19/06/2012 Daily Politics

Welcome to the Daily Politics. Despite the current state of the

world economy it was all smiles at the G20 summit in Mexico, but what

can they actually achieve? It used to be that a job in the civil

service was a job for life. Not any more. Later today the government

will say it wants to run Whitehall more like a business and make it

easier to sack staff, so is this a "very brave move" by ministers?

Cheaper childcare. All working parents want it, the government

thinks it knows how to get it. We'll look at the details. And is

it time to Go Dutch? We'll look at the calls for our towns and cities

to become a cyclist's best friend. All that in the next hour. And with

us for the whole programme today is the Guardian journalist, author and

chairman of the National Trust to boot, Simon Jenkins. Today world

leaders are preparing for their second day of talks at the Mexican

resort of Los Cabos... Poor things. The economic crisis in Europe is

naturally dominating proceedings. World leaders have urged Europe to

take all necessary steps to deal with the problems. However, the

talks were last night in danger of deteriorating into a damaging row

after comments from the President of the European Commission Jose

Manuel Barroso. Speaking to journalists Mr Barroso said the

crisis in Europe was, in fact, the fault of American banks. This

crisis was not originated in Europe, North America, but in North America.

Many of our financial sector were contaminated a buy, how can I put

it, unorthodox practice from some sectors of the financial market.

But we are not coming here to receive lessons in terms of

democracy, or how to handle the economy because it the European

Union has a model we should be proud of. We're not complacent

about the difficulties, we are open, I wish all partners were so open

about their own difficulties. We are engaging with partners but

we're not coming here to receive lessons from anybody. He lost it a

bit there. Is he right though, should people in North America not

try to dictate to Europe when it was their fault the crisis started

there in 2000 an eight and somehow the eurozone is also their fault?

Everybody was burdened with this debt, it is ridiculous. I can see

how you loses his rag. These occasions really are pointless. Why

they have to go to Mexico and come to no agreement. They are not the

government of anything, they are a group of people gathering in Mexico,

wasting their time and clearly losing their re-rack. I honestly

find these things completely pointless. -- their re-rack.

2008 the G20 was worthwhile, sometimes -- somehow there was a

common cause to save the banks and the summit was a success and that

it is just they don't seem to know what to do, rather than the

institution itself is wrong? It has become the international

conglomerate for saving banks, it does not save the economy. 2000 an

eight was some time ago. Does not achieve what it set out to. Any

fool can save a bank by tipping money into it. But going to Mexico

does not save a bank. They are saved by governments putting money

into them. If Europe is to be saved at all it will be saved by the

Germans decided to do the right thing but they won't because they

will do what Germany has in its interests, which is to save German

banks. A do you think it is the end of the G 20? They will go to these

things up nauseam. There is a Euro- summit every three months now. What

is a telephone for? It was invented. They keep boasting about the

digital age, why do they have to go to expensive hotels were they just

row. And probably some nice dinners. You always get to know the menu.

Now it's time for our daily quiz. The question for today is... At the

end of the show Simon will give us the correct answer. I am sure you

can hazard a guess! Should our civil servants be a bit more, "Yes,

minister" and a bit less "that would be very brave, minister"?

Today the Government will tell us how it plans to improve the Civil

Service. The Civil Service currently employs around 430,000

people and has existed as a politically neutral, merit-based

bureaucracy since the 1850s. But recently ministers have been

complaining that the mandarins are not up to the job, even getting the

blame for the recent pasty tax, caravan tax and charity tax fiascos.

