10/07/2013 Daily Politics

Politics. Ed Miliband tries to distance himself a bit from the

unions, but will the plan work and please voters, but leave the Labour

Party penniless? Tell Sid, or should it be tell Pat. Will it see off

opposition? What does the Queen think about press regulation? We can

only speculate. The Privy Counsellors are to meet the Queen

over a Royal chaverTer to keep their house in order. -- charter to keep

their house in order. Could the legal profession be the next public

institution to fall from grace? You mean it hasn't already?

officially! All that to come. Some of the very finest public service

broadcasting your licence fee can buy. To prove that, with us for the

duration, the man who used to have two jobs, justice and Home Office

minister, but he now has none. Nick Herbert is in good company, because

we have another ex-Government employee, former Environment

Minister and some how Shadow community secretary, Hilary Benn.

Good to see you both. We like to help out the jobless. Our very nice!

A mixed reaction for Ed Miliband's proposals to mend not end the

party's relationship with the unions. Yesterday he said that

Labour would no longer accept affiliation fees unless union

members had specifically requested to contribute to the Labour Party.

But this would, we think, we think, still leave unions political funds

in tact to spend as the union leaders wished. Has he done enough

to bring Anned to the party's troubles over union influence? Who

should we ask? Of course, Kjo. course. 24 hours and many of the big

guns have given their reaction to the speech. Tony Blair, a Labour

leader who relished taking on the left-wing said this is a defining

moment and I think it is bold and strong. He said the proposals were a

reform of the Labour Party that is long overdue and frankly I should

have done when I was leader. Confounding expectations, Len

McCluskey, the General Secretary of Unite, the trade union at the heart

of the controversy in Falkirk, because also supportive. He told the

BBC the current status quo isn't acceptable and therefore a new

relationship is something I'm very comfortable about. Not all trade

unions were as emollient. Paul Kenny, the boss of the GMB said the

proposals are as close as you can get to ending the union link. Mr

Kenny said the reforms could see a 90% drop in the number of members

affiliating to the party and equally severe funding drops could see

donations drop from �2 million to around �300,000. That's from his

union alone. Andrew. Thank you. Hilary Benn, it's all rushed? Ten

days ago Mr Mel band -- Miliband had no intention of doing this, but now

he's ending up copying the policy of Stanley Baldwin, Conservative Prime

Minister in 1927? I don't think you quite got that right, because the

current rules for setting up political rules and for members

deciding whether they want to opt out of making a payment were put in

place by a Conservative Government in the 1980s. What Ed has done

yesterday is to set out a bold set of proposals, because since he

became leader he has talked about opening up politics. People look,

including at what happened in Falkirk and think they are a small

group of people arguing about something and what does it have to

do with us? To say to individuals to pay the levy, we want you to make a

conscious decision to afailiate to Labour, to say to Londoners who

support Labour, we would like you to play a part in selecting our

candidate for the Mayor next time around. This is about opening up

politics and the test of a leader when a crisis strikes and there's

been a problem, is to try to sweep it under the carpet, or do you seize

the moment? That's what he has done. If it's not rushed then and it's

well-thought out, then we'll pale away -- peel away the proposals.

Unite, if you are a member you pay a levy of �8. Is that the bit I'm

allowed to opt out of if I want to? Under the law currently, when you

join a union you can decide whether to opt out of paying the levy and

that is not going to change, because that is the law that the

Conservatives put in place. What will change is party will say to

affiliated unions, for the members who want to affiliate to Labour,

they must make a conscious decision. That is the change, that Ed has

proposed. Of the �8, to use the Unite example, only �3 of that goes

to the Labour Party. Is that the bit I'm opting out of it? No, members

would be deciding that they want to opt in to affiliation to the Labour

Party. Now, unions will still have funds. As you know that, they

continue to use those. I'm trying to clarify, because the details are

interesting. They are not clear. I'm not allowed to opt in to the

political fund, that is part of union membership? No, you are wrong.

