:25.think you have succeeded in not giving me a headline today?
:27:25. > :27:29.ingenuity of the British media always impresses me, so I have
:27:29. > :27:35.optimism but not certainty. Lord Heseltine, thank you very much
:27:35. > :27:40.indeed for being with us. And for those who are not quite as street
:27:40. > :27:44.as Lord Heseltine, skid lids are crash helmets. The rare encircling
:27:44. > :27:47.the Home Secretary over the last fortnight about the state of the
:27:47. > :27:50.UK's borders has shed a light on policing the frontiers, all the
:27:51. > :27:55.more so in the age of mass migration. The Government has said
:27:55. > :27:58.it is committed to a radical reduction in the number of net
:27:58. > :28:08.migration into the country each year, but there is concern within
:28:08. > :28:12.
:28:12. > :28:16.the coalition that the target will It's popular with the public who
:28:16. > :28:20.think the country's too crowded. Less so with universities and
:28:20. > :28:23.businesses who rely on them. The Government's made a simple pledge -
:28:23. > :28:31.to bring down the number of immigrants by the end of this
:28:31. > :28:39.Parliament. It means net migration to this country will be in the
:28:39. > :28:42.order of tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands. We will
:28:42. > :28:47.reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens
:28:47. > :28:52.of thousands. They're talking about what's called "net migration". For
:28:52. > :28:55.2010, you work it out like this: 300,000 people came from the EU.
:28:55. > :28:59.Then you add the 275,000 people who came from the rest of the world and
:28:59. > :29:05.subtract the 336,000 people who moved away from the UK. Which gives
:29:05. > :29:15.you net migration of 239,000. That's what the Government is
:29:15. > :29:17.
:29:17. > :29:21.pledging to cut to tens of Here at Oxford University, they're
:29:21. > :29:24.studying that target and predict it will be missed. That's because the
:29:24. > :29:27.Government has no influence over two major factors - the number of
:29:27. > :29:33.British people leaving the UK and the free movement of people around
:29:33. > :29:42.the EU. Plus, the policies announced so far won't make a big
:29:42. > :29:45.enough dent in the rest. On work, workers from outside Europe, we
:29:45. > :29:49.have a cap on skilled immigrants, we've had an increase in the
:29:50. > :29:52.minimum skills threshold required. On students, we have had changes in
:29:53. > :29:59.the right to work and we have obviously had more enforcement on
:29:59. > :30:01.especially language schools and further education colleges. On
:30:02. > :30:04.family, we have heard recent proposals to introduce a higher
:30:05. > :30:09.threshold for the amount of money needed to show that a family
:30:10. > :30:13.dependent is not a burden on the state. Now all these policies are
:30:13. > :30:18.going to make a dent on net migration, but if you look at the
:30:18. > :30:21.actual reductions required, the changes will not go far enough.
:30:21. > :30:24.Back at Westminster, that worries many Tory MPs - like Stewart
:30:24. > :30:34.Jackson, who resigned from the Government a few weeks ago over
:30:34. > :30:38.
:30:38. > :30:44.Europe. Now he's concerned about It is a clear target, immigration.
