Out . Palami, welcome to comfort zone. Good to be here. I want to look at 1st that the governments handling of the pandemic in recent months. We know that a vaccine now appears imminent. But after a decade of conservative rule, britain was woefully unprepared to deal with this. Pandemic any pandemic, wasnt it . Despite numerous warnings and dress rehearsals, why was your party asleep on the job for so many years . Well, i think what we saw with the pandemic was that the vast, vast majority of countries found themselves unprepared for it. And the reason for that, the fundamental reason for that was that the nature of the pandemic wasnt quite what was previously expressed. His expected. What was generally expected by most countries was something that resembles a clue. I realize it was different, but look at the figures before the coronavirus hit, the u. K. Had just 6. 6 intensive care beds per 100000 people. Thats fewer than latvia, fewer than cyprus, half the number that italy had, and about a 5th of german capacity, 5th largest economy in the world, and the provisions for intensive care, what woefully inadequate werent they . Well, if youre talking about intensive care beds, there is clearly a point around excess capacity, and how much is sensible to maintain avons know that there were people from the German Health system whod visited the n. H. S. This is all prepared them back to talk about how they could manage their capacity more effective. So i think that both of us can learn from each other. Indeed, most Health Systems can reach where you claimed in may that the government had been as decisive and prompt as it could have been in meeting the challenge. But thats not a widely held view among the governments scientific advisors. Is it the u. K. s chief scientific officer Patrick Vallance admitted that didnt. He said in july, its clear the outcome has not been good in the u. K. I think you can be absolutely clear about that. Are you now absolutely clear about that . Well, the outcome has not been good because many thousands of people died. So anybody says it was the outcome was good, is is wrong, might say, oh, it was true in boiler Sage Committee on the Scientific Group for emergencies, said if the government had acted a week or 2 earlier, it would have made quite a big difference to the death wrecked, so the government still cant bring itself to admit that can it might well. The truth is that hindsight is a wonderful thing. And the scientific advisors have given a little, i thought she just spent for them letting an incredibly difficult job. But they gave infant times contradictory advice. I remember when they were saying the masks shouldnt people . Now, if i says to wear a mask, why did they change the device . Not because theyre incompetent or said it wrong because we learnt more about the virus as time went on in the same way that governments and politicians have learnt. And Civil Servants have learnt more about how to manage this as time went on. And as i said at the beginning, we do need to learn lessons and they survive how we manage our excess capacity with beds, how we manage our state capacity around testing the best other things. But, you know, this really, really was enough to see in crisis in many respects, hence why the things that were grappling with in misc, oh, same things all across europe and indeed the World Governments in trying to manage. Well, i agree that hindsight is a great thing, but rewriting history isnt a great thing. Is it this claim by the government that everybody who needed care was able to get that care . This from the Health Secretary mount have got in july, that wasnt backed up by the facts, was it thanks to a sunday times investigation . We now know the system or tree our tool as it was called, had been devised, which meant that many people over the age of 60 were denied the lifesaving treatment they needed. Theres direct testimony from doctors to back that up. So the truth of the matter is somewhat different to the way the government now portrays it. Isnt it . Well, thats not my understanding of it. My understanding of it is, of course, in any Health Care System like a country like united there is a judgment. Baker. Im sure of what kind of course im the stress. Then there were times when they wanted to not sh people in the hospital for as long as they otherwise might because of the huge pressure on the Health Service. But it was the same problems with seeing in lots of countries this blanket, this blanket version of everybody who needed care was able to get that care is not true. Talked to remeasure parama. Chairman of the Doctors Association u. K. Said the lect lockdown 1st time around, allowed the infections to spread across the country. More than the Health Service could come up with start. He said, had to tell many critically unwell patients who needed lifesaving treatment that they would not receive that treatment. Thats not the same as everybody who needed care was able to get that care is it has a big difference there. Well, of course youve got a lot of people now saying, oh if only the lot im going to have a 4 weeks before when people try to deny of the treatment mustapha, let me. There were tonight treatment. They were told the same from the chairman of the british