04/03/2013 Daily Politics

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. How do you stop a

sudden influx of immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania? The

Government sthis it can do it by impose -- thinks it can do it by

imposing tougher rules on benefits. The catch - British citizens may be

affected too. Surprise, surprise, Tory right-wingers call on David

Cameron to cut taxes in the Budget later this month. She's the only

female Prime Minister Britain has ever had, but should Mrs Thatcher

get a statue in her home town of Grantham? Labour say yes, the

Tories say, no. We have found MPs with a cause -

they get what they want in the end but sometimes through more

inventive means. All that in the next hour, ve. With us for the

first half of the programme is Jude Kelly, the artistic director of the

Southbank Centre in London. She sat on the board of the Cultural

Olympiad for the Olympic Games. Welcome to the programme. Thank you.

This week, the Southbank Centre is hosting the Women of the World

festival, which promises live music, comedy and passionate debate. A big

title - what is it all about? celebrating what women have

achieved in this country and across the world. It is posing the

questions about what is stopping their potential being fully

realised. So the celebration is the festival side of it. It's all kind

of women from astronauts, women in the British Army, sports women,

including Gillingham lady's football team. Do you have a vested

interest in that? Just to cheer them on. It is to show the range of

skills, expertise and commitments women are making in civil society

and domestic questions. What are we doing about girls' education across

the world? What are we doing about women in public life? There's been

a report showing that women's progress is not as fast as it

should be. Why do you think it is not as fast as it should be in the

UK? There's still a combination of women themselves putting barrier

into their own progress on the grounds they feel that maybe they

cannot do it all, maybe not have the work-life balance. Sometimes

they feel dismayed and pushed back. They don't have the same networking

systems the men have yet. There are some very obvious attitudes that

still prevail. You would be surprised, but they do prevail

about what is suitable for women and what is suitable for men.

woman, in a position like yours, to you promote women enough in your

own mind? Do you recruit enough women who are of merit to do the

job? I do. I know I do. At the Southbank Centre, we're a huge

emplayer in terms of the arts. We have staggeringly good women and

good men, I should stress. On merit is correct. I also think that, as a

woman, I can spot a woman's potential. I can spot when they are

self-doubting. If you hear a story about yourself often enough that

women cannot do things, it is easy to internalise that and say, "I can

do it." I am trying to say "ambition" is not a dirty woman for

a woman. Are you a feminist as well? It is one of the posed posed

- can a woman wear high heels? think that a feminist can really do

anything they want to. I don't think there's a rule book. There is

not a rule book about what feminists should or shouldn't be

like or look like. What feminists are, are people who believe in

equality for women. It is as simple as that. You have to believe that

women are entitled to an equal share of what is available in the

world to realise their potential. That is not the same as saying men

and women are identical in every way. In fact, I was watching the

other day a wonderful documentary about the West Indian cricket team

and looking at how they had really set out to demonstrate that the

notion of racism in sport, ie, who could achieve and who couldn't was

something that eventually white and black together came around to say,

this has to change. I am keen that men should support their wives,

their daughters to have equal opportunities. You have a lot of

men at this festival too? We have men at this too. Absolutely, yes!

Grantham was home to Britain's first and only woman Prime Minister,

Margaret Thatcher. We will have more on her later in the programme.

What are the female first can be attributed to the town? Was it home

to the first women to be a firefighter, a brain surgeon, an

astronaut, or a police officer? An interesting question. We will

give you the correct answer at the end of the show. What price

culture? The Arts Council distributed �310 million of

taxpayers' money in 2012 and 2013, slashed by �40 million on the

previous financial year. Should arts be subsidised at all? This is

at a time public services are being cut? Our guest of the day thinks so.

But Philip Booth from the institute of artistic affairs begs to differ.

London's South Bank - vibrant art to satisfy our cultural yearnings.

It comes at a price. Whether we like it or not.

Those who wish to cut Government funding of the arts are branded

fill stiens or ignorant. Culture is supposed to broaden the mind, yet

it appears some people are incapable of holding a rational

argument. Before 1946 the Government's funding of the arts

took off. England's rich tradition developed funding. Art had to

appeal to the people rather than to the Government or bureaucrats N the

16th century, British theatre developed a public acclaim,

precisely because it had to appeal to the public.

In his day Shakes-Drayton was commercially successful and pop --

Shakespeare was commercially success and popular.