I'm not right or wrong then. You are wrong. I'm asking you questions.The

law is very clear. Unions have to ballot on the political funds and

member when they are joined are asked, do you want to opt out of

paying the levy and that's been the law for a number of years and that

won't change. If you don't want to pay it you tick the box and you

don't pay it. The whole �8?Whatever the political levy is. The �3 of the

�8. No, you don't pay - whatever the levy that is set by the individual

union, then unions decide currently how many members they affiliate and

for that we want those union members who have agreed to pay the levy to

decide. We want to make a conscious decision to be members of Labour,

because we want to increase membership and bring working people

who are members of trade unions into membership of the Labour Party.

don't opt in specifically for the �3 of the eight to go to Labour, do I

get it back? No, because you've - you have already decided to pay the

levy and that remains with the unions. The consequence of this

could be that the union leaders will end up with a bigger fund than they

have now? They may, depending on how many choose to opt in. The second

thing that we are proposing and Ed made the proposal last year, we want

a cap on donations from unions and businesses,ed Conservative Party get

-- gets a huge amount from businesses and individuals. At the

moment the Conservative Party hasn't responded and David Cameron has

indicated he wants a much, much higher cap on donations. We'll come

to that. We need to take money out of politics. I'm trying to unravel

what is being proposed here. We have accepted that the consequence of

this, indeed it could be a major one, because a lot of union leaders

think not many people will opt in to paying the Labour bit of the levy,

is that union leaders will have a bigger political fund to back Labour

candidates that they want to back? Unions will continue to have a

political fund to make donations, but we are also proposing that there

should be a cap on donations. Ed has proposed there should be a cap on

expenditure limits in selections, but what this is really about is

saying we want to open up politics and we want more people to get

involved. You have said that.I know, but this is the important

selling point. We are getting down to the detail. We want people to get

involved. We are proud of the links with the unions. There would be

nothing to continue to stop Unite doing what it's doing now, indeed it

could do it with an even bigger political fund of identifying over

40 constituencies in the country, where it wants to put its man or

woman and put money behind these people, correct? Unions can of

course make donations to the party centrally and to local

constituencies. It's funds to back its own people? As to parties

locally. Andrew, we are also arguing for a cap on donations. That is the

really big prize and change and David Cameron is not responding.

I'll get to that in one moment. Two final points. Will this mean the end

of the privileged position of unions and voting for your party's leader?

Ray Collins has been asked to look at what the consequences of this

change are. We are going to wait for his report. We don't know the

answer. We don't, because he'll advise on further changes he thinks

might be able. Final question on this particular area, will it mean

the end of the unions' privileged voting position at conferences?

is also something that Ray can look at. We are taking the proposals that

are being put forward. It's radical. We are seeing what Tony Blair had to

say about them. He said he wished he had done that. This is a significant

moment. Ed is probably the first party leader in history to say, "I

want to make a change and it might result in us... ." He didn't want to

make the change. It's about the leadership you show when a cry

erupts. Ewants to make a change because it's the right thing to do.

It may result in less money, but he thinks involving more people is even

more important than that in politics. It doesn't affect you

because you have have take taken from hedge fund managers and private

equity guys and people who earn a tonne of money Anned -- and don't

pay much tax? There is the question of the cap that should be re-opened.

It was the Labour Party's res fusal to broker any notion that the unions

should be reformed that stalled those discussions. What we have

heard, there is a limit into how much will change in the Labour

Party. Yes, apparently now provided the unions agree, if you weren't

automatically enrolled as a member of the Labour Party if you are a

union member, but you will still be in the political fund unless you

decide to opt out. The automatic position where actually you are put

into the political funds still applies and that means the unions

can make donations to the Labour Party and constituencies if they

choose to. What about the cap?I support the cap. I think it should

be there. What should it be?The original discussion was �50,000.

Would there be a cap on unions? course. It is perfectly reasonable

to discuss it. How much?Ed said a year ago �5,000. Kelly recommended

10,000. David Cameron has said 50. That means over five years an

individual or business could buy �250,000 to the Conservative Party.