medical association, dr. Chan. My course at the same thing. It is manifestly the case. He said that large numbers of patients did not receive the care that they needed. And thats because the Health Service didnt have the resources cant be clearer than that. Can exact opposite of mr. Hancocks blanket assurances. Well, i dont think anybody tonight is that in june, july of this year, Health Services under strain. Look, i cant talk for every individual case. Of course, and some hospitals, they can make very, very difficult decisions around who got treated in will particular way. How quickly and so on. But i think that the idea that somehow, if only the government had done the blanket lockdown a week earlier, and none of these problems would have occurred, i think is wrong. Also see when i look at other come yes, some countries went into lockdown early, but then may have and if concert just later on in the year at a time when the United Kingdom didnt have it, theres a basic issue of trust is not. If you cant trust the government to admit to mistakes or failures, then you certainly cant trust it to learn from them. Can you . Well, i think you make a very valid point around the tone of how we talk about this. And i think that we need to, you know, actually i think the way the governments approached, the news of the facts has been very muted, very coming in, not sort of saying, oh, its all over. Its all going to be fine. I think good to have when youve got something. So im expecting difficult as in a virus that people still there fully understand. And yes, i think earlier on in the pandemic, it was a tendency, some i think politicians generally and often have this tendency is always show the best Case Scenario when its tonight into trouble is level with everybody about some of the difficulties perhaps of the whole isnt it, thats an appalling admission because of the time of an International Health crisis. You would think you could get the truth from the government and theyve been high, is not what they need homeland over the coals by the statistics watchdog time and time again for putting out shoddy data. Havent they . In june, the head of the statistics, author ity, accuse the government of continuing to mislead the public over the number of covert tests carried out. The aim it says seems to be to show the largest possible number of tests, even at the expense of understanding last week. The office for statistics regulation warn that the use of data has not consistently been supported by transparent information provided in a timely manner. And youre happy about that, are you . Well, i think that the difficulty with data is that statisticians will have very long arguments about how best to present something or have rigorously one might argue to present something. This is the governments watchdog, this is the government somewhat saying that well, well it is. It is, it is the government statistical watchdog. However, the way the statistics are put out, that was how from the department of health will all number 10 downing street. Actually the speed with which were trying to put out the information from all sometimes means that the still School Authorities do not have the time or not given the time to fully. But there their view of how that information could be best presented. And just not cause you can have an argument by some parliamentary committees where we spend hours the basic, how the right way is for this law to be presented a different way. I dont think actual governments done anything other than trying present as much information as quickly as possible to the public. The only failing often it hasnt done a good job, has it. If its own watchdog is holding it over the coals, you said in july, the governments efforts to date to tackle covered 900. Have been rather impressive. Would you like to revise that opinion given some of the things that weve been talking about . Well, no, i was talking about the government and the government has done it everything. It could not cause there were mistakes made one never deny that there were states made in every single command, not admitting them have it. Theyre not admitting them. Theyre still rewriting history. Theyre still saying that everybody who needed care got it. Well, thats manifestly untrue from the frontline doctors say thats not true if you take the issue of testing. For example, ive seen the house actually in the house of commons repeatedly say, look, you know, we know we are testing enough people. Were trying to increase the number of tests were having. For example, i seen the chancellor get up and say look, you know we, weve done this so response to economic challenge and actually now were going to add to it like i listen to people like her that we need support other people in different. Its a model at this, i dont think the government has been sort of blinded as to any of the right 1st time. I dont get whether, you know, even if you even have criticism of the data from the former Prime Minister to resign. May she said last week, for many people, it looks as if the figures are chosen to support the policy rather than the policy being based on the figures thats a crushing indictment for such a senior figure in your party, isnt it . It is a crushing indictment and what she was