27/03/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

The polls made grim reading for the Prime Minister over his kedgeree

this morning. One has Mr Cameron ten points behind his Labour

counterpart. Maybe the PM should invite a few people round for

Easter Sunday. And talking of Easter, Quentin

Letts takes to recess like a duck to water with his A-Z of Parliament

A framework for growth or carte blanche to develop the countryside?

We'll be looking at the Government's new planning framework

for England. And farewell clunk click every trip.

Are we waving goodbye to public information films like this? Pick a

simple topic and state the bleeding obvious about it.

Indeed! All that in the next hour, and with

us for the whole programme today we have an embarrassment of political

riches. John Prescott is the former Deputy Prime Minister now hoping to

become one of the first elected police commissioners. Norman Fowler

is a former Tory cabinet minister and one-time chairman of the

Conservative Party and Don Foster is a Liberal Democrat who speaks

for the party on culture and the media. Can I say evening, all!

yet! Let's start with what's being

called - by this programme at least - the dosh for nosh affair. That

was sparked by revelations that a Tory party fundraiser had offered

access to the Prime Minister's dinner table in return for

donations. It caused quite a fuss in the Commons yesterday.

Speaker, what Peter Cruddas said was completely unacceptable and

wrong. And much of what he said, much of what he said was simply not

true, as he himself has since stated. My right honourable friend,

the Prime Minister, has set out this morning that the Conservative

Party will now go much further. I hope that all other parties, and

since the Leader of the Opposition has taken the trouble to come to

the House, I hope he will set out what his party will do. Will the

Minister for the Cabinet Office accept it is completely inadequate,

given the scale of these allegations, for an investigation

into what happened to be conducted by the Conservative Party? A

Conservative peer appointed by the Prime Minister. An inquiry into the

Conservative Party by the Conservative Party for the

Conservative Party. It is a whitewash and everyone knows it.

Does the Cabinet Office Minister understand that when stories such

as this emerge, it only confirms what we in Liverpool already know.

The Tories are not interested in already -- ordinary people, they

are only interested in making their rich friends even richer.

there's a lot of synthetic nonsense about this. The party opposite has

been snout in the trough far worse than we ever have and the Prime

Minister is to be commended for his honesty and straightforwardness and

his transparency in revealing all the people he has met. When will we

learn from the crisis that engulfed this House three years ago? The

response this to this situation is not simply to point fingers, but to

address with a renewed urgency the need to deal with its source, which

in this case is the continuing escalation of the political party

funding arms race. Does the Minister agree with me that it

stretches credulity to breaking point to argue that Peter Cruddas

did not... He is the most senior fundraiser for the Conservative

Party. He didn't understand the law relating to donations to political

parties! For the honourable gentleman refers to him as the most

senior. Not any more he isn't. Francis Maude feeling the heat a

little. And our political correspondent,

Carole Walker, is with us now. The electoral commission is being asked

to investigate whether Peter Cruddas found ways around the rules

on foreign donations. That's right. Jack Straw, the former Labour Home

Secretary, has written to the electoral commission, asking them

to look into this to find out whether Peter Cruddas and Sarah

Sutton broke the law in apparently being ready to take donations from

a foreign company. We know the Sunday Times reporters were posing

as representatives of a Middle Eastern Investment Company, based

offshore English in Stein, and furthermore, Sarah Sutton went on

to stage -- say the party won't ask questions. What Jack Straw is

saying the electoral commission whether there's been a criminal

offence, whether Conservative Party has the right procedures in place.

I have spoken to a Downing Street spokesman who says the Conservative

Party does have very strict procedures and a professional team

who make sure and check carefully to ensure that any donations are

legitimate. It is not going to be easy to check this because no

donation was actually made. Conservative sources are also

pointing out that Sarah Southern, much as she was trying to bid up

her connections within the Conservative Party, was in fact the

junior aide who had never actually worked on the question of fund-

raising. Whichever way the Conservatives cut it, it is

embarrassing, isn't it? Up it is. Very difficult and embarrassing.

David Cameron recognises that. Polls suggest it reinforces all the

sorts of difficulties about the party's image they are trying to

shake off, about being in the pockets of big business. They

haven't had this by appearing to drag their feet initially, saying

they could not publish the list of donors who had been to dinner been

dining Street, then doing so. -- Downing Street. In the last few

minutes, Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has said he is prepared to

publish a list of who he has met. It is not clear what the detail of

that is. He says this has left a stain on the character of the

Government. Norman Fowler, let's pick up on that last point. It

hasn't been handled well. They looked like they were dragging

their feet, saying no to publishing the list and then doing that.

it was a very swift moving thing. Was its swift enough? It was pretty

swift! They said no to start with. Everyone was caught by surprise.

