05/03/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics.

Vladimir Putin has swept back to power in Moscow. But here, at

Westminster, nothing is quite as certain. The Chancellor, George

Osborne, is under pressure to backtrack on plans to cut child

benefit for the middle classes. We won't find out until the Budget

later this month. But is the ground being prepared for some kind of

concession? His colleague Ken Clarke will be with us, to explain

why he thinks cuts to legal aid will not prevent the poorest having

access to justice. David Cameron's closest colleague,

Steve Hilton, quits government, for a sabbatical abroad. So, who will

the PM turn to now for advice? We'll bring you our guide to the

powers behind the scenes in Downing Street.

And, one former MP calls on Nick Clegg to stand aside as Lib Dem

party leader, in order to rebuild All that in the hour. And with us

in our Westminster dacha this Monday is the former Downing Street

policy chief James O'Shaughnessy, who now runs his own consultancy.

So, if you have any thoughts or comments on anything we're

discussing, then you can tweet your comments using the hashtag, #bbcdp.

But first, we've just heard that the Home Secretary Theresa May is

now in Jordan, where she is talking to senior Jordanian officials about

the possible deportation of Abu Qatada. He, of course, is the

radical cleric once described by a judge as Osama bin Laden's right-

hand man in Europe. And is now released from jail under a 22-hour

curfew, while the government seeks assurances that evidence gained

through torture would not be used in any trial against him if he were

sent back to the Middle East. She has got to come back with something

pretty significant from this trip. She has obviously gone up there

with the purpose of finding a way to send Abu Qatada over there. She

needs something to persuade the court that the Jordanian government

is serious about giving him a fair trial. It is in everyone's interest

here for her to do that. What would this be? Just having a verbal

assurance from the Jordanians, we will not break the rules, it won't

be that simple. It went but at the same time she will be well prepared,

the Home Office lawyers will know what needs to be done to satisfy

the judges. That will be private information in the discussions they

have. To reserve make is incredibly serious, well briefed -- Theresa

May. They will know the kind of things they need to do. Hopefully

she will come back here and we can get the legal process going.

will have to be swift. He is on strict bail conditions but in a few

months he could be released. Exactly, it needs to happen quickly.

It needs to be seen in the context of the British government's

attitude to human rights legislation. There isn't an

appetite to do anything dramatic, withdrawing from the EC AGR -- ECHR.

In terms of this individual case, it needs to be quick. And it will

be popular. Indeed. March 21st will see the Chancellor

George Osborne stand at the despatch box, and deliver his much

awaited Budget. There's been a lot of speculation over the weekend,

over what Mr Osborne's got in store for us. And one particularly

contentious issue is child benefits. Currently, the government plans to

cut child benefit for parents who are higher rate tax payers. However,

critics argue the move unfairly punishes middle income earners. And

particularly affects those households where there is just one

person earning over the tax threshold. There are rumours the

Chancellor is planning to water down the plans by raising the

amount people have to earn before they lose out. Speaking to the BBC

earlier, Nick Clegg said they are prepared to look at the plans.

We have said as a government, we are letting in difficult times, so

to ask people who are earning more money to give up child benefit is

fair. There is an issue about the cliff edge, one earning family who

would not get child benefit under that scenario but another... George

Osborne and the Prime Minister has said that is something we will look

at. Also in the frame are changes to the tax credit system. Later

today, Labour will lead a debate in the Commons calling for the plans

to be reversed. The party argues that, from next month, working

parents could lose thousands of pounds, because the new rules mean

couples with children will have to work 24 hours between them, instead

of 16 hours, to qualify for working tax credits. However, the

government claims that, when the universal credit is introduced in

October next year, this problem will be addressed.

Let's talk now to James Brown from the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