:30:44. > :30:48.It is the bond of trust we had with an hour electors. The Conservative
:30:48. > :30:52.Party were significantly ahead and terms of people's faith in us to do
:30:52. > :30:56.something about immigration. It was a positive issue we campaigned on
:30:56. > :31:00.at the general election, and not to deliver on that pledge by 2015
:31:00. > :31:04.would be a serious issue. So Theresa May is aware of that and
:31:04. > :31:08.the Prime Minister is aware of that. We need to get cracking and look at
:31:08. > :31:12.immigration as it affects all public expenditure and policy
:31:12. > :31:16.decisions. Do you think they might scrap that target? I hope not,
:31:16. > :31:23.because it would send a very poor message to the voters that the
:31:23. > :31:26.British government has given up. MPs get a chance to express those
:31:26. > :31:29.concerns in the near future, and e- petition on the topic of
:31:29. > :31:35.immigration recently crossed the threshold of 100,000 signatures,
:31:35. > :31:39.which means it is eligible for a debate in the Commons. That will
:31:39. > :31:42.probably happen early in the new year. It was inspired by a recent
:31:42. > :31:46.prediction from the Office for National Statistics, which suggests
:31:47. > :31:51.that the population in the UK will grow from 62 million now to 70
:31:51. > :31:57.million by the year 2027, mostly due to immigrants and their
:31:57. > :32:01.children. It has been championed by Labour's Frank Field, who wants the
:32:01. > :32:06.Government to take action that is more radical than just a cap on
:32:06. > :32:10.numbers. One has inherited a situation where if you come here to
:32:10. > :32:14.work, after four years, practically everybody automatically gets
:32:14. > :32:19.citizenship. That link has to be broken and a clear barrier
:32:19. > :32:26.established between working and citizenship. If they do that, they
:32:26. > :32:31.then start to push into the long term. Britain will cross that 70
:32:31. > :32:35.million barrier. That is something the Home Office is looking at, but
:32:35. > :32:38.it will not necessarily have any effect before the end of this
:32:38. > :32:43.Parliament. So it does not help the Government meet that all-important
:32:43. > :32:48.promise. It leaves them with two options - come up with new ways to
:32:48. > :32:52.limit immigration, or ditch the target.
:32:52. > :32:55.We asked the Home Office for an interview with a minister. No one
:32:55. > :32:59.was available. But they did give us a statement reaffirming their
:32:59. > :33:03.commitment to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. They also
:33:03. > :33:07.said, we have put a limit in place on the number of non-EU economic
:33:07. > :33:10.migrants come into the UK to work. We have also reformed the student
:33:10. > :33:14.route and will shortly be announcing changes to the family
:33:14. > :33:18.and sudden and ribs. Joining me now is the Conservative MP Mark
:33:18. > :33:21.Reckless and Labour MP Alan Michael, both of whom sit on the Home
:33:21. > :33:25.Affairs Select Committee. Is that target going to be hit? I think we
:33:25. > :33:28.can still hit it. It will be more of a challenge than we initially
:33:29. > :33:32.thought, because Net migration under Labour was even higher than
:33:33. > :33:36.previously admitted. But we have made significant changes in a
:33:37. > :33:41.couple of areas. Under Labour, there was a category they said was
:33:41. > :33:50.so highly skilled, they did not even need a job offer. Do you think
:33:50. > :33:54.this target will be hit a? I think there is a chance it might be. We
:33:54. > :33:57.are at 230,000 in the latest year available. I accept that it is a
:33:57. > :34:01.challenge to get down to the tens of thousands, but I believe it
:34:02. > :34:05.still can be hit. But we need stronger measures. There are two
:34:05. > :34:10.areas where the Home Office has made proposals, but then they were
:34:10. > :34:16.watered down. Michael, do you think -- Alun Michael, will they hit the
:34:16. > :34:19.target? I do not think so. This promise was made in advance of the
:34:20. > :34:25.election without having worked out exactly what the figures were and
:34:25. > :34:28.what the targets should be. Were they are wrong to aim for it?
:34:28. > :34:33.terms of the way they have designed it, they have made some big
:34:33. > :34:36.mistakes. For instance, I was at an event on Wednesday, Silicon Valley
:34:36. > :34:41.comes to Westminster, where there was great shaking of heads about
:34:41. > :34:44.the lack of flexibility for high- growth companies that we want to
:34:44. > :34:49.see in this country finding it difficult to bring in the people
:34:49. > :34:52.they want. In education, overseas students are worth �40 billion to
:34:52. > :34:56.the economy at a time when universities are having their
:34:57. > :35:00.finances cut. It is disastrous to have that being reduced. The model
:35:00. > :35:05.should be Labour's approach to immigration when it was in power?
:35:05. > :35:09.Our approach was starting to work. It was a points base system to
:35:10. > :35:13.drive down numbers. Let's remind ourselves for those who don't
:35:13. > :35:18.remember. Before Labour came to power, net migration was in the
:35:18. > :35:23.tens of thousands. It then rose to 2 million during the Labour period.