referring in that was she was inferring to the chief scientific medical officers, their data relation to the sort of month long lockdown that england is, has now been brought into. And these were the same people, as you quoted earlier, criticising the government, i suppose, what im saying this is, there are, this is been a moment of unprecedented stress on the british state, the British Health system. And sometimes everybody within that system or sometimes got things wrong, but i do not believe that is in any way a judgment on the motives, i think on some level, the speed and the strain with which people but hunter has meant. But sometimes the data may not have been corrected a particular point, nobody, nobody has ever suggested or should ever suggest that somehow the government hasnt tried to the best quality information timely manner. Well, you say that, but the fact is the very vocal and senior members of your party are now fed up with the government and saying it publicly, and theyre, theyre fed up with a lot that theyre fed up with a lot of the boosterism, the gross exaggerations that have no basis in reality and that shoddy data once you fed up with all this as well. But i say what im fed up with only 19, the problem is coming 1000 isnt a lot with us. And im fed up with a lot and i want to be able to do everything i want and im not fed up with the u. Turns the constant u. Turns on policy. We had at the end of August Charles walker, vice chair of the 922. 00 back bench committee, who said its becoming increasingly difficult to promote and defend government policy. As so often that policy is changed or abandoned without notice. The climate of uncertainty it creates, he said, is sustainable. This is one of the big beasts of your party actually coming out now and saying enough of this enough of these. You turns out roland. I thought i thought she just, charles, but i think thats been over the top. I think that works has made us fed up, as i said, is, is, is the lockdown because nobody wanted to, to go back into that. And reluctant, Prime Minister has says and promises not wants to say she was forced. And the result of him having to take action as made a lot of concern straight because the conservative party we do not like infringing on anyones liberty that has made a lot of people frustrated, myself included. Yes. A lot of people, a lot of people in the president of the sick, a lot of people in the country arent impressed either. According to you. Gov. 69 percent of the country thinks this government has handled the pandemic fairly badly or very badly. Only 3 percent. Think its done very well. Its us poll is asked if Boris Johnson is incompetent, or resoundingly 54 percent said yes. Do you share that view . Im afraid. Opinion polls that say one thing one day and something else. The other. I know you have spent your party the church to quote them when they like them, then the judgment on how we have done in managing this virus really will only be able to be made once the whole situation crisis is over. I remember when people in ng i was saying that making mistakes then through most of the summer people were saying swedens got everything right now. Some people are saying, oh, well swedens, having a surge, maybe they made some mistakes. The truth is that only at the end of this, we really be able to judge how each government has managed and its very, very difficult in, in the moment to do it, especially so many people have died. And so many jobs have been lost so much that its very convenient to push the judgment to some period when perhaps the conservative party is out of government to not deal with things now, but the opportunity to learn lessons is now and we know you mention the test and trace system. Well thats been a fiasco, hasnt it . After mr. New turns. Dido harding who runs it, had to apologize. The Prime Minister talked about the failures of fact is your party spent gigantic sums around 10000000000 pounds on a system that doesnt work. How do you explain this shattering figure . Well, i think that the difficulty with test trace is as he passed the test, it actually makes a huge strides. The difficulty was the tracing and the isolating of individual contacts. I happen to think that our trials of mass testing are going well in liverpool than elsewhere. Once that is rolled out will be rolled out quite soon. I think the backtrace will be a lot easier to do. So what i hope will happen actually now Going Forward and this isnt minimizing the difficulties with the chief, which youve described. Its just that Going Forward. Now, i hope that actually spits of that essence. A system will be improved. Well, look, spending, you know, billions of pounds on something that isnt as effective as you like, is not, is not a good thing to do. And of course, we dont want, and i look at a country like germany, where people were haven, germany for quality tests and trace system. And yet germany went into a National Lockdown a couple of weeks ago because they had a surge in cases. I know michel salami that very important questions about some of the companies brought in to run this test and trade system of the biggest beneficiary was a Company Called serco. Isnt it all that the government paid hundreds of millions of pounds to this company that was fined over 19000000. 