Is state-funding the only option now? The Globe does not receive

state funding and its ticket prices are no higher than those of the

Royal Shake peers Company. The Gilbert hall, the Fitwilliam - the

list of cultural institutions which to which this age gave rise without

Government support is endless. In contrast, what does the Arts

Council do for us? It centralises state funding. 50% of its money is

spent in London. 3% in the eastern region of England. 3% in the East

Midlands and 5% in the North-East. It spends about as much on

administration as it does on these three regions of England put

together. After much-resisted cuts, the Arts Council will have nearly

one employee for every �1 million given out in tpwrapbtds. In 2008,

the Arts Council had 50 communication officers, no wonder

it is such a good advocate. The state cries out for private funding

and raises costs. Would it not be a sign of a less fill stien nation if

those who consumed the arts had a more active interest in their

support? Can the arts survive without state funding? Not if it

wants to reach as many people as possible with the rich programme

which has made Britain famous. I do agree with the last point, that

those who consume the arts, some of them, if they have the ability,

could be greater in terms of their fill lan introduce pi. We have at

the end of our society some very rich people, for whom the patronage

of the arts is not a normal activity like in the States. I

would not recommend what they do in the States, which is basically...

The theatres, certainly in London seem to be packed most nights.

There are a lot of people willing to pay. Why don't people at the

better end off end of the scale give more of their income to the

arts? I think the habit, which did support a lot of the 17th, 18th and

19th century work, the habit has not been - it has not got into the

blood stream in the British culture, in the way it does in America. The

downside of America is if their national endowment scheme starts to

fall, as it has by billions, or if people are short of cash, which

they are, actually it fractures and collapses. The American mod sl a

very poor one to use -- model is a very poor one to use. The UK has

one of the most sophisticated and arts structures in the world. The

amount of cash generates is enormous. Can taxpayers afford it?

I think they can. 25p a week from each taxpayer goes on the arts.

There are free museums, free galleries. Had he filmed yesterday,

thousands of people were coming for the Restless Noise Festival, which

for �25 for a weekend gives them classes, workshops, debates,

concerts, films, et cetera. A lot of those people could never afford

premium price tickets or tickets at any price. This is about extending

the value of the arts for the many, not the few. We don't want

education for the few, we don't want arts for the few. Jude Kelly

says taxpayers can afford to subsidise the arts and should

continue to do so because of the money that is generated as a result.

Well, this is not a matter of affordability. It is a matter of

what is the best way to finance the arts, whether they should be

financed through taxation and through, if you like, bureaucratic

control of the arts industry, or whether they should be financed by

those who consume the arts, those who wish to contribute to the arts.

There is evidence which suggests when you get taxpayer financing of

the arts it raises the cost-base. It does not raise opportunities for

people to attend the arts at all. It crowds out private funding,

which is low in this country. Without state funding, it would

collapse. We would not have the range of arts we have. For example,

we might go back to the environment which existed in the UK before the

Arts Council started to hugely increase Government funding on the

arts, in 1946. I don't see that as a cultural desert at all. You would

end up without all the theatres, all the ballet companies. You would

not have any of the art output, which is so produce livic around

the country. These companies are doing work

which could not be paid for by those giving money. Those who love

the arts, let's take Wagner. People will go and pay a fortune for it,

because that is what they do with their money. You want to say that

opera is as form, as in Italy when it started, should be there for

everyone. I don't think the only way subsidy should be there for the

arts - I think the arts looks at what we believe civil society

should be about, that is not just a trickle down from above. Civil

society should not be captured by the state. Arts and culture should

be embedded within civil society, rather than provided to civil

society by the state. In Italy, you talk about state funding and opera

available to everybody. If you look at those institutions which are

most heavily reliant on state funding, they are no more

accessible to the ordinary individual on average earnings to

those individuals. At the Southbank Centre we reach millions of people.

Millions of whom are on low incomes. They could not afford it and they

would not be able to be included as well. If you said, unless you are

interested you could not do that. As in Shakespeare's day.

That's not true T monarchy was the state at the time. It is not true.

You two, I know, could talk about this for hours. Thank you for doing

the film. Tens of thousands of police officers voted for the right

to take industrial action. 45,000 of the Police Federation members

voted yes. 10,000 voted no. The measure was defeated as the

federation needs a majority of members to vote in favour for a

change of the law. More than half didn't take part in the vote. As

servants of the Crown, policemen don't have the right to strike. In

a moment, we will be joined by Damian Green. First let's speak to

the chair of the Police Federation. There just wasn't enough support

amongst your members. Not enough It sends a clear message to

Government that 81% of the people who voted, over a third of police

officers in England and Wales, wish to seek the right for industrial

action. Now they're concerned, they're very angry and disappointed

at what this Government is doing to the Police Service. What about all

the people who didn't come and vote? They obviously disagree.

that's not necessarily the case. I didn't wish to comment on why

people haven't voted but the significant number - if you compare

that to the relation of Police and Crime Commissioners election, 34%

of police officers are extremely annoyed about what the Government

are doing and we need to engage and I think the Government needs to

take a clear message of what this actually means. We will ask, we are

going to ask the Government in a moment. I come back to the numbers

that didn't vote. Why do you think they didn't? Well, it was my job to

make sure that officers up and down the country in the months that led

up to the ballot taking place were provided with sufficient detail and

that took all different formats, from video recordings, to messages,

to e-mails, to literature, so that when they cast their vote they did

so from an informed position. That was very, very important because it

is of such significant importance. Right. I come back to this point

again. They felt they - they didn't feel strongly enough that they do

want the right to strike or don't feel strongly enough about the

Government's reforms, unlike the rest of the members who did which

means off divided federation or members of the federation. Well, we

have an awful lot of officers who feel very strongly about what's

happening to the Police Service. I do think the Government need to

take heed of that message. Thank you.