And now Government ministers think it is time for a shake up. Steve

Hilton, the Prime Minister's former blue skies guru, was reported to

have wanted to cut the civil service by 90%. Cabinet Office

Minister Francis Maude won't go that far but he will unveil a

series of reform proposals, including allowing politicians to

choose. -- choose the Civil Service heads of each department,

outsourcing policy-making to the private sector and plans to tell

the bottom 10% of civil servants to shape up or face the sack. Joining

me now is Peter Thomas from the Institute for Government, who's a

former Civil Servant who was involved in the government's

consultation on the civil service. What are ministers trying to

achieve that these reforms? The one to make sure they have a civil

service that can get through what is an unprecedented level of cuts

and deliver the best services it can for significantly less money --

they want. Are they saying it can only be done making cuts? Civil

servants are also clear that the scale of the challenge is

unprecedented since the Second World War. They know they need to

do things differently and stop doing things if they are going to

deliver a civil service that can support whichever government they

are there to support. What is it being proposed here? What will

achieve it? We know they are going to try to get rid of the worst

performing 10%. What else will change that vision of the Civil

Service and Howard works in practice? We will see when it is

published later but what is much more important than some of those

elements is what is the Civil Service going to look like, what

kind of civil servants do you need? What job should be doing and what

should be stopped doing? It will obviously look smaller, it is clear

you need people who can work effectively with the private sector,

the public sector, more commercial skills, the pressure to increase

productivity is huge, so financial skills, good disciplines of basic

management. But it is politically neutral, unified, will be

threatened? I don't think so. It is one of their strengths, there are

plenty of structures in place to protect it. I would be surprised if

there was a significant change to that. Do you think you should be

protected above all else? That is the kind of signature of the

British political system that you have an independent, impartial

Civil Service working with the political government of the day.

don't see any great challenge to that. I would be surprised if we

saw something that substantially altered that. But you think with

these proposals it will look different and productivity will

improve? It has to. The Civil Service is already on a march to

being 25% smaller, some departments are taking out 50% of their costs.

Top teams have been halved in some departments. They have to do things

better. If they are going to minimise the impact on the front

line services that missable servants are involved in them they

have to raise productivity, they have to pick from the best practice

of the private sector, from of a public sector. It will be a test of

this plan. Is it addressing what most civil servants do, or just

plain with some interesting novelties around Whitehall and bits

of policy-making? Thank you. Let's get more on this with the

Conservative MP Nick Boles and the former London Mayoral candidate and

former civil servant. --, Siobhan Beinta. We heard earlier that of

ministers are going to appoint directly to the top, it will no

longer be a civil service? I don't You would actually have ministers

bringing in somebody to run the department, like in the US, I don't

think that is right, or the British way of doing things but I think the

idea that a minister can have influence over which civil servants,

independent, non-partisan, they work with, because the truth is

personalities matter, the fit and skills of a politician and civil

servant matter. I think it is reasonable as long as the people

they offered on all people who would pass the test of impartiality

and the qualifications for the job. But wouldn't it stretch the feeling

of impartiality if ministers are allowed, in whatever way you want

to describe it, basically a. People who they know will do the job they

want and in the way they want? That is no longer totally impartial, or

politically neutral. I think it is. The Civil Service is there to

deliver the policies of the elected government. They have always done

that without being appointed by ministers. All political parties

will agree on this - in the past the deliveries have not been

effective, or as quick, and the reason there are so many programmes

about this is because of this problem. I think it is a reasonable

way to deal with the problem of delivery without afeared --

interfering in any way with the political impartiality of the civil

servants themselves. Do you accept that? There are many things about

the planned -- in the plan that I think will be welcomed. The bit I

think people will be most wary about is this thing about ministers

being able to appoint permanent secretaries. The reality is there

is always discussion when a new permanent secretary has appointed

anyway about whether they will fit with the minister. So to somehow

say we need to make this official does worry me. One of the big

things that is indeed about our civil service is its impartiality

and this seems to be removing that. This is thing I would be most

worried about. But are they a roadblock to reform? They are not

helping with delivery, then you run into problems with policies not

being implemented. It is always about human behaviour and how

people get on and if the relationships at the top of the

department are not working well, there has always been the ability

to move people around Whitehall. That has happened anyway. It is

this making it official that worries me. If it is a blockage and

things are not working well in a department people do get moved

around, that has always been the case. This is going a step too far.

Let's look at where it might have been a problem in terms of delivery.

The Budget. Do you blame civil servants for the shambles? I am

glad to say my colleagues stick to the principle that ministers take

responsibility for the things that go wrong. George Osborne as take

responsibility for those things in the Budget he has since had to

But in reality you cannot expect politicians to be able to be on top

of every single detail of implementation and so when things

don't work well I think it is reasonable to look at whether this

informal practice - and I think that is a problem in the civil

service, there are so many informal ways of doing things, we will sort

things out an hour classic way, if you are not happy with someone, we

promote them to another department without telling the other

department why we're not happy with them, let's bring this out into the

open, make it clear, a minister will have to justify in the Civil

Service and the Commission and the media why the move this person.