:35:23. > :35:26.We have seen a considerable amount of people come to this country and
:35:26. > :35:31.contribute to the economy. But we need something that prevents people
:35:31. > :35:35.that we do not want coming to the country coming in, which is tough
:35:35. > :35:38.but fair. The problem is, and the committee has highlighted this on a
:35:38. > :35:44.number of occasions, the borders agency, which has the
:35:44. > :35:48.responsibility for protecting our borders, has been chaotic. So we
:35:48. > :35:52.need a system that is tough, but fair. At the moment, we have a
:35:52. > :35:58.system that is ineffective. We did not have a system that was tough,
:35:58. > :36:04.but fair under Labour. They had a category which said people had such
:36:04. > :36:09.high skills, they did not need a job offer. Many were coming in
:36:10. > :36:19.under that category. We have closed that, and it will reduce
:36:19. > :36:22.immigration. We have also taken students coming in at sub-degree
:36:22. > :36:25.level, many of whom were coming in primarily to work or in the hope of
:36:25. > :36:30.staying on afterwards rather than necessarily for the education.
:36:30. > :36:34.There was not a net benefit to the economy. We could not allow that to
:36:34. > :36:41.continue. There are two areas where we need to take further action.
:36:41. > :36:46.While -- one is in terms of the inter-company transfers. But at
:36:46. > :36:49.specialist level, that is fine. But we have allowed a loophole where
:36:49. > :36:54.Indian IT companies are allowed to bring in people on temporary
:36:54. > :36:58.contracts with an income just above �24,000. We need to close that. We
:36:58. > :37:01.also need to tighten further the post study were proposal. It is
:37:01. > :37:06.good that we have cut down on people at sub-degree level staying
:37:06. > :37:10.on the web, but we cannot allow any person with a degree to stay on
:37:10. > :37:14.automatically. If we tighten that, we can hit the numbers. Would you
:37:14. > :37:20.support those? Martis describing things that sound fine academic
:37:20. > :37:22.year, but he knows that we had in front of the select committee the
:37:22. > :37:28.concerns of universities and the concerns of Indian companies that
:37:28. > :37:31.are creating jobs in the UK that the lack of flexibility and the way
:37:31. > :37:36.in which the Government was going to have to drive down numbers by
:37:36. > :37:41.stopping people we need coming to the country as well as dealing with
:37:41. > :37:44.the targets, this is the problem. It is indiscriminate, because the
:37:44. > :37:51.numbers the Conservatives said they were going to reach are
:37:51. > :37:56.unachievable without doing damage to the economy. The trouble is with
:37:56. > :38:00.immigration that it is both good and bad. You talk about students.
:38:00. > :38:04.We know the universities are getting their money from that. We
:38:04. > :38:10.also know there are UK students who are resentful if they see someone
:38:10. > :38:15.else paying to get a place when university admissions are in such a
:38:15. > :38:21.shortage. It is the same with jobs. I live in London and it has been a
:38:21. > :38:24.fantastic benefit, immigration. But we know classrooms are full and
:38:24. > :38:34.there has been bad planning. There are a lot of UK-based people
:38:34. > :38:37.
:38:37. > :38:42.without jobs. Let's take that point. If you drive down the numbers of
:38:42. > :38:48.students that are coming in, that will be damaging to universities
:38:48. > :38:50.that have �40 billion coming in to the general economy and make a
:38:50. > :38:55.serious contribution to our universities at a time when their
:38:55. > :38:59.finances are being reduced. That will drive up pressure for
:39:00. > :39:03.increased contributions from UK students. The big mistake the
:39:03. > :39:07.Government is making is that if they had listened to the Home
:39:07. > :39:13.Affairs Select Committee, we said to them, don't count students.
:39:13. > :39:22.Until a student applies the settlement, they are not migrants.