Thank you for joining us. Can you tell us who are going to be the

losers in terms of child benefit? The policy as it stands is families

where one parent is a higher-rate taxpayer paying 40p, will lose all

their child benefit. Currently worth about �1,000 for the first

child, �750 for each subsequent child. If you're looking again at

tax credits, claims are being made changes might make it less

worthwhile for parents going to work. What are the changes? They

have been tapering this down. policy Labour is talking about

today it is, from April this year, you will have to work 24 hours a

week if you are a couple with children to claim working tax

credit, conditional on the working is certain number of hours a week,

then it is means tested. It means it becomes up less worthwhile to

work between 16-24 hours a week. You need to work 24 hours to

qualify. The government is saying the universal credit would mitigate

that. A universal credit will replace the current means tested

benefits and tax credits. That won't have any of these hours rules

in it. It won't matter how many hours you work each week, just how

much you earn. That won't come in for another couple of years. There

will still be people on the current system right the way through to

2018 because of the long drawn-out period. Joining me now is the

Shadow Treasury Minister, Cathy Jamieson. And the Conservative,

Nadim Zahawi. Should the government to drop their

plan to withdraw child benefit from higher rate tax payers? Why should

it be that someone on �20,000 a year should be subsidising child

tax credit for someone earning �800,000 a year? Polling evidence

shows people who are higher earners, are prepared to make sacrifices

because we are going through austerity, we are left a Treasury

without any money. The problem occurs is this anomaly. Wherever

you look, you will have to deal with that in some way. There is

lots of speculation, to increase the threshold up to �50,000. A

couple both Worthing on �42,000 would get tax credit, is in full

working household with �43,000 would lose it. But you are happy

with the original policy as outlined? I think it is worth

looking at, this cliff edge. We ought to look at it, if there is a

way of fixing it. The problem with all these things, with a massive

budget deficit, we came into office borrowing �500 million a day.

your Conservative colleagues are not happy and there is a lot of

pressure on the Chancellor. Are you disappointed the Chancellor looks

as if he may bend to pressure from your colleagues? If we can deal

with the anomaly. Not just to satisfy them? I think you will find

most of my colleagues are in favour of people better off paying their

share to get us out of the economic mess. But can you deal with this

anomaly to mitigate it? It is quite rightly been looked at. Labour

wants the benefit to stay. issue is the government has got

itself into a mess, we have warned them. Our principal position is we

do believe in the universal... Ian Ayres can still get child

benefit? There are other ways of dealing with that. There is this

cliff edge. I have heard speculation perhaps the threshold

will be raised, perhaps they will take it away one's children reach

the age of five but the government has not said. This is their mess.

Their own backbenchers are deeply unhappy about the state of play.

You have clarified you would like that benefit to stay. You would

deal with some of the issues a sweat in the tax system. If the

policy goes ahead, and the universal benefit is broken, will

you reverse it when Labour comes to power? What we have said about all

of the changes is we will have to see what the state of the economy

is at that time. The real issue today we are having to face also,

this is not just about hype earners, this government is cutting benefits

for some of the lowest paid people. We will come to that. If it is a

point of principle on child benefit, which is what some Tory MPs are

arguing. They say it is not a family-friendly policy. Surely that

is one area you can say, we will reverse it? We would want to keep

the principle. But we are in a situation where we have to see what

happens, how the economy will be at that time. I have heard the

Conservatives talking about the deficit and borrowing, the

government is borrowing more than we would have done. I would like to

pick up a few points. You have witnessed why Labour's economic

policy have no credibility. They say they want to deal with the

deficit. They will absolutely support the Cup's we are making.

But they are saying we are cutting too fast, too deep. We are spending

more. If you look... We are borrowing more. If you look at

Labour's own plans, they would have, this was decided by an independent

report, borrowing �200 billion more. The issue at hand, it has been very

contentious for your colleagues. They will be waiting to see what

George Osborne actually says. If you tweak the system endlessly, do

things which will keep people happy, it will be so complicated it won't

work and make savings. That is a judgment for the Chancellor, let us

see. The judgment has to be, you have to get the benefits from these

savings, �2.5 billion a year, rising beyond that. Can you

mitigate some of these issues, without losing the benefit of the

cost cutting you need to deliver? And your Tory colleagues will have

to be satisfied? It has to make the argument for it. Tax credits. You

have claimed it would be worthwhile for a couple working 24 hours, they

will be worse off than claiming benefits. But it will be mitigated

by the universal credit? A I do not think the government has realised

how serious this is for low-paid families. It is all very well to

say the universal credit will fix this. In the interim, the lowest-

paid families will seriously lose out. This is the government's

figures this is based on. Working tax credits go to families,

certainly before the coalition came in, people earning up to �50,000,

it has come down. You're looking at how these cuts will impact on, a

couple on the minimum wage with two children. Working 16 hours. If they

cannot get the extra hours, they will lose all of their tax credits.

It is due to come into place in April. They could stop it and a

look at it again. Two issues seen as bold policies by

the coalition government, on child benefit, do you think the

Chancellor will be seen as weak if there is a U-turn? You have to see

them together. Child benefit, go back to why the Chancellor made the

announcement at the Conservative Party conference in 2010. It was a

strategic choice, he doesn't do things by accident. He understands.