Isn't that a better way of dealing with it? Do you accept that? For me

it is crazy to think that something like the Budget could have got

there without ministers signing them off. It is very easy for

ministers when the going gets tough, when things go wrong, for them to

turn around and blame senior officials. I specifically did not

do that. You did not but others did. There were things about it that the

Budget was pet project of civil servants that slipped through. Is

it the case every administration cut that the policy through a few

years in and blame the civil service? Yes. I think it is a

sensible way of approaching it, the simple thing is the calibre of the

civil servants and the problem there is you have a huge wall of

lobbying facing Whitehall to the extent that it was not the case 30

years ago. In those days the Civil Service was more self confident,

Now, it is taken this way and that. Ministers understandably want

better civil servants. Isn't it the pressure to try to politicise the

Civil Service? I think that is a red herring. On the whole, civil

servants do what they ministers want. The problem now, in

experienced ministers are up against... There are not 50

political lobbyists for nothing. These people are very potent in the

Government now. I joined the Civil Service in 1996, it was in reform

then and it has been in constant reform. One thing that does not get

addressed his ministerial behaviour and performance. It is about making

Government work better. I would like to see a plan on how to make

Government more effective and that it would involve ministers as well

as officials. What do you think of that? I had some sympathy for it.

Most ministers are drawn from a relatively small pool of MPs are

elected for the governing parties. But the Institute for Government,

the gentleman you interviewed earlier has made some proposals and

done some work with this Government and the opposition, to help get

ministers ready for the duties they will have to fulfil, how to deal

with a crisis for its sample. Maybe go through crisis-management with

people who have done it professionally. Or you can do is

make ministers better prepared for their job. Just before we leave it,

this 10%, the worst performing civil servants who will have a year

before they face dismissal, is that just amongst senior civil servants

or all rebels? My understanding is, one of the regular things that

comes up in surveys is the frustration that civil servants

have with the lack of performance management. People don't like to

work with other people who are lazy, incompetent or feckless. There is

no proper performance management in the Civil Service. I suspect it

goes through organisations as it will do with television talons as

well. As any working parent knows

childcare is an expensive business. The Government, which is keen to

encourage more parents back to work, has this morning launched a

consultation into how to make childcare more affordable. It could

lead the relaxation of some of the rules surrounding looking after

children and extending after school clubs. Kate Conway is on College

Green with more. Downing Street regards the costs of child care as

one of the most pressing issues for families worried about their living

standards. One MP has been pushing for changes in the childcare sector,

who joins me now. We also have the shadow children's minister. Liz,

what would you like to see change? Britain spends a lot on child care,

we spend more as the Government's, but we get less for our money.

Parents are paying 27% of their income in child care. I would like

to see the regulatory system slim down. I would like to see just

Ofsted regulating. I would like to see the ratios moved. We do have

the lowest ratio which pushes up costs for parents. I want to see

the funding streams reduced to just one funding scheme, so we are not

wasting money on the bureaucracy in the system. Lisa, we know one of

the reasons childminders have left the procession is because of the

curriculum in the system and the bureaucracy. What do we do about

that? The real reason childminders leave the profession is because of

the devaluing of the profession itself. 85% of child minders say

they welcome the individual inspections Liz is not keen on.

What we need to do if we want to cut costs to parents and the

Government, if we want to increase the clock -- quality and supply of

childminders, we have to raise the status of the profession. I am

concerned at some of the suggestions about removing what are

actually the props to increase standards for children Colton the

break -- ultimately is not in the interests of children. I am not

talking about reducing standards. The average child minder earns

about �11,000 a year. It is not enough to attract more people to

the profession. We have to look at what the rest of the world are

doing, they have Orazio of 5-1, and not 3-1. They can look at the more

children and offer better value. I am saying, let's slimline

deregulation has. At the moment, childminders are checked by Ofsted

and local authorities. Let's give nurseries are more power over what

they do, academy status like we do it in schools. We spent 7 billion,

3.5000 for each child care place. It is a lot of money and I want to

see more of that in the hands of parents going into higher charity

Best high quality childcare. It is because of the skills are working

in the industry in our country, but that is a contradiction. It is a

chicken and egg problem. If we are playing in a month wage, �11,000 a

year, it is difficult to recruit skilled people. Nurseries are

struggling to keep afloat, childminders are leaving. We have

half as many childminders as we did 10 years ago. In Holland, they have

a higher ratio, twice as many childminders per head as we do and

parents are satisfied with the flexible childcare they get. Lisa,

women are leaving the workplace and the number of women working has

been a problem for the past decade, it is not a recent problem. It

requires billions, in needs to be committed to proper universal

childcare we can all afford? Government has to make this a

priority. If we were in Government it would be the same. If you go to

countries like Sweden, Norway Denmark... It means billions though

doesn't it? It's is a priority in terms of raising the status of the

profession. I do disagree with Liz, the great parallel but this is in

social work. The Government had issued a report, which means

raising the status of the profession is the way to attract

good quality people. I support raising the status of the

profession. That is what I'm talking about. But that is not

about having tick box exercises and ratios out of line with other

countries. Thanks to both barer much -- very much. It will be a key

issue at the next election among women voters.