Damian Green is here now. Not enough people came out to vote in

this particular ballot. But the strength of feeling as Steve

Williams described must be worrying for the Government, particularly

for a Tory-led Government? I am conscious of the strength of

feeling which is what you would expect at a time where we have had

to keep pay down, we have had to reform pensions and so on. But it's

hugely encouraging that two thirds of police officers don't even want

to contemplate the right to strike. That's very sensible, they do an

important job. They're doing it successfully, crime is down 10% in

the first two years of this Government. We can take this as a

step to move forward with the sensible talks we have to have.

That doesn't mean those people who decided not to vote doesn't mean

they're supporting your reforms if the Police Federation is right. You

have got a significant number of police officers, 45,000 who wanted

to seek the trite strike. That's -- the right to strike. That's a

dramatic move by those police officers for the first time in this

country, even if the others stayed at home and are unhappy still about

what you are doing. Some of the others actively voted against. I

think the issue of the right to strike has been put to bed. The

police... Is that it now? It seems to be so. They've had this ballot

and the Police Federation sensibly set a 50% hurdle that they needed

half the membership to vote yes to proceed with negotiations. I I

think that's sensible. Trade unions should perhaps take some lessons

from that. How would you characterise relationships between

the government and police? They're fragile because of all the

necessary measures swre had to take. The police budget is �14 billion a

year. A time where we have to be tough on the public finances, the

police have had to take their share. You still see them as the last

unreformed public service as someone said about the police?

someone, but not me said that. don't believe that? Precisely

because we have been embarking on huge reforms. Not just to pay and

pensions, which is what obviously the officers themselves are

concerned on, but introduced the College of Policing, Police and

Crime Commissioners, we are introducing the National Crime

Agency, so big reforms that allow the police to get better at their

very vital job. As I say, they are doing it well at the moment. The

figures show that crime is coming down. You have said relations are

fragile. What are you doing to improve those relations? Talking in

practical terms on a regular basis to the Police Federation and to

other ranks, but also making it easier for the police to do the job

they all join up to do, stripping away the bureaucracy, stopping some

of the unnecessary form-filling. Thousands of them don't understand

it, clearly, otherwise they wouldn't have voted in this

election. It's not so much they don't understand, they understand

perfectly what's going on. They don't like it. Nobody is happy...

You haven't brought them on board is what I am saying. Nobody is

unhappy when they have a two-year pay freeze or pensions have to be

reformed. That's not surprising. What's significant about the result

is that even with all of those necessary pressures, two thirds of

the Police Federation members decided they didn't even want to

negotiate about the right to strike. I think we can draw a line here and

say let's go forward. The reforms are making police better in this

country. We can have sensible talks with the Police Federation. Do you

think the reforms are the right way to go in terms of the police?

just thinking that the critical thing for a lay person like myself

and the public is that you arrive at a police force who are motivated,

vocational, committed, and progressive. The last thing you

want is a hard done by feeling amongst police who, whether they

strike or not, might feel that they're undervalued by us and we

only have the Government to value them. We can't personally value

them. I think the thing I most feel about this is that it's not a

debate that's included, even though the voting for police Commissioners

was something that came into being, I don't think that the public,

generally, feel they're involved in this debate in a way they

understand clearly enough. That would worry me. They are our police

force. What do you say to that? What's important is everyone

recognises the police themselves and the public and that we are

trying to increase the professionalism of the police,

that's why we have the College of Policing and also introducing much

more transparency so things that really worry the public,

Hillsborough, some of the scandals like that, are seen clearly to be

things in the past that couldn't happen now and won't happen in the

future. That's the aim. You were a former immigration Minister, we are

going to talk about immigration in the next thing, can I ask you what

would you like to see, new measures brought in to try and curb the

rights of Bulgarians and Romanians who will come later this year?

other Ministers are doing is making very sure that people can't come to

this country, whether they come from the EU or elsewhere, to

exploit either the benefits system or our free at the point of use

National Health Service, that's what really annoys people. Will

British citizens be affected? the work's being done. I am not

involved with the detailed work. Are you worried about that? That is

the quid pro quo, is British citizens may be affected, too.

People want to see a National Health Service that is not an

international health service. They want to see a benefits system that

pays benefits to disadvantaged people or elderly people who

deserve them in this country. But which can't be exploited by people

coming here for that very purpose and that I know is the thrust of

the work going on in Government now. Don't forget, overall immigration

numbers are coming down. The pledge we made at the election was to

bring it down to tens of thousands. It's down by more than a quarter.