The reason is they needed to make a case for cuts. They didn't come

into government to do cuts but they needed to. They came in knowing

they would have to make cuts, the emergency budget, that was clear,

the Comprehensive Spending Review laid it out. Everyone needs to feel

some pain. People in Labour say, they are all in it together. I

genuinely think everybody needs to make a contribution to this

tightening of our budget, which is why the decision was made. The

Prime Minister himself has said there is an issue around this cliff

edge. They probably are looking at ways of Amelia rating that. That

doesn't take away from the fact they will be looking to make sure

well be people are making a contribution to reducing the budget

deficit. Look at the tax credits. If you look at the welfare state as

a whole, there is less money going You have to make sure everybody is

taking a piece of that and that is where you have to see these things

together. OK, thank you both very much. One piece of news set the

Westminster village a flutter last week. That was the departure of

David Cameron's closest advisor, Steve Hilton, on a year-long

sabbatical to the West Coast of California. Sounds lovely. So why

did the career-break of a man who is not exactly a household name get

everyone around here frantic with excitement? Well, it's because the

inner circle of advisers are often just as powerful, if not more

powerful, an influence on Government policy as a Cabinet

Minister or even three. So we sent Giles out to lift the lid on who

pulls the strings behind the scenes In terms of the political discourse

of this country, you could be for given for thinking this House, this

building, is one single human entity. You often hear, "The

feeling from Number Ten is...: it is populated by a number of people

working around the Prime Minister, but who are they? The Prime

Minister's closest advisor has been Steve Hilton, conspicuous for his

dress down attitude but perhaps fine if you shun the spotlight as

he does. Not the hippy satire likes to make out. Alongside Rohan Silva,

he's been focussed on pre election pretty much anything. Recently on

policy implementation. He is the PM's blue sky thinker, and Big

Society champion. What people say about him is that, for every

brilliant idea he has, there's 10 which are not going to go anywhere.

Now he's leaving for a year to go to California. His wife works for

Google. On sabbatical. There maybe other reasons. Let me explain.

Chief of Staff is Ed Llewellyn. He ran the leader's private office in

opposition having worked on Cameron's leadership bid. He is

very close to the PM, a friend and colleague. Alongside Kate Fall

they're the very loyal Praetorian guard and all get on well. The big

problem is that when things get very difficult, and you need

advisers to genuinely speak truth to power, and it to say, hold on,

there is a major problem here and we need to think again, sometimes

it seems those people who work around them can't quite do that.

But the critics say he isn't Chief of Staff. You need somebody in

there, can salary figure who has the full authority of the PM, and

when they pick up the phone to a minister, but minister is nervous,

start shaking because they think this chief-of-staff has the

authority of the Prime Minister, and the prime minister is not happy.

In fact Number 10 does have a big beast. Top Civil Servent Jeremy

Heywood. The Cabinet Secretary who's increasingly key to how

Downing Street now works. He has the position and experience to make

decisions himself. Indeed reported tensions with Hilton about how

things get done may explain that sabbatical. Director of

Communications Craig Oliver worked for ITN and the BBC, and came into

Downing St after Andy Coulson was forced to resign. There were

questions over his knowledge of the print media, but his planning is

display here. These pictures seen around the world. His job's to

control the messages coming from Number 10. Andrew Cooper is

Director of Strategy. Seen here on our programme when he worked for

Populus. He's the PM's pollster but also to bring home strategic and

political home truths. Telling it how it is, and as a moderniser,

trying to change traditional mindsets. Steven Gilbert's the PM's

Political Secretary the man in charge of what George Osborne calls

"Ground War". He provides intelligence and campaigning

insight. How to win hearts and minds on the doorstep. Co chairman

of the Conservative Party Baroness Warsi may be visible in the media,

but around the PM it's the other Co Chairman Lord Feldman who has the

influence and access. Oliver Dowden is the PM's political advisor

responsible for day to day fixing, briefing and managing any crises.

He is Number 10's link to CCHQ and described as "quietly effective".

Gabby Bertin, the PM's Press Secretary worked with him when he

was a shadow minister and ever since. She is very close,

influential. These are who The Prime Minister calls "the wiring".

The unseen people that make the machine work. Of course two of the

most crucial people of all live in the street but don't work in number

10. Samantha Cameron does have political influence. The other, the

Chancellor George Osborne may live next door but he's perhaps the

lynch pin to how Number 10 operates today, possibly because he might

like to move in one day. Giles reporting there in the first

of a little series lifting the lid on the Westminster village. And

with us now is Nick Pearce who used to be the Head of Policy at Number

10 under Gordon Brown. And, I'm tempted to say, is now recovering

from that experience as the director of the Institute of Public

Policy Research. Welcome to the programme. And going to come to you

first of all, James, because you know Steve Hilton. You worked with

him. Do you think his departure is as significant as has been played

out in the papers? Has the Government run out of steam?