My guest, Simon Jenkins is the Chairman of the National Trust

which is probably best known as the organisation which looks after the

nation's historic houses and opens them to the public. But it's not

all Downton Abbey and cream teas. It's also Europe's biggest

conservation charity and a powerful voice lobbying the Government on

heritage, the environment and food policy. The National Trust was

founded in 1895. It looks after more than 300 historic houses along

with areas of natural beauty and hundreds of miles of coastline.

Membership now stands above four million. And with so many

supporters the Trust has a lot of clout. Last year it organised a

petition against the Government's proposals on planning reform

leading to significant changes. They were also involved in the

campaign that led to a government U-turn on plans to privatise that

nation's forests. And they've been raising concerns about the some of

the potential impacts of HS2. Some people have suggested that by

becoming involved in these campaigns, the Trust has become too

political. Simon Jenkins is of course the Chairman of the National

Trust and I'm also joined by Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas. Do

you think the allegation it has become too political is true?

are having an impact on the body politic. I was frustrated in

relation to the planning discussion. One of the big things we need at

the moment is to build more houses. It is hardly a great insight as the

housing stock has not been renewed and is at an all-time low. There is

something like -- about the National Trust, whilst I always

enjoyed the houses and natural beauty, they have become the

leaders of the green take brigade that stop us developing. And

because they are the National Trust, they get away with having the

credibility that comes with it, that means everybody has to stop

and listen. I kind of which they would keep out of the politics and

just look after the houses. They should keep out of the politics?

are not allowed to be political, we are a charity. We do campaign very

rarely. The any campaign we have launched in decades was on the

Planning Bill. It is usually political. You cannot save the

National Trust does not get involved in political campaigns?

Those campaigns to have political impact, there is no question about

that. But we do very little of it. But we were founded as a political

party. When you have a discussion on the need to develop on green-

belt land, often the National Trust, whether you like it or not is a

voice that suddenly gets heard. And the high-speed train is another one.

It is one thing about not liking the nitty-gritty of the Planning

Bill, but what is argued is, we shouldn't touch this green land,

places of natural beauty. It is scaremongering of the worst order.

We are going to build over every part of the natural world. Only 10%

of the UK is developed. You must be the last person speaking on the

first draft of that bill. arguments used was not nit-picking?

We criticise the document. It was something like this will lead to

the greater sprawl into the countryside since the 1930s. That

is true. That came from the CPRE, but we supported little stock it

was a quote from your website. point I'm making it is was not on

the finer details, it was a broad brush, frightening tactics. If you

look at the amendments, it will hold things back again. On the main

point, no one is opposing development. This was a question of

whether you give in to two lobbies. One was a high-speed train

construction lobby and the House builders Federation. They want to

build on green land which is cheap and profitable. We want to build in

towns, where the infrastructure is in place. There is no shortage of

land in this country. There is no shortage of land in this country,

some of it is green. There is nothing wrong with building there.

Sprawl is what is called ordinary people having homes in new places

and not being crowded in around towns that are already overcrowded.

What you had just said is a broader, ideological political statement and

fiddling around the edges of the bill. Should you be playing that

role? Our mission is to defend the open spaces of England. I cannot

pretend we are in favour of building houses every work. We

wouldn't have done this if it wasn't for the first terrible

document. It was a building permit system. Nobody in England wants to

see the sort of thing you have got in Ireland. Claire's general point

is the National Trust has a vision clearly set out. Is it using that

romantic vision for Britain which does not represent all parts of the

country, but it has so much power and clowns that it is being

unfairly represented? It has no more cloud than anybody from the

Guardian would have said. Most people want to defend green belt.

The National Trust is in danger of getting jumbled up with the kind of

environmentalism default position, which is to argue against

development. I don't think the National Trust should do it.

There's nothing wrong with the National Trust having old houses.