Thank you very much. There have been rumours for weeks

but it seems the Government have finally decided to introduce curbs

on benefits for migrants. It's thought any changes will need to

apply to Brits, as well. What are they suggesting?

Government sources have confirmed that Ministers are examining

options to restrict the amount of free healthcare the NHS provides

for immigrants. This could include a crackdown on

charging to ensure non-resident citizens pay for their NHS

treatment. Ministers are also considering

extending the what bitual residency test so migrants might have to wait

six months or a year before being granted residency and therefore

hospital care or other benefits. Cabinet sources have also confirmed

that the Government is looking at encouraging local councils to give

priority on housing waiting lists to local families ahead of any

outsiders. Government sources have said Ministers are prepared to

introduce across the board curbs on benefits for migrants in the near

future, which is expected to be before the Queen's Speech in May.

All these measures will, the Government hopes, bring the UK in

line with policies in other European member states, already

deemed legal by the European Court of Justice. I am joined by the

Labour MP Frank Field who co-chairs a cross-party parliamentary group

on balanced migration and by the Conservative MP Stewart Jackson. Is

Britain a soft touch for immigrants? Well, potentially yes,

it is. Actually, the disappointing thing is that the Government had

the opportunity many months ago to look at these issues and also to

look at the issues that arose from my ten-minute rule Bill in October

which was about the disapplication of the free movement directive

which would have copied some of of the things happening in Spain, and

it is important also to recognise that the free movement directive is

not a tablet of stone, it's a flexible legal document and

ministers should have been working on this months, if not years ago.

Isn't the truth that they have been working on this? This hasn't come

about just as a result of the Eastleigh by-election. That may

have given the issue some oxygen, but Ministers have been looking at

what rights immigrants will have later this year in terms of access

to benefits? Could have followed me - we have been pressing the

government over the last two years on a number of fronts. First of all,

on health. In July last year, the Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt,

agreed that our health service should should kraez to be a

national one and be an international one -- cease. He said

nothing to do with me, governor, we have a group, they've made this now

legal. I thought a Secretary of State's job was to stop those sorts

of things happening. Also over the last two years, we have been

lobbying the Government about access to social, what many people

call council housing. Again, saying you don't - local authorities don't

tell you to whom they're giving housing to. We are suggesting it

should be to British citizens. If you haven't actually registered as

a British citizen, should you be getting council council... Don't

local authorities already have some of those powers that you can favour

residents or locals over others? They can do but Government refuses

to actually make it mandatory and refuses to collect accurate data on

both those fronts. Both on health, and on housing. Of course, there is

a much bigger issue, and our welfare and health services are

similar to Britain in 1940. We have no defences. If you look, for

example, we changed our welfare state from one which started out

you had to contribute to one, if you prove low income you have it

and that's the problem of us defending welfare against movement

of Labour in Europe. Why has the Government been reluctant to tackle

this, bearing in mind they've had this target which they're getting

closer to of reducing immigration to tens of thousands, wouldn't this

have fitted, even though it is obviously within the EU and they

can't stop the movement of people, even if they wanted to, why hasn't

the Government grasped this issue? There's been a lack of political

will, frankly. They are beholden to lawyers who say you can't do it

because it will fall foul. Does it fall foul? I understood there were

powers for the National Health Service, obviously not on accident

and emergency grounds but on general grounds they don't have to

do this without some sort of pay up front and the same with local

councils. The thing is let's take a chance on it, because if we

actually invoke the caveat in the free movement directive on public

good, public security, public health, it will take 18 months to

get to the European Court of justice to be tested. Is this being

blown out of proportion? We don't have figures for the numbers of

Bulgarians and Romanians... We do. We don't know exactly. Swre had

Government -- we have had Government Ministers saying it's

impossible to collect data and why scaremonger. The Government's own

data shows there is 150,000 Romanians and Bulgarians here

already claiming to be self- employed. The Government doesn't

know where they are. Doesn't know whether they are self-employed,

doesn't know whether they're claiming benefits. This is what I

mean when I said earlier there are no defences. What we have seen in

our welfare state is moved from one where you had to prove contribution,

to one where you get it if you can prove need. There is no defence in

European law against that, because as anybody - any Brit can turn up

in those circumstances, we have to offer the same services to people

who actually come to this country. We have to be robust as they are in

Spain where they have a registration scheme. They're using

the free movement directive to the enth degree and we have to do that

to protect public services and our employment market. What about

changes that will affect British citizens and their rights to claim?