Peter Cruddas's comments were crass and inexcusable. The only thing I

would say is we can concentrate just on this one issue. What we

should be doing is concentrating on party funding generally. That is

what the Conservative leadership would like everybody today. It can

be used as a smokescreen. What I'm saying is if you want an

independent inquiry, let's have written to all party funding and

let's move, I think, and I have what you this in my book, political

suicide, four years ago, we should move to some sort of state funding.

Unless you have some form of that, and it will not be popular, and I

hear your intake of breath, but if you go on like this, you'll have

scandals every couple of years. We have had scandal after scandal in

the first part of this century, cash for honours, debts, the whole

lot. Can I just go back to the issue at hand, which is about the

impression it leaves on voters, particularly after the Budget. Do

you fear that every time there's a policy announcement now in the next

few months, or a U-turn, let's say it is on airport capacity, or the

relaxation of the planning laws, everybody will point the finger and

say it is because of the Prime Minister and senior Tories wining

and dining with rich donors who have had an influence. I don't

think that is the reality. Whether people think that is another matter.

Who has had most access over the last 30 years to prime ministers?

It is not rich donors, it was Rupert Murdoch and the Murdoch

press. And some of the other media proprietors. They have not been

talking about theoretical politics. Is there any point in having an

independent inquiry into this particular episode? Wouldn't it be

better to broaden it out? Let's look at this issue... The Tories

were also dashed always funded by rich people. The Labour Party

largely came through the trade unions and therefore those

influence... And then the Lib Dems... It has gone from 15 million

to 30 million, the cost of an election. You can't raise that by

subscriptions so you get into the business of where the money comes

from. I've always been an advocate of state financing. People talk

about it as if somehow we don't do it. We already do it to about 35

million. Do the public or more of it? They don't know we do it now

and we do it to finance political parties... That is about 20 million.

We send information to the public about candidates, that is about 35

million, although the Tories are about to abolish it for the

election of police commissioners. The perception is there are

interested bodies in the community that influence political parties

that get the legislative framework they want. What they don't like it

if you buy it in this direct way or the Prime Minister gives a dinner

in that way or trade unions use their influence in that way. Let's

go back to looking at the proper way of funding finances. Kelly

recommends going a certain way along that, I would go further, but

it is already with state fining -- financing. Does it matter as much

as you say about one -- where some of the money comes from? Whether it

is the unions or rich business sponsors or whoever. Isn't it about

transparency? If it was more up front, people would not worry so

much. Trade union funds are pretty transparent already. You are

required by law to do that. It is transparency. When Mr Murdoch, who

had at the register influence behind the scenes, we now found out

when he went for BSkyB, he went to Chequers and the Prime Minister

denied he ever met him. That is the kind of transparency we need to

bring into the open. It is the public's perception that politics

is paid for. We need to have it much more accountable and much more

transparent. Both political parties need get a better balance about

this or we will suffer. Do you think Nick Clegg will have any

chance of getting a consensus? It is all very well everyone saying

that's what we need, but the agreement on the detail about cats

on donations and how they should be made, for instance from individual

members or unions, that has always been difficult. It will be

particularly difficult when we have the current climate when most

people accept now is not the right time to be asking the public to pay

extra money to fund political parties. But I think it is

important. One bit of the investigation I really think we do

have to have independently is in to that issue of the potential of

overseas donations, which is illegal and if routes around it

have been found, we need to block those. The crucial bit, John is

right, it is transparency. We have already heard from the Prime

Minister that he will be transparent. We now hear from Ed

Miliband that they will be transparent about trade union

leaders. The day Ed Miliband became the leader of the Labour Party, one

trade union immediately donated �770,000. A massive donation. The

influence of the trade unions... They could not do that without the

membership agreeing. I don't want to get into this, but please, their

money is much more open. It is decided by them members. The

perception in people's minds that those donations are directed to

particular legislative favours, of course we want to reduce

unemployment, the Government have got in a situation where they are

increasing it. There are direct views about that and there will

always be so, but you need to make sure it is not connected to obvious

money payments. The issue of perceptions and the damage it might

have done, that the Conservatives of the party of the rich, that is

going to be difficult to explain at this precise moment, isn't it?

of these scandals are difficult to explain. Just as they have been in

the past. David Cameron has worked so hard at detoxifying the

Conservatives. He must be absolutely furious about this. The

way in which this man explained what party funding was about I

think is totally ridiculous and totally inexcusable. But I do think

you have to come back to this point that you can't have it both ways.