:39:22. > :39:26.The central problem is the detail. Tweaking mechanics does not play to
:39:26. > :39:29.the galleries. Mark is being disingenuous in setting the seeds
:39:29. > :39:34.for a Conservative plan to say, we tried hard, but we missed the
:39:34. > :39:38.target. Absolutely not. There are vested interests who want more
:39:38. > :39:42.immigration, like Indian IT companies and universities. In two
:39:42. > :39:46.areas, we have gone too far in allowing loopholes. They may need
:39:46. > :39:50.to be closed if we are going to hit this number. But we can hit this
:39:50. > :39:53.number. There is a bond of trust with the British electorate. We
:39:53. > :40:00.made this promise and it is important to restore trust in
:40:00. > :40:04.British politics. Thank you very much for being with
:40:04. > :40:11.us on The Politics Show. A will be back in a few minutes.
:40:11. > :40:14.First, The Politics Show where you are.
:40:14. > :40:19.Welcome to the London part of the Politics Show, where coming up, we
:40:19. > :40:24.will be asking if it is necessary or practical to give police powers
:40:24. > :40:28.to reduce -- remove so-called Gang videos from the internet.
:40:28. > :40:30.First, we recently reported on an independent review which found
:40:30. > :40:35.problems with the way Hammersmith and Fulham council was using
:40:35. > :40:38.consultants. It identified the absence of a central register for
:40:38. > :40:44.consultants and the need for more transparency in record-keeping. It
:40:44. > :40:47.is unlikely that this authority is alone. We looked at councils across
:40:47. > :40:51.London, or where we could get information to see how much use was
:40:51. > :40:54.being made of consultants and what they are doing.
:40:54. > :40:59.Earlier this year, Hammersmith and Fulham council became concerned
:40:59. > :41:07.about the way they were using consultants. To find out what was
:41:08. > :41:11.going on, they decided to call in... A firm of consultants. They wrote a
:41:11. > :41:14.report, which found serious weaknesses. The local authority had
:41:14. > :41:19.no monitoring of how they were doing, no written agreements with
:41:19. > :41:22.many and no idea how many consultants they were using. The
:41:22. > :41:28.Politics Show has found out that this is a picture repeated across
:41:28. > :41:33.London. We asked every local authority how many consultants they
:41:33. > :41:37.were using and how much it cost. Only 17 out of 33 were able to give
:41:37. > :41:43.us an answer. Of those who were able to tell us, the average spend
:41:43. > :41:48.was around �2 million. Top of the list was Camden, with a spend of
:41:48. > :41:52.over �11 million in the last financial year, worth roughly �1 in
:41:53. > :42:02.every �25 that the council spends. In all, they were using 700
:42:03. > :42:18.
:42:18. > :42:21.companies and individuals. The Other big spenders include Barnet,
:42:21. > :42:25.with �9 million and Newham, with �7 million. But it seems that once
:42:25. > :42:29.they get through the door, consultants often stay quite a long
:42:29. > :42:32.time. At the City of London Corporation, there are five people
:42:32. > :42:37.who could be described as consultants, who have been working
:42:37. > :42:41.there for five years. At Lewisham, one consultant has been at the
:42:41. > :42:46.Council for a decade. You should bring in a specialist to do a
:42:46. > :42:50.specific task. And when it is finished, they go. That just
:42:50. > :42:54.indicates that we should not allow ourselves to be slack about the way
:42:54. > :42:58.that we will monitor this. You have to be rigorous about it. If you are
:42:58. > :43:04.having to pare back your budgets, as we all are, my objective is to
:43:04. > :43:08.make sure the money goes on frontline services. Consultants can
:43:08. > :43:12.offer good value for money and even save a local authority cash, but at
:43:12. > :43:16.a time of cuts and austerity, counsels may find themselves under
:43:17. > :43:20.greater pressure to justify getting them in.
:43:20. > :43:25.Joining me here are a Camden Liberal Democrat councillor Tom
:43:25. > :43:30.Simon and Simon Parker from the think tank the new Local Government
:43:30. > :43:35.Network. Our councils using too many consultants and are they using
:43:35. > :43:39.them for the wrong things? It is hard to say, because you have this
:43:39. > :43:45.very big number, �32 million. But as Camden council pointed out, that
:43:45. > :43:49.counts a lot of things, from people doing home care right the way up to
:43:49. > :43:53.PricewaterhouseCoopers. As Bob Neal pointed out, we do not know if this
:43:53. > :43:58.is delivering value for money. You would hope that if people are going
:43:58. > :44:02.to use consultants, they are making more savings than they are spending.