Are you not worried about that? don't think they have quite the

same impab on the jobs -- impact on the jobs market. The fact that we

had unplanned an unrestriked EU my -- unrestricted EU migration has

contributed to the embedding of welfare dependency and unskilled

people being on benefits, rather than in work. I think that needs to

be looked at holistically as inissue that we are going to have

again with Romanians and Bulgarians if we are not careful. Is this

something you are worried about? Yes, I hope we don't get to the

stage where Romanians and Bulgarians stand in for a sort of

catch-all phrase that means they're bad, because that quickly becomes

racism. You are talking about specific policies that suggest

people can actually - can come here and claim benefits. Broadly

speaking, I think that I am completely with you on the fact

that - I remember with Barking, how much we suddenly realised there was

a wake-up call where you thought that if people in Barking cannot

plan for their family's future and don't know what economic

possibilities their children can have, this is going to produce

massive chaos in terms of social integration. Labour didn't deal

with it at the time. I hope we will make a clear statement that we want

to move welfare from one where you prove need to one where you have to

prove contribution. That's what we actually set out to have and

without any approval of the electorate at all, we have changed

welfare from the contributory basis, to if you can prove need, you get

There's no evidence that the leadership of the Labour Party -

that the Leader of the Labour Party is at all committed, authentically

to these issues. Frank has taken the right attitude and given the

right cause. I don't trust Labour on migration. Are you confident?

am saying what my position over the decades has been on this.

Labour leadership? First of all, the threat now of a mass migration

from Bulgaria and Romania gives the Government the opportunity to

change the nature of our welfare state. Similarly, it is a challenge

to the Labour side about whether in fact they want to see a welfare

state based on contributions that people build it up by their own

residency or whether we continue as we have since 1979 of giving out

welfare if you can prove need. not holding my breath. You have

been consistently on line, but I think you are right - welfare is an

issue we need to look at. I have to say the Prime Minister down needs

to look at this because it is a political imperative for my party

too. Thank you both very much. There's a bitter row brewing in

Grantham about plans for a statue of the town's most famous daughter

- Baroness Thatcher. Visit today and you will see little sign of the

former Prime Minister, just a small plaque on her father's grocer's

shop and a display in the local museum. The council voted for plans

for a new statue on Friday. Labour voted for it and the Tory majority

against. Confused? We are. We asked for an interview. We are joined by

Ray Wootten. We have planned in place, but with Baroness Thatcher

being 87, we hope she lives a much longer time. Do you think it is

unseemingly to be discussing these kind of things while she is still

alive? We do. We have plans in place, but they are confidential at

the moment. You cannot give us guidance about what you are

considering? As much as I want to, I can't. Why do you think the issue

of Margaret Thatcher is controversial for you? What I was

pleased about was to hear that Labour did actually admire Margaret

Thatcher. They did support all her views and, clearly, she actually

put the great back into Great Britain. Are you sure Labour

supported all her views? I am sure they don't all of them. Some of the

Labour councillors said should a statue come to Grantham the best

thing for that statue would be to crush it up and fill the potholes

in, which I think is quite disgraceful. We will ask Labour to

give us their views about Margaret Thatcher on another occasion. It

will seem strange that Labour are promoting this idea. They think it

will be good for tourism? With the county council elections coming up,

this is a move by the local Labour leader to gain publicity for

herself. You think it is playing politics then? I do. We had the

budget meeting on Friday. They made an amendment, knowing we would have

to oppose it and we are putting our own amendment before that to carry

on doing the research to see what we could do in the event that day

does come. We all hope that Baroness Thatcher lives a long,

long life. Thank you. Jude Kelly - a statue in her home town? I am all

for women in public life being recognised N terms of who has

written history and who is known to have existed, I think Margaret

Thatcher has earned her place. I am not very keen on public statues

because pigeons land on them. My thought is, I wonder what artist

would get to do this statue. I thought Tracey Emem because she is

a Conservative supporter. I think wasing of the angel of the north

and can you have a Margaret Thatcher of Grantham of that scale?

What scale would it need to be to be a tourist interest. What would

be a fitting tribute to Margaret Thatcher? I don't know, I was going

to say a digital game. A digital game. I would be intrigued to know

your ideas for that one! I don't know. I know that public statues

have a short life. Eric Morecambe, there he is in Morecambe bay, and

God bless him, I don't think it attracts the tourists, it is for

them to sit and eat their sandwiches under and go, Who is

this again? I just want to think that actually women in public life

need to be spoken of. Whatever we thought of their views, I think she

was a very, very dominant figure, not just in this country but across

the world. We will be left with the thought of Margaret Thatcher and a

digital game then. I will try and invent it for the creative

industries. Last week, politics was dominated by the Eastleigh by-

election. Let's look at the Westminster in-tray for the week

ahead. Later today the Justice and Security Bill, including bills for

secret courts will be debated. Also today Liam Byrne launch's Labour's

campaign against the so-called bedroom tax at a press conference

in Hull. On Tuesday, the Health Select Committee hears evidence

from David Nicholson on the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

public inquiry. Several MPs have signed a motion calling for Mr

Nicholson to resign from his post, giving his previous role as chief

executive of West Midlands strategic health authority. On

Wednesday Ed Miliband will attempt to address voter concerns on

immigration ahead of a speech by the Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette

Cooper, on Thursday. Also on Thursday, the Bank of England's

monetary committee gives the latest decision on UK interest rates. It

is the fourth anniversary of rates reaching the low of 0.5%. On Friday,

the Lib Dem's spring conference begins, with a rally of the party

favourite. Joining me is George Parker and the Independent's Oliver

Wright. Welcome to you both. Oliver Wright, do you think these measures

being discussed by the Government to curb immigration from Bulgaria

and Romania will work? I think there's some significant problems

that the Government have got. If you look at the stories around

yesterday about how they were going to curb the use of the NHS, it

leads to the question of how on earth will you do that? Will you

turn doctors into policemen? Questioning the entitlement of

these people as they come in with a broken leg or whatever it might be?