If you're not going to go on state funding, parties have to raise

money somehow. One final question. Normally the party chairman goes

out betting for the party. We haven't seen her at all. -- batting.

Would you have expected to see her on the airwaves defending the

party's image? Baidoa ne ho. We have Francis Maude doing it. In

terms of government, Francis is more senior. We have all been a

round this track. I had a very hairy debate in the House of

Commons on party funding when I was party chairman. I don't think it

matters who is doing the defending, it is a hopeless job. Borg Francis

was getting it in the neck yesterday, I was getting it in the

neck when I did it. For do you believe the Prime Minister sat down

with all these people and did not think about the money coming from

them? Or when we sat down with trade unions, you would not think

about financing for the general election. Number Ten, and even

Dorney Wood suggested... I was asked questions constantly, who was

staying at Dorney Wood? Just ordinary working people. Dave used

all of these facilities to raise Of the 11th of it was a bleak

picture for any Tories open in the papers today, as three different

polls put the party firmly behind Labour. The Sun/YouGov poll saw the

Conservatives trailing Labour by seven points. A poll for the Times

saw a smaller four point lead for Labour, but this was a three point

drop for the Tories since February. And the Independent/ComRes poll

showed the biggest hit for the party. They make grim reading. Does

it say the Budget was a disaster? It probably does have some

reflection on the Budget. It has been amazing, in a way. The

government have done a number of things in terms of public spending.

They have cut public spending in a range of areas. They have had had

the Health Bill and the welfare bill, then the Budget. It has been

amazing that they have been level pegging. They have stayed

relatively static through announcements on public spending,

even through the controversy of the Health Bill and on welfare. It is

only post Budget that there has been this sudden dip. So if you

take the 50 pence top rate of tax or the fact that in the end,

presentation early, it did not work? These things are cumulative.

You cannot put your finger on one thing and say that was the issue

that did it. This is the end of a period in which we have been doing

really unpopular things. The amazing thing is that we have not

fallen behind before. Then you agree with what was called the

granny tax and taking away the top rate of tax? I would not

necessarily have done it as Chancellor, but there is a sensible

case to be made for doing it. wouldn't you have done those

things? For the reasons you are stating. The public relations

contrast between "helping the rich" at one end, and having an impact

upon the relatively not well off at the other in terms of pensions,

there is an obvious contrast which will be exploited. You are in the

coalition as well, but that a presentation of saying, we are

taking these people out of the lower band of tax, but we will drop

the top rate of tax, to. You are in the same boat. It did not work. We

will talk later about the abolition of the Central Office of

Information on the question of whether we should not have been

using them vigorously for this. If you have a Budget that takes 2

million people out of paying tax and gives a huge tax rebate of over

�500 per year to 24 million people, gives the largest ever pension rise,

you would have thought we could have had good publicity from it. In

the event, the granny tax, which did not seem to be properly planned

for in terms of explaining the message... Did you agree with it?

If you look at the figures, there is a net �1.4 billion. Overall, the

money for pensioners is going up. No pensioner loses anything in

terms of cash, and the majority are getting a huge rise. It is a good

policy, but the marketing of it was appalling. We lost out because of

that. Both parties did. Looking at the polls, Labour is finally doing

well. One could say it has been a long time coming after Norman

Fowler listed all the other issues like health and welfare. But Ed

Miliband is still doing badly in terms of his own ratings. There are

different perceptions of how leaders and governments are doing.

That is one perception. But this was supposed to be a Budget to

increase growth, and it was about not spending more, but we are

spending more. So they failed on their own analysis of the Budget.

When you put that together with the idea of the granny tax, we had the

10p situation. You could rationally point to that 10p, but the

pensioners under public did not see it that way. It is the same with

the granny tax. But we put up the tax to 50 pence, and they reduced

it. So the millionaire's did well. The perception in the public's mind

is that the Tories do well with the rich, but those dependent on public

service fail. It is interesting and then that Labour has not been doing

as well as they might have done before that. When the announcements

on public spending cuts came through on public sector pay

freezes and the Health Bill, there was no surge then for Labour. So it

is only as a result of this presentation of the Budget, not as

a result of what Labour have been saying. But if you look at Cameron

when he first came in, things were bad for him. Give time for this to

develop. We are only 18 months in. Nobody doubts he did well in that

bear-pit of the House of Commons. He has got it right. He has got the

message right and the tone right. You have to have a bit of an

aggressive style. That has come together. But it is a long one. He

has now established himself as speaking for the nation. He

reflects what the nation feels. What does Ed Miliband need to do

about the unions, and about Len McCluskey and threats for him for

all sorts of direct action like strikes? Does you have to distance

himself from the unions? That is the way you see politics. If you

look at what is happening with the lorry strike for the moment, why

did that come about? Because the Tories brought in balloting. In

industrial relations now, every member knows that if you support

the Union, you support a ballot for a strike. Let's wait and see if

that happens. It is a tactic. Then you guys come along and say, why

shouldn't the leader be attacking that? But should he be supporting

the strikes? A well, it hasn't got into a strike yet, for God's sake.