don't think so, chrome know. He is an unbelievably influential figure,

no doubt about that. The driving force behind a lot of radical stuff

which David Cameron did in government. I can totally

understand why he has gone. He managed to stay in touch before and

did a decent job in opposition when he was having that kind of

arrangement, so I don't think it's significant at all. It's more about

family than anything. Not a sense of frustration then? It's been

talked about a lot but he was the big vision man and was being

restrained by a Whitehall and the machinery. Well, I think Number Ten

is all about frustration, in a wave. When we came from opposition, we

were very tight-knit, big change going forward, a tight-knit group,

a couple of dozen people could make the decisions you wanted to, but in

government, it doesn't happen like that because you are responsible

for things. There is a sense it always goes slightly slower than

you would want, so there is always frustration. Steve was always

challenging you to go further so that was built into his DNA. I

don't think that anything particular about it. Is that what

happens? You do get a sense, Tony Blair used to complain that just

because he was prime minister, he could not wave a magic wand and

things happen in an instant. Is there a deeper problem? It's

certainly true that when you're in Number Ten you after worker cabinet

ministers, the Treasury, you can't just do things yourselves. I've

worked in departments and you can often do more because you're

directly in charge. At Number Ten, you have to negotiate more than you

would have to expect. I think the Government has a problem with

strategic direction. A lot of the initial impulse for the coalition

was defined against Labour's legacy, the first wave of legislation, it's

not obvious where the new ideas are coming from, particularly on the

conservative side, actually. The Government as a challenge with the

spending review, with an agenda which can look directionless.

small team came across but a bigger team under Gordon Brown. Do you

need a bigger team? Cannot be harder to get your policies

through? There was a mistake made when David Cameron came in that he

got rid of the large department. People with policy expertise but

politically appointed. They would have spotted the health bill coming

through, I think. It was an effective organisation which could

have done long-term thinking. it's just too stretched, with a

bigger unit you would have foreseen problems, big problems, like the

health bill which wouldn't have made it as far down the line as

they have under this coalition government. As a representative of

Uley of special advisers, obviously, if we should have more of them. I

think it is true that we came in with fewer policies special

advisers than we need it. In government, obviously, there are

lots of capable people but you need somebody on the same political

mission as you. That actually is what creates the drive and dynamism.

I think there is a question about whether there are numbers of people

in there who can help push the agenda we want to see. Do you have

the same fear that, without somebody like Steve Hilton, who was

agitating on a daily basis, who had a vision for Parliament, but that

is just going to go and it will come down to 24 hour news, the

short term gains which are needed and the vision goes? No, I don't

think that's true. The Conservative Party came in with a broad

manifesto which we have implemented. There have been a lot of your terms

and child benefit could be another one of those. They have been some

new terms, but the general direction of policy is as we

intended it. They happen under all governments, not least Gordon Brown.

When you make mistakes you want to go back on them. A government is

successful when they have a clear strategic direction, with will

momentum behind your reforms. The Government doing well politically

on education. The they have moved fast, haven't they? Nobody would

contest the fact Michael Gove knows where he is going and is going

forward with that agenda. The Government can't say that about

many things. And actually, on Steve Hilton, there's no point in being

bold and radical if your ideas are stupid. You should have a purpose.

You get that when you know where the long term is going to take you.

That's what Tony Blair had at its best. Gordon Brown knew what he

wanted to do with the economy. Less in other areas like public services.

Well, you mentioned Michael Gove as a big success story. If you look

across welfare, the police commissioner, complete innovation

will transform the way we think about policing. Prison reforms. But

then this going back to prison. Even health, where the Government

has run into trouble, giving patients choice, ideas started

under Tony Blair, in many ways, developing those, it's still there.

I think there is that agenda. It's a clear idea. It owes a lot to Tony

Blair, in a funny sort of way, but a lot can be developed. I don't

think they will lack ideas. This is a coalition government which makes

it more difficult. People in departments are due, they have got

a coalition government to do with as well. I agree with that. It's a

major difference. Labour was an internal coalition. Yes, people

would argue that for the there were plenty of factions around.

George Osborne is right next to David Cameron, and that's different

from any moment in the Labour years. Because they work better together?

Politically they are joined at the hip and that's a huge difference.