It would apply to unions and to individuals and businesses. Why are

the Tories not supporting that? in favour of a cap. We can discuss

the level. We are. What do you think it could be? Could you persuade

David Cameron? We'll hear what the Prime Minister has to say. I think

there should be a cap, but I don't speak for him. There is a

distraction from the undue influence that unions were having on Labour

Party policies which extends to the whole areas. You say there should be

transparency, but I was looking at the way you have the money into the

run-up to the election and because one individual didn't can't to be

seen to be giving a lot of money, he gave a tonne of millions, but it

wasn't millions, but then you look down the small print and it turns

out the wife gave money, the sons gave money, probably the cat gave

money as well. You add up how much the family gave and it came to

around �4 million. I don't know whether you can frame a law that

stops a family from donating money as individuals. It means that one

family gave almost 50% of what the whole of Unite has given. You've

been able to work that out. The donors have to be named legally.

That is absolutely right. It took a long while to get to that. Fine, but

the point is that each donation has to be declared. If you can frame a

rule that prevents family members from - His rule would. It would

apply to individuals too. We'll come back to this. Thank you for that.

It's interesting to get more details. I hope they're right.

Remember this - Sorry, mate got to go. British Gas shares. They

couldn't be easier to do. Phone this number. Place your information on

how to apply. If you see Sid, tell him, won't you? It's two decades

since the last large-scale public offering of shares. The most

memorable being the sell-off of British Gas. Today, the Government's

announcing the privatisation of Royal Mail, with shares made

available to the public. There will be no big publicity campaign this

time around, but shares will be handed out for free to 150,000 Royal

Mail staff. Joining us now from Liverpool is Bailey haze, General

Secretary of the Communication Workers' Union who oppose this.

Welcome to the programme. Will you conditions. But when you say you are

defending your people's conditions, I mean, those in favour say the

commercial benefits from privatisation of the Royal Mail will

help secure the postal service's long-term future?

That's just nonsense. The post services are currently in profit.

Its profits went up by 60%. It needs investment, it can borrow money on

the open markets like Network Rail does and we've got an efficient

postal service in the public sector. This is going to destroy postal

services. You talk to anybody who 's using any utilities. The

privatisation is an old-fashioned idea and will make matters worse.

Why will it destroy the postal service? That's a slightly

apocalyptic view. Why wouldn't it enhance it in terms of technology.

The investment, wouldn'tn't it be better to get the money from private

investment, rather than from taxpayers?

Well, you see, currently the Government allows, for example, it's

just allowed the Greater London Authority to borrow �1 billion for

the improvements in the Tube service, the extension of the

Northern Line. It could do the same for Royal Mail, it could borrow

money on the open markets. Network Rail is currently borrowing �27

billion on the open markets and it's looking for �50 billion. That

doesn't go on the public sector borrowing requirement. We are talk

youing about investment here in the company. The last argument they've

got for the people who want to privatise Royal Mail is, it needs

money for investment and we agree. How much? My estimate is something

like �2 billion over five years. Network Rail borrows �27 billion

currently. Borrowing money on the open market and it doesn't go on the

public sector borrowing requirements. Let us can check your

reaction to what Ed Miliband said. Do you agree with Paul Kenny of the

GMB that the union reforms that have been suggested are as close as you

can get to ending the union link? agree that it's a set of proposals

that are completely muddled. For example, in the open primary that's

been discussed for the Mayoral London elections, will the people

afilliated to the Labour Party and members of our union be allowed to

vote in the London Primary? I mean, listening to people talk about the

proposals, I mean, it's about as clear as mutted to me -- - mud to

me. All credit to Andrew Neil for muddling through. Nobody knows what

the proposals are about, but I think what it's about is posh people's

politics. The idea that ordinary working people which Trade Unions

represent need to be excluded from politics because they're somehow or

other saying it's dirty money, that's completely nowt the case.