I suspect medical leaders would not be entirely happy with that.

Clearly the symbolism is important. I think the practical nature of how

you actually either curtail benefits or curtail intitlement

will be tricky for the Government. What is interesting is some of the

things being talked about have been given oxygen since the Eastleigh

by-election, because immigration was deemed a big issue. Are many of

these measures in place and not used by local councils and the NHS?

There's an element of. That it was interesting to see David Cameron

saying the party would not lure too much the right and then we've had

stories about Britain tightening up the rules on benefit claimants. Yes,

it is true. A lot of the things they are talking about in this

Cabinet sub committee about restricting the pull factors are

things that councils, EU rules allow for, which have not been

implemented. The danger for the Government is introducing a raft of

new regulations which make it harder for British people to claim

benefits and taxes for the benefit of stopping a few Romanians and

Bulgarians. Like ID cards all over again. We know how that ended.

that issue then, how much do you think Brits may be affected by

attempted changes, if they are legally allowed? If you take the

NHS issue, the department this morning is very much playing down

the idea of ID cards. That was around for a while. Most people who

went down that particular line have been urging caution. A, it would

cost a huge amount of money. One thing they don't have is money. It

would reach the same kind of opposition. If people say we have

an entitlement card for the NHS does that lead on to an ID card?

All these rules don't just apply to Bulgarian and Romanian, they would

have to apply to French, German, Spanish. A lot of people on the

Costa Del Sol have free access to the Spanish health service. The

European Court of Justice will uphold the rules on the movement of

people across the European Union. They have to be careful about how

they approach this. What about the bedroom tax? Is it a tax? It's not

a tax. It is more withdraw the benefits. Labour will make a

campaign about this with some justification. They will point out

that people who will lose their benefits if they have a spare room

are meant to be encouraged to be moing into a smaller place and end

the problem of underoccupancy. There are not the available smaller

homes for them to move into, which one of the reasons the Government

has put �500 million worth of savings. You can see why Labour are

making a campaign about this. Ultimately the Conservative Party,

under the coalition party, will say if you don't get the money for this,

where will you get it from? Go you think it will be an effective

way of saving money and cutting the welfare bill? They are talking

about saving �500 million. The reason they are doing that is they

know people will not move out of houses with a spare room because

theer houses and flats are not available to them. George Osborne

desperately needs the money off. Politically it is damaging to the

Government. Ed Miliband has been successful. We are all talking

about a bedroom tax, as you rightly point out, it is not a tax. Labour

have a whole series of campaigns in the run-up to April. Remember in

April we get the 1% updating in benefits. We get the maximum amount

you can claim. You get the hoal councils are going to lose money in

the amount they can pay in council tax benefit. There is a whole thing

coming down the track, not to mention the beginning of universal

credit, which could make life uncomfortable for the Government.

It starts to sound to some people in Middle England, targeting voters.

It plays well with traditional Labour voters. Thank you very much.

Joining me for the rest of the programme we have the Tory MP Glenn

Glenn Glenn, -- John Glenn, Steve Reed and Tom Brake. It is a

question of... Are they achievable? Are they affordable at this point

in time? It would be irresponsible to say yes... It would be

irresponsible, did you say? If you cannot see how they would stimulate

the economy quickly enough to avoid interest rates going up. If the

markets are not confident that interest rates, interest rates

could go up and you will have problems with mortgages and the

integrity of the Government's economic policy would be in

question. There's no growth or very little over the past year. So, why

not as people in your party are saying, well, let's try tax cuts?

Because they have to be funded. If you make that move on tax cuts, you

also have to have further cuts elsewhere to justify that. You have

got to gain a political census across -- consensus across...