If the Treasury and Number Ten are close together, it makes a massive

difference also if you have problems between them, it's a

problem. In your package, you mentioned Jeremy Heywood, a very

powerful figure, a remarkable man. People say about him, he has

blocked reform. And Steve Hilton was a frustrated with him. Jeremy

Heywood is the last person to block reform for the peas a radical

character. Sometimes saying no is the right thing, standing up to

somebody. Exactly. OK, thank you both very much. Well, spring is

finally here so we'll be going outside to speak to our top

political pundits. I think it's delivered cold, actually. But first,

let's take a look at what's on the radar over the next few days. Home

Secretary Theresa May is currently in Jordan to negotiate the

deportation of the Abu Qatada. The government is seeking assurances

that evidence obtained through torture will not be used in any

trial against the radical cleric. The legal aid, sentencing and

punishment of offenders bill is before the Lords today, campaigners

have expressed fears that the changes will affect the most

vulnerable in our society. The health bill will be once again in

the spotlight as there are more amendments being debated in the

Lords tomorrow. This time on competition. All eyes will once

again be on how the Liberal Democrat Peers will vote. And no

doubt the bill will be one topic discussed at the Liberal Democrat

spring conference that starts on Friday. The party leadership will

be nervously gauging the mood of activists who are said to be

unhappy with a number of key coalition policies. Well, joining

me from outside Parliament now is the Guardian's Polly Toynbee. And

The row over legal aid, will it be successful? There have been a

number of changes introduced. But broadly, this is about Ken Clarke

trying to find savings. Listening to him this morning, he was pretty

robust. On the whole, the entire legal profession is starting to

stack up against it. There are many of their representatives in the

House of Lords, it will be a bitter fight. So are some politicians on

the conservative side? Both houses are packed with lawyers, they

really understand what this means. Ken Clarke is being robust about

how overpaid lawyers are. But, not legal aid lawyers, who work in law

centres, mostly on salaries, low salaries, who do it because they

believe in it as a social service, not because they will make fortunes.

Also, a question about domestic violence. Baroness Scotland is

moving an amendment on this. Women who suffered domestic violence will

find it very difficult to get legal aid. These sort of level of proof

they will have to provide, to show they have suffered violence before

they can get to see a lawyer will be very high. There will be a lot

of anger about that. It points to a wider problem facing the coalition.

The government partners are being attacked by their own sides, be it

in the House of Commons with the Tories of child benefit. Is that

becoming a pattern? It is, rather. There is a strong court at the

centre of the coalition -- core. But if you look at history, the way

coalition's normally come apart is not because the centre falls apart

but because grass roots starts to distrust their leadership. What we

are seeing on both sides is MPs attacking their own leadership with

increasing vigour. We will see more of this at the spring conference

this weekend. It would be wrong to dismiss some of the complains as

irrelevant. Eventually, there will come a tipping point. Where they

become so strong, the ability of the centre to stay part of the

coalition will become jeopardised. In some of the things like child

benefit, they may bend when it comes to the Budget. Looking at

health, the bill, it probably is going to happen so in the end

central government will get its way. It looks as if Shirley Williams,

the leader of the revolt in the House of Lords, yet again, folded.

And as if the Liberal Democrats, they have got some changes but not

the important ones. The big debate is about the competition question,

whether the -- the NHS will be opened up to any private provider.

That seems to have survived intact. Some in the Liberal Democrat

conference will be upset about it. But basically, most people seem to

be the government will get their bill, just as they got their

welfare bill despite a bit of protest, and even the legal aid

bill. Although that causes less public outrage because people don't

understand it that much, it will cause more trouble in both houses

because of the Shia number of lawyers. -- sheer. Is Labour

becoming a one-trick pony on health? Labour feels they are

laying their cards on the table. Most people will not notice what

will happen in the health service for another 18 months, dangerously

close to the next election. The cuts will kick in. People's minds

will see this. People will see waiting-lists soaring, local

hospital unit closing, and Labour will feel that is when people will

turn up to them. The For the rest of the programme,

we're joined by our Monday panel of MPs. For Labour, John Woodcock. For

the Conservatives, Alun Cairns. And for the Lib Dems, Duncan Hames.

Letter has picked up on health. We have talked about it so many times.

-- let us pick up. The damaging bits are particularly on

competition. For let me correct her, she was talking about the cuts in

health digging in, in 18 months. There are no cuts in health. There

are savings but that is being reinvested into frontline services.

There's only one part in the UK in Wales where health is being cut. By

Labour. So that is a bit rich. is your message to Liberal

Democrats, is it time to shut up? think so, there have been

significant concessions. The Health Bill is bringing about exciting

reforms, new innovations. In 18 months, the proof will be in the

eating of the pudding when we will be able to show these are the

changes, improvements. We can always compare with what is going

wrong in Wales with the way Labour is running it there. Is it time

they shut up, Liberal Democrat Lords, it needs to get onto the

statute book? I thought Polly Toynbee was rather rude about

Shirley Williams, she has been very good at getting concessions to the

bill. If you are working to make something better, when you are

successful, you need to lock that into the legislation. There is

still work being done on the health bill. One of my colleagues has been

working on the competition elements, making sure competition is the

servant of patience and not the master -- patients. There is a

constructive approach being taken to make sure we have a better bill

at the end. It is time for Labour to come along. They are still

opposed to the bill in essence, saying it should be scrapped.