What do you say to Billy Hayes? opposite of that. It's about

encouraging the union members to come and join Labour to participate,

including in the Primary which we want Labour supporters to do as

well. This is about opening up involvement in politics, it's about

welcoming people at work who're Trade Union members participating in

the life and the decisions of the Labour Party in a bigger way. I

think it's a great opportunity, one that should be seized. That's why

others have said they welcome this. Billy Hayes, back to you. What is

your reaction to that? Well, youent think he's answered the questions

about the mayoral elections in London. Where people hope to stay

with Labour, will they be allowed to vote in the London elections? They

have more right to vote given they've paid the political levy and,

you know, support the Labour Party. Will they be allowed to vote? I'm

all for opening up politics. The whole of the political process in

this country feels as if it's stuffed with people who spend their

whole lives in politics, as a special adviser or this or that, and

it feels the same in all the institutions. I'm all for opening up

politics. What we have got in this country is posh people's politics.

Andrew Neil no less identified that and it was Peter Mandelson who

blamed the Trade Union for not getting more people involved in

politics. We'll leave it there. Thank you for that. Let me come to

you, tonne privatisation of the post office. Why is your Government not

taking the opportunity to do a Tell Sid on this? In other words, to

spread the shares in the Royal Mail? It's our Royal Mail after all? To

spread the shares acorrosion the country? The announcement's just

coming, isn't it. But from what we have seen of it, it looks as though

the proportion of the shares were... Shares for post office workers?

Whether it should be spread more widely. We are told there 'll not be

a Tell Sid campaign. That's right. It won't be a big

publicity campaign. Here was a chance to spread the

shares to people at advantageous prices. You are meant to believe in

popular capitalism. This time it looks as no ethe big institutions

will only be automobile to buy? will also be the workers.

talking about the people who use it? The rest of us who don't work for

the Mail, but own the Mail at the moment? There will be the

opportunity reports But they are not going to do that? You are talking

about whether there should be a marketing campaign. Let's look at

the principle. Private ownership gives access to capital and allows

the Royal Mail to compete. It's losing market share at so rapidly a

rate. But something has to be done. It's not going to be a people's

capitalism and it's not just marketing. The British Gas share

price was set at a price. The pricing was key, because the frozery

wanted a higher price but they took the decision to try and spread the

shares as wide as possible to set a competitive price. You are not going

to do that. It will be the big institutions. You have to take a

decision in setting the price in terms of what the market will pay

and to ensure the you can is Cesc of the floatation. You can't just take

the view that you can offer it at a price that's a give-away, you will

be criticised for that as well. It's important this is a successful

privatisation for the future of Royal Mail which will protect the

universal service. Thank you for that. Yesterday, she

was enjoying the sunshine, sailing down the river on her Royal barge.

Today, she's meeting the Privy Council to talk about press

regulation. Yes, it's the varied life of a modern Monarch, but one

former minister who won't be taking his place on the Queen's Australian

shent advisory body today is Lord Prescott. He's resigned over its

handling of press regulation. He's on College Green and he's joined by

Trevor Kavanagh from the Sun. Welcome, gentlemen. Trevor Kavanagh,

you have pushed ahead with your own regulator. Are you trying to hand

out a fait accompli? We didn't set out to outflank them, simply went

ahead with a plan we feel is worth looking at at the highest level

while they sat on their hands for months and did nothing to actually

get together a plan that they could put before the Privy Council.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that ministers have ended up second in

line for the Privy Council when Parliament expressed its will

clearly back in March? It asn't actually. The leaders of the various

parties have ganged together to stitch up the press with a 2 am

pizza conference. There's never been a debate about this at all in the

House of Commons, Jo, so this is not something Parliament has agreed.

John Prescott, haven't they got every right to pip you at the post?

Wait a minute, it's not right. I have a copy of the draft put in in

March 18th. You can't can't say that. Every detail is in there.

Parliament decided by 500 votes to put this. They didn't debate it.

They could a second debate on it. This is the one that's ready now.

The Prime Minister said it will go to the May Privy Council. They

didn't put it to maismt I believe they are not putting it to July.