I'm not suggesting we knock-down all the great places you defend and

built tower blocks. But there is a danger there is a sense we are

saying, sustainability. That means limits. There is endless attempts

to say that we shouldn't do. We need more high-speed rail. My

problem with it is we haven't built at high speed link since the

Victorian era. Just because they hold the opposing view and it is

the National Trust, it is still legitimate? I'm not arguing they

shouldn't speak. This was set up as that kind of discussion. We should

be open about the fact you are lobbying and political. So we

should have a political argument about it. We are lobbying. I won't

buy into the high-speed rail lobby, it is a commercial, industrial

lobby. Our argument is dispassionate. We are not opposed

to development. I travelled the country looking at brownfield sites.

I have never seen so much land. think we should build on them, too.

We will get you to back together. It is 38 days and counting since

the Olympics gets under way. The Government say it will come in on

time at around half a billion pounds under budget, and most of

the buildings have commercial plans agreed by after the Games. So for

those like Simon Jenkins, who criticised the plans, and wrong

after all? Under budget and on time - the kind

of headline Olympic organisers would have dreamed of when this

project first got off the ground. The venue's completed a year ago

were built by thousands of different companies simultaneously.

Allergist will challenge that deserves applause, according to the

firm who built the aquatic centre. We have had multiple contractors.

Most of the big names in the industry have been working on the

infrastructure. Most of the people involved in the delivery, the

establishment of the logistics centres for materials and equipment

moving. It was a complicated undertaking and underlines the

achievement of having done it in the time and ahead of when it is

It was a different picture in Athens eight years ago and the

government has been keen to point out the 2012 games will come in

under budget. It was announced early this month that �476 million

will be left over from the entire budget. And that the extra �19

million needed to cover crowd control and public information

costs would be paid for from money within the Olympic budget. But the

cost of building all of this have been estimated at 2.4 billion when

first -- London first got the game's seven years ago. -- the

games. Simon Jenkins was watching that and I'm also joined by soon to

be Dame Tessa -- so it has cost more then than it was thought it

would. But what happens after the Games are over? This man spent the

last three years working that out. The Olympic Park is not just a

sports stadium but also communities, five new neighbourhoods, 7,000

homes, it is all integrated. Most of these venues already have their

legacy uses secured so we know there will not be white elephants

here. But will there be ducks? This was Barcelona's diving Centre on

our last visit, now largely unused since the 1992 games but there have

been success stories in Barcelona like the beach built for the

Olympics Andy games enhance the city's image with visitor numbers

of -- visitor numbers doubled in the decade that followed. You have

the largest urban Mall in Europe, an interest in housing all around,

you cannot get the housing development and that is because the

Olympics accelerated that process. It would not have happened but for

the Olympic Investment. So there is confidence here that the Games will

not be overshadowed by a less than lasting legacy.

Simon Jenkins was watching that as well as Dame Tessa Jowell, Olympics

minister under the last government and now a shadow minister for the

Games. Welcome. So it has come in on time under budget. Are you

relieved? I expected it. If you travel the budget. That is not an

issue. I have always been impressed by the capacity of the British

construction industry to do a good job. I congratulate them on it. It

is also a wonderful sight, park, I am still sceptical about all the

legacy but there will be legacy there. You can argue whether it

should have cost 9 billion and yesterday it was at Greenwich which

has been completely destroyed by a huge stadium. It was supposed to be

in a park. Some of the things work, like Stratford, some things have

not worked, I think Greenwich is an outrage. It is a great triumph for

British construction, no argument. What about the issue of legacy. We

heard there that that part of London would not have got the

regeneration it clearly has an that will benefit not just that area but

will have wider repercussions economically, too. Maybe. There is

no evidence it has affected house prices. But that aside, if you have

to have an Olympics to find 9 billion to regenerate east London

it is a poor, and on our democracy. Is this really the only way to

regenerate the East End? Is it? it would not have happened had we

not won the right to host the We have accelerated the

regeneration of that area in six years with regeneration of 60 years.

We submitted an indicative budget which did not take full account of

our regeneration. 75p of every pound of the roundabout 7 billion

that will have been spent on building the park will have been

spent on regeneration. Cleaning the soil, decontaminating soil, getting

rid of the waterlogging. So we not only have the largest new urban

parking Europe for 150 years but new homes, 2,800 homes after the

Games. More homes to be built over the next 15 years. Is that down to

the Olympics legacy, or improve transport links. The improved links

were intensified and increased by virtue of the Olympics. Certainly

the Westfield shopping centre was planned for some time but remember,

a round-the-world, retail developers were pulling out of

shopping centres. The Lowing family said with that -- stuck with that.