Absolutely. Duncan as the test ultimately for the Lib Dems will be

whether they are prepared to stick with us and boat this bill down, as

a party, and not... We are clear this Bill is fundamentally flawed.

But where exactly? You are in favour of GP commissioning, reforms

to the health service. There was already competition in the NHS.

real disaster of this Bill is you have actually wasted nearly two

years on something which not only do an increasing number of

professionals sake is and necessary, but actually, importantly, the real

reformers of the NHS under the last Labour government, the likes of

John Hutton, Alan Milburn, are saying this Bill is not necessary,

and it as to a level of bureaucracy and complexity, when we do need

real and sustained reforms to match the challenges in the NHS. But some

of those Labour lords have been working with us to get those

amendments, they clearly think they are worthwhile. To have an attitude

to say the Bill should fall whatever... Are you happy that

almost every Royal College, broadly, that they will not be on board, and

it would still be able to sell it to patients and your constituency?

Some of the Royal Colleges, a small proportion of their members will

have voted to express opposition. We need to take the totality. If

there was absolute anger, I would have imagined it greater proportion

of members of those colleges would have insisted on changes. Are you

happy you are going ahead with is built, but basically without their

support? This bill has changed so much over time, it is hard to keep

up with that. I dare say some of the people concentrating on looking

after patients rather than politics are there. Many things people have

been worried about, have been addressed. 1000 amendments have

been made. People will be relieved a lot of the stories they have been

hearing did not actually happen. Can I come on to legal aid. We may

be talking to Ken Clarke in the programme. Strong words from Labour

on this. Devastating consequences, some have said. What is the big

scare about? I don't always agree with Polly Toynbee but on this

occasion, she is absolutely right, particularly when she picks up on

the consequences in terms of victims of domestic abuse. There

seemed to be concessions this week, but not on the area of the evidence

which would be eligible for legal aid, in terms of victims of

domestic violence. This fundamentally is not right.

Conservatives in the old days, people used to say, they're unfair

but a least they are fairly efficient. But here, they are both.

They jumped at proposals to reform the delayed which would have

generated substantial savings, but denying legal aid to many thousands

of people who will need it. If it would be the poorest who would be

affected. Legal aid is to assist those who need it. The legal aid

bill costs up to �39 per head per person across the UK. In France,

Spain, it is about �6 per head. It is about 23% of the department's

budget. If you compare that with where it started, it has grown

exponentially. In these times of austerity it needs to be cut. Let

us not forget, a lot of this legal- aid money goes to law is, many

earning significant sums of money, and we can't justify that. Can't

you do something about that without reducing the legal-aid budget?

think we are. I think these are sensible measures. I have had an

issue and raised this with the minister, around domestic violence.

The definitions over that. The Law Society and other groups have come

up with different figures, and say the Ministry of Justice figures, a

third of the entire legal aid budget, �700 million, is spent on

the most serious criminal cases, not civil legal-aid cases Ken

Clarke is talking about. You still can't get away from the scale of

differences between the legal-aid bill in the UK which is much bigger

than any other nation in Europe. Even a former Commonwealth nations.

We are spending a lot more on employers here than other nations.

It's not the most efficient way of solving problems.

We can now talk to the shadow justice minister. We have been

talking about this issue of costs. �2 billion is an awful lot of money

and needs to be cut. Am not sure it is much greater than anywhere else

in the world, to be honest. It does need to be cut back. We, in

government, started cutting it back. What we wouldn't have done is what

the government has chosen to do, to attack a small part of legal-aid,

social welfare law, which is a law which protects very poor, very

vulnerable, often disabled people, from getting their rights. In the

field of housing, employment, welfare benefits. All of that

advice, largely advice, is a to be taken away from them, so they will

not have that access to justice, which they have enjoyed under

governments of all colours and the support of all political parties.

There is a view that legal aid has mushroomed way beyond what it was

intended to deal with. Criminal legal aid tips up �1.2 billion of

the �2.1 billion that you mentioned. In the last few years, it has

always been an emphasis on criminal legal aid where clearly there are

more cuts which can be made. 14% of criminal legal aid is spent on 1%

of cases. To attack social welfare law and take away 53% of social

welfare law spend is outrageous. Thank you very much for joining us.

We can now speak to Ken Clarke, thank you for coming on to the

programme. You will have heard the final comments, and this idea that

you are hitting the civil legal-aid budget disproportion late and will

harmed the poorest who need that money?