I have just told you. If I went in negotiating, I would want the

members to back what I was saying. Now they do it by ballot. You are

required by law brought in by the Conservatives to ask your members

whether they support it. The charges to be then that they did

not have membership support. Now they have, let's see. The Lib Dems

are stuck on 11%. Will they ever do better while they are in coalition

with the Conservatives? Increasingly, the message is

getting out about the real influence the Liberal Democrats are

having. The Labour Party have been given this instruction to say it is

a Tory-led Government. The truth is that there is evidence of the

impact the Liberal Democrats are having in government, working in

coalition. What about the Health Bill? There have been huge,

significant changes. You want to get rid of the House of Lords.

if you take the Budget, one of the most significant things was that

move towards a �10,000 tax threshold. Do you think you will

see an increase in the polls as a result of that? Over time. Would

you like to see more distance between yourselves? We are in a

coalition. People have to understand that for the sake of the

economy, two opposing political parties have come together in a

coalition where we are rebel to get a number of our policies into

practice. But so have the Tory party. You are taking a snapshot at

a particular time. We now have three years to run of this

Parliament. So although the opinion polls are interesting, they are

hardly conclusive. Now, it is a difficult and

controversial subject, and something Parliament has not

debated properly for 40 years. But this afternoon, MPs will confront

the question of assisted suicide. Giles has been on the green with

two MPs with two different views. Sometimes MPs debate things because

they are going to change the law. On assisted dying, they are not

debated because they are going to change the law. They have not

debated it for 40 years, but now they are debating the guidelines

set up by the Director of Public Prosecutions in February 2010. This

was your suggestion. What has changed that we need to discuss

this now? Nothing has morally changed. But I think society will

benefit if the set of guidelines which provide for a fair and

compassionate way of dealing with cases where you assist someone in

ending their life, if those guidelines have parliamentary

support. It will make them stronger and more effective. I also want

colleagues to understand the issue more. I believe they are now

getting their head round it to, which is for the public good.

against the law anyway, so it will still be against the law unless

there is legislation passed. And this debate will not change that,

so presumably you are reassured? Absolutely, but it is important to

debate this issue. It has not been debated for 47 years, and it is of

strong interest to many people. People are interested in the end of

life and beginning of life issues. What is wrong with somebody who is

sentient and terminally ill saying, I want to die? I have complete

compassion with that and understand that position. But unfortunately,

the law has to cater for everybody. And not everybody's Next of Kin is

a relative. Often, it is the state. It will be a PCT or a care home or

a nursing home. There are people all over the country at the moment

who feel protected by the law, and that has to stay. We have to cater

for the greater number of people, not a minority. About 20 or so

people a year have travelled abroad for assisted suicide. The

campaigners are hoping that number will go up once the guidelines were

introduced. It hasn't. You can't make a law which caters for the few

and not the majority. There is a risk, isn't there, that bit by bit,

it becomes more acceptable and then we are not necessarily talking

about those cases where people have a lot of sympathy? Well, these

guidelines have been in place for the last two years. And the

Director of Public Prosecution's approach to this was in place a

long time before them. But people will derive comfort about their

options from this. You do not like the idea of this? No, I don't like

it because I think the greater number of vulnerable people... ICA

point one day, as you say, it is about the slow erosion, ICA point

one day where a doctor will one day feel a patient is costing �12,000 a

week to the NHS to block a bed, and they may suggest to that patient

that maybe they would like to have their end assisted. That is

somewhere we don't want to go. I know that is an extreme point.

in that example, that would expressly be a factor covered by

prosecution. The debate will run. It is one of those interesting

debates. No doubt our viewers have their views, too.

Now, banker bashing is such a popular sport these days that it

should probably be included in the 2012 Olympics. But 150 years ago,

things were a bit different. George Peabody, American tycoon and

banker. From 1837, number and philanthropist. 150 years ago this

week, he donated �150,000, a lot more in today's money, to tackle

the effects of poverty in the capital, especially the lack of

housing. As a result, this block of flats was built in Spitalfields in

the city. On his death, Peabody left more money to the cause and

his distinctive estates sprung up all over the place as the slums

were cleared and the poor were rehoused, some are enjoying unheard

of mod cons like bathrooms. Some of the estates were destroyed during

the Second World War, but many have survived. Today there are 20,000

people -- Peabody properties. Some are bought and sold on the open

market, but the majority form part of local authorities'' stock if

social housing. And the organisation continues the mission

of its founder by running community programmes for residents. It has

pledged to build 900 more low-cost homes in the next three years.