00 pounds last year for misconduct. And its taking service from the ministry of justice, apparently that misconduct included charging for offenders who were dead. Nothing out there that this company has rewarded them with a massive contract. Now by this government, you honestly think its acceptable to reward a company with contracts like that, but it has a record of the kind ive just described. Well, i, if, when i was on the Public Accounts Committee of public spending watchdog here in parliament, i looked at certain events details and, you know, have a look at exactly how they do things. And of course, sometimes theyve made mistakes. You make the point around minister of justice, but of course it is right and completely proper. They have a contract, but company who is trying to deliver what its been asked to do. And nobody is saying that reason why the testing traces them not is because of circuit it is because of the huge complex youre doing or trying what this countrys trying to do. I mean, the lots of other countries are also struggling with doing it is wrong to suggest that somehow theres something in a judgement about using an offensive efficient private company to try and help deliver public goods. Because if you dont believe that any private company should be involved with anything, then you should say, well, why such an interesting is youve set an interesting precedent here. A record of gross misconduct is no bar to getting contracts from this government. Im puzzled that you find that acceptable when there are so many countries out there that dont have records of gross misconduct. Well, its not about winning. When you tender for a contract as a government, you could have tender and you will examine that on its merits or not. If the, if the decision should, if, if the contract should have gone to another company. By all means, thats an argument that one can have on the basis of the evidence presented as to maybe why another company may have been able to get more effect. But its room, and thats one thing in the huge number of contracts circa has, with the British Government over many, many years. The one area where things are going wrong in relation to an unrelated arab initiative, fence or issue of justice somehow makes it so they should never ever deliver a project for the british. So wrong thing to be got to try to work with our private sector to get the best outcome too. And youve got, you cant have got to have accountability and if they have to do it, you know how much youve got to have accountability. And this is something that the government manifestly doesnt like. We saw at the beginning of october Health Secretary, matt hancock was in the house of commons. Maybe you were there too. He was asked by an m. P. About the difficulties of getting test for his constituents. But instead of overing a full and frank answer, hancock told him, i will not have this divisive language. I just wont have it. He then sat down without addressing the question at all. Im wondering, do you think that kind of arrogance is acceptable from a minister . Who last time i looked was a Public Servant paid for out of the public purse. Do you think thats an acceptable answer . I will not have this divisive language. I just wont have it. So perfectly innocent question about testing in this mans constituency. Well, i dont recall the exact question that you said, so i cant comment on that, but i can say from what youve told me is the sometimes the house of commons can be a very heated place. And im sure, and if ever i always, you know, whenever im in the house of commons, i always try to remain as calm as possible, but im not under stress. The Health Sector is currently under. d and so i think bearing in mind how much time is spent on his and many questions, exams that if he has, if hes been sort of inadvertently stressed when hes answered a particular m. P. , i dont think that should be any offense. I think, you know, hes under stress like many people topple governments and im sure i know that the Health Sector is doing absolutely everything. Everything it can to improve the situation. We are, we understand stress, but we also understand that if you are stressed and you say things like that, you can apologize later as far as we know, there was no apology to the gentleman concerned what our house, i mean the house actually can speak for itself what i will just say to stress again, is, is the house of commons can be a pretty aggressive place as it should be because its, its a vibrant democracy. And sometimes sometimes things come out not quite in the way you otherwise would have liked. So i dont think that we should, we should condemn either the person asking the question of the health of intemperate language. Well, lets talk if we may about it briefly that this came to a head in september with the governments declared intention to Reach International law and renege on parts of the bracks it Withdrawal Agreement relating to northern ireland. Spectacular act of bad faith wasnt this point in the negotiations . No, i dont think its an act about actually whats, what this war were, were 3 particular instances of making sure that in the event where there was no breaks. In the event that the dispute resolution