:44:02. > :44:05.Is there any evidence that local authorities are using more
:44:05. > :44:08.consultants even when they are having to pare back their spending?
:44:08. > :44:13.I have not seen any evidence of that, but it would not be
:44:13. > :44:17.surprising. Councils are facing very big cuts. Some councils in
:44:17. > :44:22.London are probably taking 10% or 15% this year. Counter-intuitively,
:44:22. > :44:26.they might not have all of the capacity in house to do that, so
:44:26. > :44:30.there could be a case for bringing in some outside expertise. But you
:44:30. > :44:39.want to see a focus on value for money and we want councils to say
:44:39. > :44:43.yes, we spent money on a consultant, but it's does this amount. You are
:44:43. > :44:47.in opposition in Camden. Camden point out that other boroughs may
:44:47. > :44:51.not be providing as much information as them, but do you
:44:51. > :44:57.think �11 million is too much to be spending on consultants? It is
:44:57. > :45:00.worrying. We are facing serious cuts to frontline services, from a
:45:00. > :45:04.place services to youth, old people's services and other areas,
:45:04. > :45:09.and the Labour administration keep insisting that they are being as
:45:09. > :45:13.efficient as they can. Now there's this �11.6 million, with a big
:45:13. > :45:16.question mark over it. We know from previous experience that there have
:45:16. > :45:20.been consultants which the administration have used who have
:45:20. > :45:23.not been good value for money. There was one earlier this year to
:45:23. > :45:26.carry out a library consultation to tell the council what the people of
:45:26. > :45:31.Camden thought about their libraries. Unsurprisingly, the
:45:31. > :45:38.result of that �25,000 exercise was that the people of Camden like
:45:38. > :45:41.their library is very much. They could have brought in someone
:45:41. > :45:45.independent to guide them on what their next move was. You could
:45:45. > :45:48.argue that that was a sensible use of money, to find out how much
:45:48. > :45:57.people valued something, how much money in the future they should put
:45:57. > :46:01.I don't think so in this case. It was one of those exercises where we
:46:01. > :46:06.knew the answers already and the methodology and the implementation
:46:06. > :46:13.of the... The local-authority wouldn't have a team to try and do
:46:13. > :46:16.that extensive kind of work. If you are going to be a more grown-up
:46:16. > :46:20.business authority in these times, you have to take action like this.
:46:20. > :46:23.A you have to take action on the Libraries but I don't think this
:46:23. > :46:27.consultation was right, it was a waste of money and it didn't tell
:46:27. > :46:31.us anything we didn't already know, and that is the key thing. You
:46:31. > :46:36.don't want to be wasting money. invited somebody from the ruling
:46:36. > :46:40.group in Camden to take part but they couldn't today. On the general
:46:40. > :46:43.principle, do you think consultancies are getting a bad
:46:43. > :46:48.name? The they absolutely are, and that is partly because you have
:46:48. > :46:51.people coming into central government, you have Francis Maude
:46:51. > :46:54.saying central government is spending too much money and maybe
:46:54. > :47:00.he has a point. I think the public sector has spent a lot on
:47:00. > :47:03.consultants, it has brought out a lot of outside expertise, and I
:47:03. > :47:07.think there has been poor value for money. We have got to Batten down
:47:07. > :47:12.the hatches, get strong value for money from these guys and I think
:47:12. > :47:16.the point about transparency is important. Councils need to have
:47:16. > :47:19.justified the spending they are making. Camden look as if they
:47:19. > :47:23.might be one of the authorities that can tell us how much they are
:47:23. > :47:28.spending and on what, but as we have seen, authorities generally
:47:28. > :47:31.don't have a central register and couldn't tell you that. I'm glad
:47:31. > :47:34.Camden has some information at least and I will certainly be
:47:34. > :47:38.trying to find out more about the 700 recipients of this very large
:47:38. > :47:41.sum of money. Both of you, thank you very much.