Where do and now by the chief executive of the Peabody Trust,

Stephen Howlett. How did we get into a situation where there is

such a shortage of affordable housing? There just is not enough

housing being provided. Right across the country, particularly in

central London, we need a lot more housing that is affordable to

people on low incomes. We have seen rising prices of land and a

shortage of supply as well as a cutback in government funding,

increased rents and cuts in the benefits system. You have

identified the problem that there is not enough housing, but is the

answer more homes to buy or Mo homes to rent? It is both. Across

the sectors, right from low-cost rented housing to intermediate

whence to home-ownership, all those are needed. We need a diverse

approach. There are a lot of people who cannot afford the market rate,

in London particularly, and who don't qualify for the low-cost

You were in charge of housing at one time, it is to regret that

there is now such a shortage of housing. Successive governments did

not do enough to build enough affordable housing. Far more than

being built now. The real issue is about financing local housing. Mr

Peabody... It was 30% privately- owned. That is reversed now. People

want to own houses, but you have to provide the social housing. The

right to buy took 1.8 million houses out and cost us billions in

giving subsidies. By tried to stop that. We want people to buy houses.

I introduced a �60,000 house which met the Government kept the land

and you had the price of the House. But the market has. House prices

far greater than inflation. It is about profit and governments have

to play a role in social housing. He did not build enough council

houses. We didn't. I spent something like �40 billion making

the 2 million houses into better houses that were not invested in

when they were selling them off. I then gave a priority to develop and

modernise the existing houses. You have to build more council houses

and I have to carry my share of the blame for that. The legacy of

right-to-buy, the number of council housing was eroded over time. Do

you think that has left us with this problem? It hasn't left us

with the problem we have today. Right-to-buy was the right policy.

It was a policy which was supported in the end by the Labour Party. You

only have to it... We did not get rid of the legislation. You only

have to go to some of the old council estates as I knew in

Nottingham, for example, and you see the vast improvement in the

housing stock and the fact that people actually wanted to buy their

own home. Where we failed is actually in replacing that which we

sold. That has been a power failure. For a variety of reasons, not least

planning and a green field sites... For we will get on to that. Is the

answer in the private sector? part of the answer, but Lord

Prescott is right, we need more low-cost rented housing been

provided through housing associations and local authorities.

What we are seeing at the moment is a cut by about half in the public

investment in housing. We need a broad range of solutions. Public

land, we are prepared to put money into making that housing available.

And shared equity. I think it fundamentally comes down to supply.

That would take the pressure off prices. If we build more houses,

regard leak of what they are originally intended as, it will

reduce the rents. In the south-west at the moment, the average house

price is 14 times the average salary. There's no way the majority

of people can buy houses in those prices. If you increase supply, you

reduce cost. The one thing we are not talking enough about is

bringing back into use of empty properties. How many? In the south-

west, the area I know best, there are as many empty properties as

there are homeless households. You can begin to solve the problem by

bringing them back. The one thing I'd love to see the Government do

is reduce VAT on the renovation of properties because that would help

stimulate... They are largely above shops. I brought in legislation

that you could take them back in the public ownership, do them up

and return them to the owner because they knew then had to do

something about modernisation. The real problem is the price. If I

wanted to put a teacher near a school in an affluent area, the

teacher on their wage could not pay it. I was going to Gordon Brown and

saying I want �78,000 subsidy to allow this teacher to be able to

provide teaching services at a school. Of the Lib Dems worried

about that sort of situation being replicated as a result as -- of

parts of the welfare bill where people will be prised out of rents

in the centre of London? One of the things there is clear evidence of

his at the moment if you have Landlord's able to get a large

amount of money through housing benefit, they can put the rent Supp.

If you catch it, you begin to see the rents go down. John was the

first person, and he has to have credit for this, it introduced the

concept of shared equity properties where people could partly owned...

The that has been taken on. John started it for key workers and that

is the sort of programme we need to do more of. Thank you.