mechanism to have under the Withdrawal Agreement do not reach out. We have to make sure the main unity and be coherent of our own United Kingdom was intact. And that is my sure, and i mean for signing the agreement last year, you signed it in good faith and you intend to break it in bad faith. There are out there are ways of changing the text of this if you wanted to buy dispute resolution, but you chose to do it unilaterally when it was too much for the governments top. Legal official said jonathan jones, who resigned in protest when the level of service it is says im from tories about this. Well, what actually is the case is this would only come into effect if there is no agreement. Trade deal. If the dispute resolution mechanisms are completely exhausted, so this, this would only occur these causes would only come into force in the unlikely, unlikely situation that those 2 things were the case. Well, youve got the obstacle with the new biden and ministration, the u. S. , which takes a similar view as the e. U. Theyve already slammed this decision to renege on the withdraw treaty is passed. Johnson going to have to go cap in hand to the us and offer one more u. Turn another day, another policy reversal. Pretty humiliating, isnt it . Well, and im pretty sure the Prime Minister will get on well with the new president. And im also sure that regardless of their salacious shit, institutional reasons why Prime Minister united in the present United States become and work closely together is because of the relationship between between our 2 countries. So i dont believe what the, my understanding of what biden team was worried about was the idea that somehow we would compromise the good friday agreement in overnight. And weve been absolutely resolute about that. And measures, in fact, find them closer together. And we absolutely will not compromise on the well, nobody believes that because youre in a door, youre intending to relay, go an international agreement, only row countries do that, dont they . Its hardly something that the British Government wants to be known for around the world, but it is now its word doesnt count for anything signs an agreement. And then a few months later says, im not going to abide by that. What trust do you think can be ever invested in the British Government again, while its looking for trade deals around the world . Well, weve recently signed a trade deal with japan. That was a very comprehensive and free trade deal. Frankly, it went further than most people, myself included. It takes effort in areas like a you got out of it. The very deal. It wasnt as good as the one that the has with japan. I. I reject that. Actually if i look at christians in particular, around financial services, they are much further than what the e. U. Has which and if you, if you brought a point around trust look, is an important and i will repeat, you know, that the very remote scenarios in which these particular clauses may come into effect, but a lot of the problem was actually and i think governments and in certain parts doesnt what this is around how we communicate, what were trying to make sure that people do not think that somehow its our intention to break all these international agreements, now im not blaming the media, its awful. We need to communicate much more carefully, much more. Thats why were taking such an action. And he do that continuing, continuing, Going Forward. And im hopeful that there will be no breakdown in trust with this country. As i say, the japanese government doesnt seem to think that theres a breakdown in trust of britain or ive been my for nami, been good to have your own comfort zone. Thank you very much. Less than human. Whats going on here . Oh, no. House of your very own from a printer. Computer games that are healing my dog needs electricity. Shift explains, delivers facts and shows what the future holds. For living in the digital world, shift in 15 minutes on t. W. Some of them were child soldiers. Now theyre learning how to process trauma with just one of the many projects initiated by her own mind. Her goal to better the lives of the Somali People meet the 2020 german africa prize winner of the 77 percent and 30 minutes on d. W was im not proud of them. They will not succeed in dividing us so that ill not succeed in taking the people off the streets because were tired of just dictatorship. Taking a stand, global news that matters. Minds give us your country. People who will make you rich. People will provide you with the oil will take good care of the ones who are too cold on the west coast to come out in 2000. So thats true. But years later, reality looks very different later choose good Drinking Water shortage. This is what happened to john. A stream of oil promises starts december 4th, w. Led this is a lot from berlin fears mount of a civil war in ethiopia, style displace the government accuses rebel forces in the Northern Region of firing rockets into other parts of the country. Also coming up armenian villagers in the disputed region of nagornokarabakh, burned down their homes rather than hand them over to azerbaijan. Part of the peace and supporters of donald trump gathered in washington to rally against the result
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.