The Retail Academy is training and people from the area in the retail

industry. -- young people. Do you think the economic boost will

In a way, part of the legacy has been realised and �6 billion into

UK plc not just in London but firms around the country so when you look

at the Olympic Park, the stadium, you can tell a story of

construction and skill brought from the whole of the UK. That was very

important in 2008 when the downturn really hit the construction

industry. What about the effect on other lives of Londoners? I don't

It is going to be a disaster for London's hotels. One third of them

will be empty in August. It is a catastrophe for anybody working in

London. Raising the expectations that everybody will make a mint out

of it was unhelpful because it will lead a lot of people to invest in

things which will not be there for the Olympics. It is wrong to

persuade people this is a fantastic event, it will be some Olympic

Games, let's enjoy them. Have expectations been ever managed in a

sense? There is a worry at the lives of Londoners will be a

nightmare trying to get to work, carrying on normal business. They

have been told not to work. Or to work from home. But many people in

London already do. I think they will be days in London where it

will be very hard to go about your normal business. But five days in

an Olympics, and overwhelmingly London is looking forward to this

and looking forward to welcoming people from around the world. And

of course there will be days there will be difficult and there were

days when if you are not going to see something in the mouth I would

probably stay away from central London and go and watch the events

on the big screens. But is it justified to making London's

subservient to Olympic the IPs, with special lanes and extra fast

emergency treatment, it was Olympic lanes are to avoid the

situation that happened in Atlanta where summer Olympic -- athletes

missed their events because of traffic. And what about the media?

They are the greatest users, 18,000 media will use the Olympic lanes.

Why can't they get their earlier? It is so the games out in East

London can get easily to the park, but the quickest way if you are not

in an Olympic Lane is to get public transport. Seven minutes from

King's Cross to Stratford would not have happened without the Olympics.

Are you going? Like almost all Londoners I have been told to get

out. The government is engineering a recession this summer. I would

like to know how it can be a profit for London. I hope they are a great

success but honestly, to inflict this on London was not kind. Ready?

Is that not a bit killjoy? There has been no boost when the Olympic

city so the argument for London was it would be different, it will not

be. The displacement effect is distinctive. No other tourists are

coming to London this summer. That is a big loss. But they will come

after this year, which is how you build the long-term tourism legacy.

They were coming anyway. I will stop you there. Enjoy. I don't

think you'll get anywhere with that. It has been going on for years!

Conservatives' chief fund raiser has been forced to resign. Lord

think has been accused by Labour of breaking parliamentary rules after

he agreed to host a dinner for American Express cardholders. He

said he had agreed to sponsor the dinner in return for a donation to

Guy's and St Thomas's Hospital in London but Labour says this was a

"flagrant attempt to breach the rules" and have called on him to

resign or be sacked. The Conservatives say the event was

cancelled last week when it became clear it may have been in breach of

the rules. Lord Fink was appointed to treasurer in March, replacing

Peter goddess. He had to resign after being secretly filmed

apparently offering access to David Cameron for a donation of �250,000.

Labour said yesterday that he should resign, is that still your

position? He certainly has to consider his position. The rules

have been very clear after this practice of selling space in

Parliament came a few years ago. What we all are you claiming Lord

Fink has broken? It has been categorical you cannot use

Parliament for fund raising -- rule. You cannot even have a charity

auction, those are the rules. Whether that should change is

another matter but those are the roles and the reason they are there

is because one person's charity as another person's political

operation. But you would not argue Guy's and St Thomas's is not a

valid cause in a sense. And charities do advertise openly on

line dinners, don't they? So I don't see how this was a fundraiser

in the way you put it. It was not for commercial benefit. It was a

fundraiser for charity and the danger with that there are good

charities and ambiguous ones. It is to stop parties and politicians

using Westminster to fund raised. That was endemic and it should not

be allowed, that is why it. To. The rules are clear. Endemic under

Labour? All parties were doing it, particularly the Tories. The rules

are clear and the Tories do not seem to have any systems in place

for keeping control of their top You have set out it is a breach of

the Rolls. But is it really appropriate to say he should

resign? The dinner never happened. I would call it a minor breach of

the rules. However, he is a major figure Andy. It's if you are in

charge of fund-raising for the Conservative Party and you are

breaking rules on the fund raising there is a hugely bigger problem --

and the point is. People doing fund-raising have to be absolute on

the Rolls, otherwise everything is a grey area. We have had enough

problems with politicians and money, which is why the rules must be

absolute. It is a minor breach of the rules and although there has

been a lot of controversy about fund-raising and donations, it is

not the same as the allegation against the former treasurer.