Now, the Government's long-awaited planning reforms are about to be

announced in Parliament. They are reworked from the draft National

Planning Policy framework which was published last summer. Many

countryside groups were angry at the proposals, so let's have a look

at what we can expect. Ministers want to simplify more than 1,000

pages of planning regulations by pages of planning regulations by

cutting them to around 50 pages. Whitehall sources have said it's an

"unashamedly pro-growth document", designed to speed up planning

decisions. So at the heart of the framework is a "presumption in

favour of sustainable development", which ministers say will boost

growth, but that doesn't harm communities, the environment or the

countryside. This phrase is thought to be in the new document, despite

criticism from countryside campaigners. They fear it will mean

developments are automatically approved unless there's a specific

local objection. They also wanted clarification on what a

"sustainable development" is. Whitehall sources have told the BBC

that the "necessary safeguards will be there", and ministers are said

to be confident that enough assurances are in place. David

Thompson is on College Green and Greg Clarke, the planning minister,

is outlining this document to parliament as we speak. This isn't

the Government's first stab at this. This document has been through a

number of revisions in an attempt to get the balance between

protecting the countryside and giving the green light to growth. I

am joined by two protagonists in that debate. Adam, it seems as if a

number of safeguards have been put back into the document. By you

reassure the countryside will be protected? When the draft framework

was published in July we were concerned it would development --

deliver a development at all costs scenario. Serious revisions need to

be made to the document when it is published in its final form today.

There has been speculation that some changes will be made,

particularly on the issue of open countryside, protecting the wider

countryside. It was not in the draft, but it is back in the final

framework. Also, very important that ground filled first is back in

the document. Local councils need to be given time to book plans in

place. A lot to come out in the wash. What sh this space. Liz, the

Government says this will be unashamedly pro-growth. That means

more houses will be built on green land. This is a filly or beats --

fill your boots charter. necessarily. People need somewhere

to live. There's no problem with having a planning system that

provides for growth, good growth, good development, a development

that works. Of course you shouldn't have unmitigated development all

over the place. You have to have a system of control, but you need to

make it an efficient system to plan for the growth where we need it.

The old system was 1,000 pages. Surely, whatever your concerns

about the new regime, it has to be better than the old one. We had no

problem with clarifying for planning guidance, bringing it down

into a shorter document, but things seem to have been missed along the

way by the Government. We are in favour of the right kind of

development in the right places. We know there's a shortage of

affordable housing in rural areas. We were concerned the framework as

it was drafted would not deliver the right sort of housing in the

right places, it would end up being green field development, executive

homes, where developers would make my youth -- most profit. This

document is designed to remove some of that complexities. I'm willing

to bet it won't remove the controversy!

You might be right. Let's pick up on some of those

issues. John Prescott, looking at this issue of building on

brownfield sites, that was in the original document. When they got

rid of 1,000 pages, it wasn't complexities, it was the controls

to stop the developing industries going to greenfield site. They've

already made the applications. think they will still go to those

sites? I said the requirement, you have to look for brownfield sites

in the cities. Now they are saying it is up for growth. Growth must

have the importance of the sustainability. At do you agree

with that? We increased the brownfield from 60% to 70% houses.

We had more greenfield sites. This is about removing controls and

giving the developers a chance to build in greenfield sites. Is that

a good thing to promote growth? all for growth but you can build

houses in the cities. In our time they began building in the cities

and stop the building in suburbia. This is a developer's Charter, it

is about money, not about growth. That must be worrying for you. How

do you explain that your constituents? I would be deeply

worried if John was right. We have not seen the paper. We have the

original. A then we have the consultation. People were concerned

about whether the protections were strong enough in terms of

protecting the green belt and ensuring you have brownfield

development first. I understand that is now there. The second big

concern was the fact that many local authorities haven't got their

local plans sorted out and therefore they would not be able to

use those for local concerns. I understand is now going to be a

year-long break so that local councils can get them right and

that can give local people control over what happens. Do you agree

with Simon Walker who has called opponents to these reforms and

indies? It is all about I don't want it in my backyard. They will

always be around. We have probably all been guilty of it ourselves.

have just had a conversation about the need for more homes, we need

more affordable homes, we need to make land available for that and

the planning system at the moment does restrict the opportunity to do

it. Can you get the balance right between sustainability on one hand

and protecting the environment on the other? You are reassured?

haven't seen the paper, but from what I understand, I think those

controls are now very firmly in place. Is this the right time to be

picking a fight with the core vote for the Conservative Party? There

have been very strong campaigns against this. The National Trust,

the Daily Telegraph are against this in principle. If we are going

to concrete over the whole of the green belt, they have every

justification. And also over the high-speed rail link. You have to

make some decisions. I happen to agree with what John was saying

about brownfield site. I represented for 30 years a

constituency on the boundaries of Birmingham. What was quite clear is

that people much preferred coming there and expanding into the green

field rather than building in the very apparent and evident

brownfield sites you had in Birmingham. From going back to

Birmingham, it seems many of these Brownfield sites still exist for

top there's still going to be a fear that if there's a presumption

in favour of sustainable development, unless there's a

specific objection, there will be a carte blanche for builders to go

where they like because of the pressure for housing.