:47:41. > :47:45.Gang videos on the internet often depict and some would say
:47:45. > :47:52.glamorised violence, so should the police have the powers to root
:47:52. > :47:57.remove them? One London MP thinks so and others don't agree,
:47:57. > :48:02.objecting on the grounds of censorship and simple practicality.
:48:02. > :48:05.Videos such as these are easy to find on the internet. At the
:48:05. > :48:11.extreme end of the spectrum, they depict images of actual violence,
:48:11. > :48:17.the brandishing of weapons and are ripe with references to drug
:48:18. > :48:22.dealing and GAN warfare. -- gang. boy aged just 12 was part of a
:48:23. > :48:27.gang... Suspected of a murder of a teenage boy... Disturbing scenes
:48:27. > :48:31.like these are all too common on London's news bulletins, but is
:48:32. > :48:37.there any proven connection between the gang videos posted causing gang
:48:37. > :48:43.related crime? According to the MP for Lewisham East, the answer is
:48:43. > :48:45.yes. She has called for a change in the law, which would effectively
:48:45. > :48:54.bolster the currently self- regulated system of monitoring
:48:55. > :48:58.unregulated material on the Now the MP for Lewisham East once
:48:59. > :49:04.police to be able to take dead in appropriate videos from the
:49:04. > :49:10.internet -- once police to be able to take them. But would this be
:49:10. > :49:13.seen as sensible action or heavy- handed censorship? We asked a group
:49:13. > :49:17.of young men and women from a foundation that works with young
:49:17. > :49:27.people who are in danger of being excluded or have been excluded from
:49:27. > :49:29.
:49:29. > :49:34.school to look at some gang videos BNP in Lewisham is trying to get
:49:34. > :49:44.the police involved and get this sort of thing taken down -- the MP.
:49:44. > :49:46.
:49:46. > :49:51.There she understand that this year on the right track? -- But she
:49:51. > :49:55.understand it and the sheep. If you try and take it off YouTube and
:49:55. > :50:00.they will do it in another way, probably in a worse way. You can't
:50:00. > :50:06.brainwash people. It's not going to work, put it that way. So she
:50:06. > :50:12.doesn't understand the issues? thinks music is making children do
:50:12. > :50:18.this but it isn't. It is just a song that is made by them. She says
:50:18. > :50:23.it glorified gangs. And that it promotes serious gang violence.
:50:23. > :50:29.does, but it is not affecting us, it is affecting them. That is what
:50:29. > :50:34.they want to do. She also says that the videos are a recruitment
:50:34. > :50:40.mechanism for getting the kids into gangs. Is that fair comment? She is
:50:41. > :50:45.just going to make the gangs hate the police more.
:50:45. > :50:50.Take them all off and sensible whole lot, I think it is disgusting.
:50:50. > :50:54.And you young people don't seem to get it -- censor. I don't like to
:50:54. > :50:59.see young men looking like that, they look stupid. They are cowards.
:50:59. > :51:03.Why are you covering your face, if you are so began the bad, take it
:51:03. > :51:09.up and show people who you are. That big and bad. Get a job, if you
:51:09. > :51:15.can't get a job, create one. Don't destroy the community, I am not for
:51:15. > :51:20.it. I am with the MP, take it off. Heidi Alexander's bill should be
:51:20. > :51:24.tabled early next year. Whilst MPs may be persuaded, some young people
:51:24. > :51:29.in London may well be less convinced.
:51:29. > :51:32.Heidi Alexander, Labour MP for Lewisham East, is with me and Peter
:51:32. > :51:38.Barron, the director of external relations for Google, which owns
:51:38. > :51:42.YouTube, and a representative of the boyhood to manhood of
:51:42. > :51:45.representation. The first thing we need to get clear is the kind of
:51:45. > :51:51.videos you are objecting to most other factual one, depicting
:51:51. > :51:55.violence, or are they the range of videos that include rap videos and
:51:55. > :51:59.so on? Why do I have come across are over the last year it is a
:51:59. > :52:04.whole load up videos on the internet, filmed at the heart of
:52:05. > :52:09.our town centres, housing estate, a group of young men, standing around
:52:09. > :52:14.often wrapping, sometimes carrying weapons, singing about knives,
:52:14. > :52:18.stabbing, gangs and I think it is unacceptable. They are sometimes
:52:18. > :52:22.carrying weapons? We couldn't find any instances where people are
:52:22. > :52:28.wielding weapons, but you have had been drawn to your attention?