He has obviously not been talking to come of Goya's, and affected by

lobbying by the Law Society. Criminal legal-aid is the heart of

the system. If you are going to punish people as everyone wants to

do for a serious crime, you have to make sure you have the right guilty

person you're punishing. Also, that anything that can be said by

someone articulate on his behalf is said before he is sentenced. That

is why most of it goes on legal-aid, because we have a very good system

where it is proved beyond reasonable doubt after being tested

by a lawyer, we can deal with someone as a canal. -- as a

criminal. On welfare law, employment law, we give a lot of

legal aid where legal advice is not what is required. Citizens Advice

Bureaux or solicitors can be used. I do not charge legal aid, it is

not legal, the advice you give, it is sorting out the social-security

system. It does not lead -- need No one will mind if you reduce the

amount of money lawyers will make from this, but they are worried

about victims who will lose out. The victims of domestic violence,

for example. How will you ensure that people like that are still

going to access? Many of my best friends are lawyers. They are not

arguing about victims, but they are worried about the amount of money

which goes to lawyers. The savings we are going to make are at the

expense of the lawyers getting legal aid, and a lot of the costs

are not just in my Budget but the National Health Service is paying

out very large sums of money to lawyers, expert witnesses, claims

managers, as well as compensation. The compensation culture and the

ambulance-chasing practices make a lot of money, and it all comes out

of the NHS budget. It should be spent on patient care, and that's

why we are making savings. It's not just lawyers opposed to this. Peers

across the House of Lords, including Tory peers, are also

seeking this, thinking, this is a great idea, why isn't everybody on

board? It's going to a Greek parliament phase at the moment. I

have many friends and House of Lords. Every lobby seems to have a

triumph there at the moment, are doing that �25,000 is not enough

for large families on benefits, or listening to clinical trade unions

on health reform and now the Law Society appears to have descended

upon them. Yes. We are giving legal aid in domestic violence. Of course

we are giving legal aid for that. It is disingenuous this argument

about domestic violence. We're talking about people with a history

of domestic violence. But property, children, you don't need legal aid

were it not relevant to the domestic violence. What about

coalition partners? Have you managed to convince them? I keep

meeting Lib Dem peer has, and we got it through the House of Commons

making several changes. Since I first consulted on this package,

many, many months ago, we have moved and the House of Lords will

still listen to some of the points which are left on different subject,

but these big claims that somehow vulnerable people are going to be

injured if you don't have so many lawyers involved in various types

of less important litigation, I'm afraid have to be resisted. No

other democracy in the world would think this was remotely sensible

for the taxpayer to pay for so much litigation. Theresa May is in

Jordan trying to get some sort of deal on Abu Qatada. We've just had

this statement come through saying the Jordanian government will

continue to work with the Government here and talks today

have been positive but we have more work to do. It doesn't sound like

much progress was made. Were you hoping for something more concrete?

Of course she may get the assurances she is seeking. When he

goes to trial, the evidence against him must not be obtained by torture

which is an important human rights principles. I'm sure Theresa May

will be pressing them on that and get incredible assurances. She's

already got Strasbourg to agree. This last point will happen in this

trial when it happens. It will be disappointing if he does not get

deported. It will be disappointing if the Jordanians won't agree that

they will not use evidence obtained by torture. The British have always

been against torture. In criminal justice or any other way. It's an

essential principle. No British court would deport anybody who was

going to be tortured. The obvious outcome which Theresa May is

working hard to achieve his for the Jordanians to give credible

assurances. What would that have to look like? I'm not negotiating it.

I will leave that to Theresa May. You are there just a secretary.

Credible means a lawyer in Strasbourg or the UK with some

experience of human rights actually believes the assurances given. The

court in Strasbourg believes the assurances were given that Abu

Qatada was not going to be tortured, assurances as good as that will

suffice and the Jordanians I hope will be persuaded to give more

assurances. Ken Clarke, thank you very much.

There's a new book out today called the Alternative View. And subtitled

- The Way Back For The Liberal Democrats. It says that Nick Clegg

should stay on as Deputy Prime Minister. But stand aside as Party

Leader in order to let someone else rebuild the party's electoral

fortunes. It even goes as far as to hint that the best thing all round

for the party is for Mr Clegg to go off and be a European Commissioner

before the next election. Well, that book is written by the former

Lib Dem MP Lembit Opik who joins us now. Do you think that's going to

happen? I hope so because we went into writing this book to work out

why we had a catastrophic performance in local elections and

by-elections since 2010. The conclusion surprised even as, but

by splitting the roles, we find a solution where Nick Clegg can

fulfil his promise to carry out his five-year term as Deputy Prime

Minister, but the party can rebuild. But no one will understand a deputy

prime minister couldn't be anyone other than the leader of the party.