Yes, and there will be some tough decisions, for example in some

villages. At the moment you have a situation where people just can't

get houses. You will probably have to expand. There's no point in

trying to duck this. There are no easy solutions. One of the

contradictions is the Government won localism and they say they will

leave the decisions to local areas, but we know the groups that will

come up in our constituency and they will have a ballot. Then it is

supposed to be decided in the area. It will be coming to Mr Pickles,

who will have to make the decision. When you talk about people looking

at the Tories, Mr Pickles sat down with all of the developers and he

is the man who said it was a personal mail. A conversation going

on between money, developers and his government. Hang on. Grant

Shapps campaigned against it. campaigns against everything.

were not get away with this. The Labour government imposed housing

targets on each local authority that in many cases were completely

nonsensical. There was no ability to even Bill does houses and it

would have required going into the green belt to do this. What this

does his matches, I hope, the ability of getting on with being

able to build a much needed houses on the one hand, and on the other,

protecting the environment. If we get this balance right... Take the

south-east. We wanted to increase houses in the south-east so

youngsters could live with their families lived. We increased it by

200,000. There were screams and shouts but we showed you could

build it in the same density of housing with the same amount of

land we had for 900,000. You can if you go on to brownfield which is

what local councils will do. Final word and we are ending this. It is

critically important that we pick up what Norman said. John believes

it as well because he used to do it when he was in charge. We have to

have an assumption that brownfields our way you have to do the first

development before you go anywhere At the end of this month, it is

bye-bye to COI, the Central Office of Information, which has been the

government's in-house marketing agency for more than 60 years. They

are constantly bombarding political journalists like me with press

releases, but you will be more familiar with their public

information films. How will the government cope with

the closure of its marketing arm, the COI? We delved into the

archives, and luckily found a public information film about

making public information films. Learn how to make an informative

film for the public, with the Daily Politics. Step 1 - pick a simple

topic, and state the bleeding obvious. In the '40s, people needed

to be told how to use such new- fangled inventions as hankies.

a large put the pot, sprinkle with it, then hold the handkerchief to

his face. Step two - to help Mr and Mrs public understand your message,

why not hire a celebrity? Like Kevin Keegan, here simultaneously

highlighting the dangers of roads and casting footballers as

presenters. Sometimes, celebrities were created, like Charlie the cat

and his weirdly voiced owner. Charlie says next time we go

fishing, we should stay very close to Dad, where he can look after us.

Step 3 - to make sure people listen to your public information film,

why not consider making it exceedingly frightening? That was

the approach used in these not at all scary films about surviving a

total nuclear war. Nobody can tell where the safest place will be.

Public information films will not disappear with the demise of the

Central Office of Information. The government just hopes the whole

process of advertising using public money becomes a bit cheaper.

Hopefully, the film's stay just as cheesy.

A trip down memory lane. Don Foster, did you have a favourite of any of

those public information films? I always liked the clunk click one,

particularly because you saw a motorway with hardly any cars on it.

But if you had the demise of the Public Information Unit, does that

mean that your correspondent just lost his job? No. I think he was

multi-tasking. But he looked good. They did serve a purpose, though.

To some extent, public information films have worked. In 1986, I ran

the HIV-AIDS campaign. We had it falling tombstones and icebergs,

and we really got it on to the TV screens. And the result of that was

that by the end, 95% of the public said that they knew how HIV-AIDS

was contracted. That was tremendous. That was not bum - back not done by

the Central Office of Information. They contracted it. We had a

brilliant man from one of the agencies. I do not think the demise

of the COI will make much difference, as long as the people

have the experience. But there is an issue of funding for public

health campaigns in general. It was not just a chavvy. There were anti-

smoking campaigns. These things have had an effect on changing

attitudes. There is a role for them. As Norman said, you might have to

get the best of advertising to do it, but it is expensive. If you

look at the budgets of departments, they have spent millions on this.