don't think George Osborne should do anything? That is not what I

said. In terms of tax cuts? should try. Which ones? Where he

can see it will have the maximum stimulus on the economy. Where

would you like to see them? I would like to see further ones to

corporation tax. We need to see more investment in jobs. Do you

agree with that? Of course the Government is implementing a tax

cut on the first April. If you are a millionaire you will get on

average �100,000 back in a tax cut, while they are increasing taxes on

ordinary people with things like the increase on VAT. Would you

agree with corporation tax - a cut in it? At the moment there's not

enough to fund the services we need. I think we need to look at growth

and from that growth deriver further revenues to fund things

like tax cuts and investments. Labour does want and has been

proposing tax cuts or would like to see a cut in VAT. We would like to

see a national insurance holiday. They want to spend money. One thing

Labour has proposed is a mansion tax on properties worth over �2

million in order to fund the reintroduction of the 10p rate of

tax, so people on lower incomes are paying less. That seems a fair way

The Labour Party are late on board, so to speak. If there are going to

be - going to be scope for tax cuts, what I would like to see is the

Government making yet more progress on delivering what we want to see

in terms of a fairer society and that is increasing the tax

thresholds so people on low and middle incomes - definitely going

to hit the �10,000 threshold by 2015. That's an area where the

Government can and should make progress and what that will mean,

because this is money going to people on low and middle incomes

it's money they're going to spend. We need people to spend money. They

will spend it on the basics and that is what we need at this time.

It will be a useful stimulus to the economy if you spend money raising

the threshold, taking more people out of tax? I think it's a policy

that I have always been relaxed about and the coalition is moving

towards the aspiration to move up to �10,000. The question is will it

encourage the investment decisions in jobs? The reality is that it's

easy to make political points around the rich paying more tax,

but the reality is that people need to make investment decisions in

businesses and if they're not making investment in jobs and in

growth, then it's a sort of pryic victory when it's not going to have

an kphebgt as -- affect, as a whole. We need to look at what is we are

doing already. For instance, the investment in infrastructure.

not working in terms of growth. 55,000 jobs are going to come on

the back of Crossrail, we need to move forward with things like High

Speed 2 to ensure that investment happens. It's Africa. We need that.

-- it's infrastructure. We need that. Will you back Labour's

proposal now for a mansion tax on properties worth �2 million.

need to see what they say. But in practice we have been very clear

this may well be a Liberal Democrat commitment in a Liberal Democrat

manifesto in 2015. I am not going to sign up to what Labour - we have

to see what they've got to say. For them to come on on board now is

very late in the day. You came forward with a mansion tax policy.

Labour are now putting it forward. There will be a vote. Which way

will you vote? Let's wait and see precisely what they say. I think we

are going to get another one of those apology videos from Nick

Clegg when the Liberals don't vote for something that was in the

manifesto. The reality is of course you are in coalition, you can't

have everything you want. That's a pragmatic relationship of --

reality of coalition. You know that. Are you happy that reports are

saying nearly a quarter of those due to be affected by the so-called

bedroom tax will be single parents? Well, I think it's very regrettable

that we have got to take these tough decisions. The reality is we

did inherit a massive amount of debt. You can't pay off debt

quickly when you are income isn't rising. Should single parents take

on that burden. There is a lot of discretion of how - all taxes are

levied and all savings are saved and the reality is that local

councils will make some of these decisions and there is a fund

available to help those that are most vulnerable. Let's move on.

Now yesterday the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, raised the prospect

of a British exit from the European Convention on Human Rights. He

stressed that change had to happen but when asked by the BBC's John

Pienaar whether the Tories might pull out of the Convention

altogether, Mr Grayling said that he had not ruled anything in or out.

Here's a flavour of what he had to say.

Well, I'm absolutely certain we will go into the next election with

a plan for change. I think all of us agree that the current framework

for human rights law in the UK is not what we would want it to be.

Ironically f you look at the original convention in the 1940s

and 50s, when Stalin was in power and people were sent to gulags

without trial. Over 50 years, it's moved away from that. That was

Chris Grayling. Should Britain pull out of the ECHR? Absolutely, I

think many people across the country are fed up with the

perverse decisions that come as a consequence of that. I have never

understood why this is sometimes portrayed as a lurch to the right.

I don't see why it's beyond British parliament to make decisions about

human rights and how things work in our country. It seems that we are

capable as a parliament of doing that. I think that what Chris is

pursuing is a sensible way forward. What do you think? I don't agree

with him nor I am sure does Kenneth Clarke. The convention has brought

lots of benefits to the UK in terms of protecting press freedoms,

providing access to pensions for widows and widowers. Actually it

has made a positive contribution. Now I am not say thrg's no scope

for -- there's no scope for reform. There are a lot of cases held in a

backlog that we could process more quickly. The act and the convention

has been of benefit to the UK. For to us come out of it and join only

bell only - would be a mistake. What the Tories aren't doing us is

telling us what they would replace it with. What do they want to lose?

The convention prevents the Government ears dropping on

citizens -- Eavesdropping on citizens. No way different

hierarchy of things can be resolved. We need to have more control at

domestic level. It's all very well saying these things can be reformed.