do not want to abuse Parliament but in all my life I have been going to

events in Parliament which are quite clearly designed to raise

money for somebody somewhere. I would get the whole lot out. It is

a place for MPs and secretaries and that is it. You go there now and

the place is of Rausch -- awash with the lobbyists and others.

they being fairly used and attributed? If it is going on all

I was amazed to hear this rule. There are going on all the time.

The rule came up after another MP and myself could do about the party

political funding. The dining rooms were full of it every night, people

bringing people to sell spaces, access. Parliament belongs to the

Is it just too much of an exaggeration to say Lord Fink

should resign, and is it failure in the Conservative Party? Who is

running the Conservative Party at the top. It is not a minor MP. A

man at the top doing fundraising. If you are breaching the rules,

however minor on fund-raising, there is a bigger problem. If you

breached one well, the danger is you will reach another one. The you

are happy to go through labour politicians? Every politician,

every politician. It's very rare these days that a British

politician is proud to say they are taking their policies from Europe,

but the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson seems to be the exception.

Under pressure from cyclists during the mayoral elections, Boris

Johnson signed up to the "Love London, Go Dutch" campaign,

agreeing to adopt some of the cycling policies from Europe's

number one cycling nation. So could our towns and cities be as cycling

mad as the Dutch? Andrew Cryan went to Holland to find out.

No helmets, no high-visibility jackets and no panic look on

people's faces. Welcome to Holland, the No. 1 Cycling City. Between 50

and 60% of Transport is done on a bicycle. Compare that to London,

which is only 3%. But this is down two decades of sometimes very

controversial decisions. Once upon a time, Holland had similar traffic

to the UK, congested roads were hard for cyclists. By the 1970s,

the soaring number of road deaths involving children became an

outrage. Dutch politicians are made an enemy of the car and a friend of

the bicycle. This man was one of them. There was a strong resentment

towards the car. The idea this street is something you play on as

a child, that you should had comfort, it should be comfortable

to shop and walk around was a strong sentiment. We did not call

it ecological, but it was in a sense. What was important is there

was a strong political debate on who is the owner of the street.

winner here was definitely the bicycle. It is easy to see how they

did it. Cars and bikes were separated whenever possible. And

where they meet, cyclists have the priority, like on this roundabout.

There are special traffic lights and parking your bike is very

rarely a problem, at a local railway station they have 6,000

spaces. At London Bridge there is just 400., this is beautiful to

cycle, but can we apply it to London? A lot of cyclists think we

can. Before this Lord Mayor election, the streets of the

capital were filled with people who want to go Dutch. The Lord Mayor

signed up to the campaign. But anyone expecting London's roads to

be the same as the Netherlands, after just four years, shouldn't

hold their breath. Joining me now is Mustafa Arif,

Chair of Campaigns at the London Cycling Campaign. Are you

advocating cyclists should own the streets of London? The people

should own the streets. We want London to be a more Liverpool city

for everyone by making it as safe and inviting the cycling as in

Holland. How do you make those streets safer? You saw some

techniques in the film where they have reduced and closed off through

traffic in busy, urban centres. But there is a whole range of solutions,

that is used in some places. In other places they will separate and

segregate the traffic on the streets so they have separate lanes

for the cycles. You're talking about a different infrastructure on

the roads. Separation of cyclists and vehicles and better lanes for

cyclists, even when they are Longside vehicles? Separation and

better quality. Were that be better for London, less dependency on the

car and public transport? There is a lot of traffic, and most of that

film was taken in small backstreets of small towns. Be could work in

other cities across the UK? It does, it works in Oxford and Cambridge

and plenty of places I have been through. But the great breakthrough

will come, if you don't endlessly separate. You create a pattern of a

street in which everyone is using it all of the time. Traffic is

slowed down but you don't separate. You make sure people, cars, buses

and cyclists police each other. As in Germany, in Holland and other

places in Europe, accidents reduced. Speed reduces, and it is safer.