But take climate change. People need to understand what is

happening and what the effects are. When I was trying to get youngsters

to get on to their parents and say, why do you fill the kettle of? Or

why do you let the tap when all the time?, nobody will take that in the

modern media. But you can use these public information films. There is

a lot to be done. Now, money is being spent influencing other TV

programmes. Everybody knows the agricultural correspondents on the

Archers has influenced what happens in farming. Money is now being

spent to influence a lot of other soaps. The problem with that is

that when you have films like that, they are very transparent. You know

it is the Government. It is more insidious if it is influencing a

soap opera. In my view, in some areas you need much more direct

advertising. I was chairman of a select committee. We looked at HIV-

AIDS 25 years ago. We found that in terms of treatment, the government

spent over three-quarters of a billion pounds on drugs and on

direct advertising, they spent �2.9 million. That is totally out of

kilter. I don't mind about the COI going, but I do think that things

like public health can only be done in that way. Don was right when he

said you can use the soaps. They have been effective, but now you

can have your cornflakes on the table and have them in the

programme. That is not influencing the public, that is just an advert.

What would you do a public health broadcast on now? There are so many

issues, but Norman is right - not party funding! - but there are

issues about health. Not just on a chavvy, but all aspects of health.

With the rising obesity crisis, and alcohol and drug problems and so on,

improving public health as important. One should remember, it

is not necessarily the case in health, but one should remember the

limitations of what can -- what one can do. We tried it with seatbelts.

But that did work. But when we passed the law, if the casualties

went down. But you had softened the public up with that campaign.

that took over 15 years. Drinking and driving. That really did change

people's attitudes. It became a taboo. I nearly broke my back not

wearing a seatbelt. What a great advert for that campaign.

Now, there is an end of term skittishness in the air, and it is

not just the hot weather that has brought it on. Here is Quentin

Letts, with his to Z of Parliament. The letter R is for recess.

Parliament does not sit all year round, and when MPs are not at

Westminster, they are said to be in recess, and they can do other

things. Jolly boating weather. Good morning, Kevin. Right. Off we go.

They have several recesses a year. The longest is the summer, about

seven weeks. Then they have another for the party conference season. In

the party conferences, they used to go to the seaside for those. These

days, it is more like town-centre such as Manchester and Birmingham.

Christmas is next, about three weeks. Then you get a week in

February for half term, a couple of weeks at Easter, baby ten days at

the end of May and if you are lucky, a couple of days before the State

Opening of Parliament. It is about 14 weeks in all. Parliament may

hold, but MPs, as they never tire of telling us, go on working. There

is all that constituency work to do, pressing the flesh. Do you think

they possibly work too hard? I know the feeling. Traditionally, the

Government gave little notice of when the house would be in recess.

Information is power, C. The law- making process is uncertain, and

also to let the opposition know far in advance and the house was

breaking up gave them an advantage. But the government has become more

reasonable now. It allows MPs to get those cheap deals on their

package holidays. It is possible for Parliament to be recalled if

ministers ask the Speaker to do that. This happens once every two

years. It happened in 2011 after the summer riots, and when the

Falkland Islands were invaded and after 9/11. One good thing about

the house not sitting is that it stops those MPs passing too many

laws. By the way, if you are in London and on holiday yourself and

the MPs are in recess, you can still go in and have a look around

Parliament. Mind you, the place might be a bit deserted.

Quentin Letts, having fun. Yes, MPs break up for Easter today, but who

has worked harder this session, MPs or the Lords? The Lords have worked

extremely hard on things like health. Around the clock. What have

MPs been doing? Yes, v Lords have been working harder. Most of the

legislation has been with them, and it is now coming back to us. But

these things go in cycles, depending on where the legislation

starts. The other big difference is that the House of Lords has this

wonderful thing. You can see it on the monitor. It says "adjourned at

pleasure". Every evening, they have this break to just go off and be at

pleasure. I have often wondered what that means. You have an

intricate knowledge of the workings of the House of Lords. That is

marvellous. It does not take place every day. The House of Lords has

actually worked extraordinarily hard, particularly on the Health

Bill, which everyone agrees. To say one thing about recess, when one

was a minister, I remember being in a health dispute which had been

going on for six months. And I decided I could take five days off.

This hit the headlines - controversial holiday taken by

minister. Ministers do work hard, and at some stage you have to

decide whether you want exhausted ministers slumped over their best,

making bad decisions, or whether you think every so often, it would

not be a bad idea to take some days off. Are you proud of having bricks,

or not? That is what the political system is. We used to come back in

September. People do feel it is a long break. We do not get paid at

through that break. Ours is a different system. Do you think the

public are being unfair in saying you have these long holidays over

the summer? They say the same about teachers. It is a judgment they

make. This week, we have just announced that we will be off for

another week, and we have not got time to discuss the Scottish bill.

So let's cancel the recess. You have all got to stay. He would not

agree, but we have very much the same view on Parliament. Have a

good recess. The One O'clock News is starting on BBC One. The Daily