They haven't been reformed and time and time again people in this

country are frustrated that laws they hope are actually made in

Westminster by their elected representatives, we have little

authority over. What do you say about those frustrations people

feel? They're not telling us. They're not telling us... What

about frustrations? One of the benefits of the HRA decisions,

instead of being taken by British judges in British courts, will be

taken by European judges in Strasbourg. Is that what the Tories

want to do, hand more power to kwrorp. -- to Europe? We need to

have control in Westminster. We need to have British politicians

making rules about what we see as important in terms of human rights,

what hierarchy they actually take... The convention was the product of

British diplomacy. Time has moved on, rather a lot since then. We

need reform urgently. convention has really to show that

- that the British don't always take the right decisions. Access to

pensions for widows and widowers that's come as a result of the

European convention has been of great benefit to British citizens.

We need to take that into account. Nothing would prevent us from doing

that ourselves either. Right. So amongst the advice, analysis, and

criticisms for the political parties post-Eastleigh one thing

seems to affect them all. The seemingly all pervasive view that

they are indeed all the same. It's not a new thought, and perhaps

explains why political rebels have always attracted attention. One

Westminster website has drawn up a list of this parliaments rebels but

as in-house bad boy Giles Dilnot has been discovering the new rebels

actually play within the rules. From long before the invention of

the internal come the -- combustion engine Politics has had rebels.

People who like to drive straight through convention and leave tyre

marks on the best laid plans of Government, so Politics.co.uk

compiling a list celebrating a current crop of feisty folk might

not rev your motor but there IS a difference $:/ENDFEED..

One thing I quite strongly recept is being skaoeub -- resent is being

described as a rebel. I am elected by the good people to be a member

of parliament, not a member of the Government. And certainly not

elected to be a Patsy for the whips office for front bench. I would

call myself an independent-minded loyalist. I am sure it's going to

be carved in me somewhere when I die. You have to stand up for

things and there's ways of going about it. I have made a nuisance of

myself from time to time. But I have tried to do it in a

constructive way. Whether it's Carswell gearing up

with a number of issues, on fuel and 10p tax, Creasy rolling with

payday loans or Field, Goldsmith and Clarke carving their own way

through traffic, is it all principle or is that ego to them

all? There isn't an ego but I have always been a politician who does

say it as it is. It's been my strength. It's also been my

weakness because when I was part of the collective Ministerial team

there were times when I probably said things I shouldn't have done.

But get used to this, because we may see much more of it.

Politicians are realising now they look back at the 2010 election

where we saw unpredictable results, part of the reason was MPs are

becoming better at selling themselves rather than the party.

Leather rosettes, biker gang cabinet anyone? Giles enjoyed that

too much I think. So, have you ever rebelled? I have only only been

there a few weeks! Are you going to be a rebel with a cause? We have to

wait and see what issues come up. We have a party system for a reason.

People need to know what they're voting for when they put X next to

your name. Most don't know who we are individually, they know the

party label and know policies they're voting for and that's

helpful. Have you rebelled? I can't say I am a known rebel within the

Lib Dems, but the advantage of the Liberal Democrats is we are a

relatively small part, I suppose, compared to the other two. On the

whole, our views coincide so I think naturally we are less

rebellious. I suppose we have had to fight on many fronts for many

years and that binds us together more effectively perhaps than the

other two parties. Lots of rebels and they would argue with a great

cause. I think you need to draw a distension between a rebel and

being an effective campaigner -- distinction. You have understood

the film obviously completely. Well done. Is this the beginning of the

end for party politics and discipline that now campaigns are

taking on a life of their own and the 2010 intake are proving that?

To some degree, it's about emphasis. If you asked Douglas Carswell if he

was going to stand at the next election as an independent he would

quickly say no. At the end of the day there is lots more in common

than not. So, whilst he has very clear views that sometimes are at

odds with the Government, he still wants to stand as a Conservative.

There is also an issue about safe seats and marginal seats. There are

times when those, we will find out closer to the election, are going

to tpoeut for that -- fight for that seat and views in that

constituency, whether or not it's anything to do with their party

line. That's true and issues on which individual members of

parliament take a different view. Is that a good thing, will it

inspire people to be more independently-minded? We don't want

people who are stereo types. The backbench business committee, a new

innovation, is something that has enabled Robert Halfon for instance,

and others to push heard on an agenda -- hard on an agenda which

perhaps past governments wouldn't have allowed time to do. Are you

into campaigns as opposed to sticking to the political line.

are elected by constituents to represent that constituency and

every constituency is different. For instance, Croydon North which I

represent, big problem in the riots a year-and-a-half ago. Hundreds of

people hadn't had compensation despite being promised it. I have

to stand and want to stand full square with those people to fight

for their rights. That's a constituency issue. It isn't

necessarily against your party, is it? The key thing there is I am

fighting for the people that elected me. All right. Rebels, not

rebels with or without a cause! Time before we go to find out the

answer to our quiz. What other female first can

Grantham lay claim to. The first woman to be a firefighter, brain

surgeon, astronaut or police officer? Have a go. Police officer.

Astronaut. Police officer. You are going too sky high there! You have

it right. Congratulations. There are no prizes, I have to tell you.

You can come on again! Now that's it for today. Thank you to our