Surely that's how it works, isn't it? Once they have read the book,

they will understand it for the how does that work?

Nobody could understand the idea of the Lib Dems being in coalition

with the Tories. There's no constitutional reason for that.

None whatsoever why he could not split that rope, and unless we do,

we have a problem that the Tories don't seem to have. The it seems

far-fetched and may look good on paper, but in the practical world

of politics, it's just not going to happen for the Nick Clegg says I

would like to hand over the leadership for a leadership

election in 2013. And he will carry on as deputy prime minister. This

is not a new idea but fundamentally, if this does not happen, our

analysis suggests Nick Clegg leading the party into the next

general election would be detrimental. If you want to be a

collectivist, and on what he has promised to do for the coalition,

this solution is the only way to move forward. It's an elegant

solution and you should expect Nick Clegg to stand down? Listening to

this alternative view, it's more successful than his alternative

comedy. The bouquet, let Duncan respond. I want to see Nick Clegg

leading the party into the next election and they don't want to see,

however great this edition is,... Yes, but what do so that the

disasters polling results? Could something as radical as this change

the fortunes for the Lib Dems? Dem policy needs to be implemented

by the coalition government, cutting taxes for ordinary working

people, more money into schools, children being taken from the

poorest families, rebalancing the economy, these are difficult pieces

of working government, but at the end of this term, if we can show

for the first time in generations the Lib Dems have done things to

make life fairer as a result of being in government, I think Nick

Clegg is a record will be one we want to take to the voters at the

election. With my solution you can carry on working in the coalition,

but, at the same time, differentiate the nature of the Lib

Dem movement from its apparent merging with the Tory party. The

Tories don't have this problem. We clearly do. We can rebuild

community politics, which is a big problem for us at the moment, and

move away from the Orange Book malaise. Nick Clegg is more popular

than the part disordered understand this logic. The difficulty with the

theory is you would have a divided party, for example, a more left-

leaning Lib Dem party leader, for example Simon Hughes, and Nick

Clegg as a deputy prime minister, and the party would split. There

will be tension between the Lib Democrats and the Tory government,

or the Lib Dem leader and the Liberal Democrat deputy prime

minister. One of those will happen but it's my judgment we can live

comfortably with either. Quite simply, if we don't do this, the

Lib Dems will be consigned to a disastrous general election. This

is not an anti- Nick Clegg proposal. He may not see it that way. It's

uncomfortable reading but we are suggesting the only way Nick Clegg

can fulfil his promise to the country and the coalition partners,

and my colleagues in Parliament can do that, without destroying the Lib

Dems are the same time is by splitting the roles. It may seem

radical. I'm trying to see it there is a definite suggestion. Cometh

the hour, cometh the Lembit Opik. Me? Rumours of my aspirations there

are wilfully exaggerated. Would Labour be happy with him as did the

Prime Minister? The problem for the Lib Dems, clearly in Nick Clegg is

a discredited but the problem for the Lib Dems, as I think you will

see at your conference at the weekend, they are finished as a

progressive party. So you agree with Lembit Opik? The Labour Party

Of as a solution, for the Lib Dems, is it an idea which could be

discussed and debated at higher levels? I can't see how they can

hold it together without having their lead at the top but, frankly,

I don't understand how the Lib Dems are continuing to prop up what is

one of the most volatile Tory governments in history. Would you

be happy to negotiate more Simon Hughes at the top of a rather than

someone like Nick Clegg? I want to see a majority Labour government.

Once you read my book, it will pin you down. You're in the coalition

with the Lib Dems and a lot of work is being done now which says, in

order for the Tories to get a majority, they will have to target

Liberal Democrat seats. That's quite obvious. The deal is that

this coalition will last for the full five-year term, that the

arrangements. There's lots of work being done obviously at

constituency level and leadership level to seek to deliver a

Conservative majority of the next election and that's when we can

generally be radical rather than being limited by the negotiations.

But your seat could go? Your party is upset, you wallow in the polls.

One might argue something radical is what you need. They may try to

take my seat in Will Show. If the first time in over 80 years the Lib

Dems won the seat, but they will have to try harder because only

last Thursday, the Lib Dems polled over 56% of the vote in my

constituency, so they have got their work cut out. Boundaries will

have changed by the next general election. The point being, when we

talk about specific seats, they are likely to be different to the ones

which are there now. Therefore, the current strength of any existing

member parliament might have through his incumbency will have

gone and it's fair game for everyone. I'm sure copies of the

book Lembit Opik will give you. A signed copy. Thank you for all of

you today. That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. The One