:52:28. > :52:32.have. Have they been removed already. --? One of the videos
:52:32. > :52:37.weather was at night was removed after eight or nine months. There
:52:38. > :52:41.were a number of our people who had fled the it as unacceptable and it
:52:41. > :52:45.was brought up to my attention by a constituent whose son had been
:52:45. > :52:51.mugged at knifepoint in Catford. When I saw the video, there was a
:52:51. > :52:54.group of young man and clearly one of them was carrying a knife. I
:52:54. > :52:58.find it as inappropriate and others had done but it was still then nine
:52:58. > :53:03.months later. Do you think there is a level of concern that justifies
:53:03. > :53:07.the attention of your giving this? I think there is an even if young
:53:07. > :53:10.people don't necessarily make the link in their mind that seeing this
:53:10. > :53:15.video, they are going to carry a knife, it is all part of the
:53:15. > :53:19.context. We know young people on the internet a huge amount and we
:53:19. > :53:24.know that young people are carrying knives, often out of beer, and if
:53:24. > :53:28.any human being watched this videos, and you would be terrified -- out
:53:28. > :53:33.of fear. What you say about the responsibility of YouTube for
:53:33. > :53:38.showing them? YouTube has a policy whereby if you fight it, it can be
:53:38. > :53:42.taken down. That is a start. Bashful agate. The police should
:53:42. > :53:46.have the power to go to the courts, and the courts are quite important,
:53:46. > :53:51.it is not about a police state, to force internet providers to block
:53:51. > :53:56.access to these videos. We heard a little bit about your current
:53:56. > :54:01.policy here, but the MPs are saying it is not enough. It is not
:54:01. > :54:05.efficient enough, what you are doing. We recognise that is is is a
:54:05. > :54:08.problem that we are addressing it and we have Community guidelines
:54:08. > :54:13.bad for bid videos that glamorise violence and that includes the
:54:13. > :54:17.brandishing of weapons -- that the bid. We have teams working 24 hours
:54:17. > :54:23.a day to review flap material, so if a member of public sees the
:54:23. > :54:30.video they think breaks a guideline,... What kind of number
:54:30. > :54:34.are we talking about? There are 48 hours up every minute around the
:54:34. > :54:38.world. How big is your team? A we have teams around the world
:54:38. > :54:43.reviewing thousands of hours. I can't tell you how many, but we
:54:43. > :54:48.have teams right around the world operating 24 hours a day, and they
:54:48. > :54:52.will review videos that have been flat within hours. The video that
:54:52. > :54:59.Heidi talked about, that was reviewed and removed, and as you
:54:59. > :55:03.say... She said it took nine months. Our policies are evolving, we have
:55:03. > :55:06.recognised this is a particular problem in Britain and a couple of
:55:06. > :55:11.years back, we changed our policy to deal with precisely this issue,
:55:11. > :55:20.gang videos, which glamorise violence. He changed it two years
:55:20. > :55:25.ago? What did you do two years ago? We have guidelines which deal with
:55:25. > :55:29.of violent scenes, for example, or pornography, that sort of thing,
:55:29. > :55:33.the brandishing of weapons, and it didn't fall outside the guidelines
:55:33. > :55:37.at that time. We recognised it was a problem and we have tightened the
:55:37. > :55:41.guidelines and we continue to monitor it. Heidi talks about
:55:41. > :55:44.videos where there isn't a weapon brandished but it is very clear
:55:44. > :55:48.that the specific purpose is to intimidate people, that is against
:55:48. > :55:52.the guidelines. Do we need the police involved? I'm not sure we
:55:52. > :55:57.need the police at this point, because we do have committed
:55:57. > :56:00.guidelines which deal with this. We really encourage viewers to look at
:56:00. > :56:05.these videos and if they see something they think break the
:56:05. > :56:10.guidelines, alert us to it and we will review it. Do you think this
:56:10. > :56:13.might take off, this proposal? abide by the law, and it is the law
:56:14. > :56:20.of the land and if it says these fears should be removed, it is
:56:20. > :56:25.something we would respect but to be clear, we are addressing this
:56:25. > :56:30.problem and they enjoy in appropriate stuff is removed.