That is changing culture which will be hard to do it you don't do

anything to the infrastructure? Dutch do not wear helmets. Why

don't they were Helmut? They know it is safe. Sometimes it is

mechanical, to make it easier for people to use the streets. If you

have endless flights, signs and lanes, cars think they are safe,

everybody thinks they are safe when they are not. His that the vision

on how we should progress? Hands Mandolin is not seen as the

authority of traffic engineering in the Netherlands. There is a quote

from the head of bicycle lane design in Amsterdam, he said he had

not heard of this policy. They do have reduced accident rates, but

you see in those areas that people cycle less. I used to be a student

at Imperial College and I did campaign for the scheme will stop I

do regret that because I know from students and staff who last over,

they hate it. It as made this street more dangerous because they

did not reduce the amount of traffic to make it work. Traffic

speed has gone down. But the number of cyclists have gone up. In London,

and other cities, and in other cities around the UK, it might be

easier to use the technique, but in London it is not safe enough is it

with the high number of vehicles that exist without separation?

You'll not get exclusive cycle routes in London. The most

problematic thing in London, is a lot of people using the street.

There is no way you can separate them, but you might make them safer

by slowing the traffic. There are a dozen different ways on slowing the

traffic, you have to do it. Transport for London assumed half

of all car journeys are under two miles. A lot of the journeys could

be done by bicycle. People will do it if they felt it is safe enough.

It is viable on the main roads to have separate space.

The next instalment of the Alistair Campbell Diaries is out and yet

again it's causing front page news. However there's another set of

diaries from that era that's also been causing quite a stir, so much

so that they've been turned into a play that's about to hit the West

End. Called 'A Walk-On Part', it's been adapted from the diaries of

the former Labour Minister Chris Mullin, and gives a unique insight

into the workings of the New Labour government. Here's a sneak preview

of their rehearsals where then Prime Minister Tony Blair, is being

quizzed about plans to clip Rupert Murdoch's wings.

I am much sure it is a good idea. He is trying to sink his

competitors with pricing? Are we sure that is what he is trying to

do? He is trying to destroy the Independent and we have to stop him.

Somebody, even myself might be tempted to put it back in. If you

think it is a good idea, Chris, go ahead but Tom's amendment must go.

We have to come into line with Europe. They have Murdoch and we

haven't. I have a date with Bill Clinton. All affability again, the

man is off to catch Concorde. Joining me now is Chris Mullin and

the actor who's playing Chris Mullin, John Hodgkinson.

Why do you think it works so well on the stage? It is presenting a

different view of politicians. The general public, most of us feel

with justification, politicians are crooks and charlatans, and this is

one who isn't. You could not have put it better yourself, Chris

Mullin's Bostock I could not. It does work very effectively?

Astonishingly well. I was sceptical when they said they wanted to do it.

There is some brilliant acting, and standing in the case of John.

has got your voice quite well. is quite similar in many ways.

long did you have to practise that? Not long. When I went to see the

rehearsal in Newcastle, they asked what I thought of his performance.

I said the last person who played make was John Howard, he was better

than John Hurt. The other actors made him a T-shirt with "better

than John Hurt". We played the clip talking about Rupert Murdoch. An

example that deep-seated problems affect all governments, and things

don't change that much? Howard Flight to thing I saw Rupert

Murdoch coming slightly ahead of the curve. Within a few months of

Tony Blair being elected I pursued the matter with him. -- I would

like to think. There has been a trip through political history in

that sense. From an acting point of view, do you have to be interested

in politics on note the subject matter? Not from an acting point of

view, but I was already a fan. I was enthusiastic. It is not the

actor's job to be interested in the subject matter, it is the actor's

job betray it interestingly and truthfully. You do play different

roles. Without knowing the subject matter, having to come in so

quickly would be difficult, if you weren't familiar with what had gone

wrong? We have all developed an interest than most of us already

had, in the rehearsal. Are you surprised it was Chris Mullin's

diaries that made it to the stage? No, we do share a publisher, so I

might as well not be too flattering. I am fascinated about diaries. The

best diaries are often not from people who get to the top. The

great thing is the self deprecating quality. It also makes it a very

truth. The diaries just rang true. And they rarely translate it on

stage. I don't think Alastair Campbell's diaries or make it.

does not always work and it does not always work when it is

political. Just time be far we go Simon Jenkins, what happens. They

get fatter. I am still the same weight as I went in. Thanks to both

of you and thanks to my guests. Particularly Simon Jenkins. The