:56:30. > :56:35.heard that Lady saying, get these videos of, what you think? It is
:56:35. > :56:39.good to get the videos off, but my experiences tell me that the videos
:56:39. > :56:44.are not the main cause of gang violence. The main cause of gang
:56:44. > :56:49.violence are young boys being alienated, young boys don't have
:56:49. > :56:55.space or support to become healthy young men. At the moment, when you
:56:55. > :56:59.look on these videos, what you are seeing is jerk masculinity,
:57:00. > :57:04.indicating to us that these young men, these young people need
:57:04. > :57:11.support in developing Laskey alerted to express themselves.
:57:11. > :57:15.it serious? Even when somebody is brandishing a weapon? It is just a
:57:15. > :57:21.young boy is demonstrating and copying and imitating gangsterism.
:57:21. > :57:27.So is this an over-reaction for -- from Heidi? Heidi is right to bring
:57:27. > :57:32.it up, but the focus should be armed key areas, unlike supporting
:57:32. > :57:36.young people -- should be on. Engaging in communities, supporting
:57:36. > :57:40.more amenities within the community, but I think it is too much. Some
:57:40. > :57:46.might say that is dealing with the really difficult business.
:57:46. > :57:50.entirely agree with everything he has just said. Removing this sort
:57:50. > :57:53.of video is not going to tackle the problem of gang culture, it is
:57:53. > :57:59.about so many other things, but what I am concerned about his young
:57:59. > :58:04.people reviewing these videos, tens or hundreds at times, and are
:58:04. > :58:10.actually fight and and fearful as a result -- of times. We Megan people
:58:10. > :58:15.can carry weapons out of fear. -- we know. With the number of knife
:58:15. > :58:21.crime incidents going up but that that the year except that causal
:58:21. > :58:26.link? -- do you accept that causal link? This is huge debate about
:58:26. > :58:30.expression on line. There is no doubt these videos are disturbing
:58:30. > :58:35.the, in some cases illegal and in many cases, against the Community
:58:35. > :58:39.guidelines, and that is enough to have them taken down. Gang culture
:58:39. > :58:44.developed long before YouTube and it is not the videos, it is society
:58:44. > :58:48.itself being unable to support people to become healthier men.
:58:48. > :58:52.This is why young men are joining gangs, because they are not being
:58:52. > :58:57.taught how to become healthy men. Would you like YouTube to be doing
:58:57. > :59:00.more than they are doing already? Given that you might not get the
:59:00. > :59:05.powers for police to do more, would you like them to do more
:59:05. > :59:08.themselves? Yes, and Google and I are going to meet with the minister
:59:08. > :59:14.in the new year. Looking at their guidelines, looking at the number
:59:14. > :59:20.of people allocated to reviewing this material, perhaps speeding up
:59:20. > :59:24.how long it takes to get the videos removed. Going back to what has
:59:24. > :59:29.been said, the gangs are not new but the internet is and the speed
:59:29. > :59:34.with which material is propagated is new. Knife crime is going up
:59:34. > :59:37.again, what will you do now? We are listing to Heidi and others and we
:59:37. > :59:43.are learning and the policies will involve all the time. We recognise
:59:43. > :59:47.there is a problem and we are determined to investigate. And what
:59:47. > :59:52.about the system of alerting? works very well, and we would
:59:52. > :59:55.encourage people to do that if they see something. It added takes one
:59:55. > :00:00.alert to have it reviewed and benefit is against the guidelines,
:00:00. > :00:04.it will be taken out. This is a subject we will undoubtedly return
:00:04. > :00:11.to. Thank you very much to all three of you. Now it is back to
:00:11. > :00:16.John. And that is set for this week,
:00:16. > :00:20.thank you for being with us. But Daily Politics will be back
:00:20. > :00:23.tomorrow at midday and I will be back next Sunday. In the meantime,