They could put it today if they want. That will mean November. The

Privy Council is being used to delay the whole business. That's how

they've defeated it before. So now, it's being abused and I don't want

to be any part of it. So I've resigned.

John Prescott's taken a stand there, Trevor Kavanagh. It looks as if you

are pressing ahead by using underhand tactics? In what way is it

underhand, Jo? We have simply produced an alternative to the Royal

Charter that we don't accept which is basically a statutory operation

with underpinning. Whichever way you look at it, that's political

interference in the process of the media which has been sacred against

us for three centuries. Not all the papers agree with the charter.

Nearly all. It isn't the Guardian, the Independent... Part of the

hacked off operation. It's not a United one. Doesn't even fit with

the independence by Leveson. So why is the Government... It's exactly

what Leveson spelled out. ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

Parliament's word against these press guy who is want to Dutch us.

-- dump us. David Cameron and Nick Clegg from told the Commons they

didn't have any choice, that they were advised by lawyers that the

press had to come first. No, he said when we did the March 18th, when we

produced Parliament's report, he said it would go to the May

commission. He said it didn't go because it took legal opinion.

No-one's seen the legal opinion, but theirs is a divided one. Why is it

that they are only just putting the press won first which would talk us

up to the election. Delay, delay, delay, is what the press have always

done to defeat the last seven. is your party going to do about it,

John Prescott? We are making it clear, they are unto the charter.

The charter is a kid. They are entitled to make their view as

leaders, I'm John Prescott, I'm not running the Labour Party, but I'll

tell you this, if you go on like this, you will end up being kidded

by the Royal Charter. And by the way, it will be controversial. You

are going to involve the monarchy fighting Parliament because

Parliament's clear. It has a view. Thank you both very much.

John Prescott briefly on Ed Miliband's speech, the relationship

with the units, Tony Blair's praised it as being brave and wished he'd

done it, although he was never accused of being in with the unions.

Billy Hayes says it's clear as mud? Hang on, all the arguments on one

member one vote, under clause IV under Tony Blair changing the voting

system. They were controversial, we debated it. Now we don't talk about

Ed being weak, all the papers are saying he's strong. He's going to

have the debate. Len McCluskey said I'll get the vote. That's the nature

of the party. It gits controversial. It's about change, but at least this

man's shown the framework he wants to work with and people should

recognise he has the courage to do that. Is it the courage you say to

end the link with the unions? doesn't want to, he's made it clear.

I don't want to see it ended. Billy and all those opposed to clause IV

change and one member one vote, but we made the changes. Gentlemen,

thank you very much. Was that Michael Portillo standing

behind them? ! I think it was! be, or one of the union members in

disguise. We are good at winning things, the rugby, the tennis, and

now the cricket starts today, the Ashes at Trent Bridge. It's not been

a brilliant start, 31 for one. Still all to play for. They'll slog it out

for the next five days. For what? An urn containing the Ashes of a

cricket bale. Not even a bat, a bale. Isn't it about time they found

a more fitting receptacle? We think it is. If you are feeling lucky, you

too could be a winner of the Daily Politics.

Mug. See if you can remember when this

Satisfactory peace... # Swing low, sweet Lord

to the Scottish people and to their king.

It's an all-northern Cup Final as Blackburn and Newcastle take the

# Unforgettable... # To be in with a chance of winning

that Daily Politics mug, send your website.

Do you think anyone's ever read them? I have!

Doesn't get out a lot! Coming up to midday. There's Big Ben, a beautiful

summer's day here in London. It means Prime Minister's Questions and

Nick Robinson. A veritable ucopia of things to discuss at PMQs?

Miliband will do party funding and will quote my guest, genuine guest,

Sir Christopher Kelly's report from November 11 which said �10,000 cap

on party donations if Labour agrees to end the system of Trade Union

relationships they currently have. That is what he proposed yesterday.

So I've no doubt he'll claim I've moved, rth will you move, Prime

Minister. My guess is that the Prime Minister will say, we've heard you

say that you have moved, but we are baffled about what it will mean in

practice, as are indeed all the Trade Unions who've appeared on the

programme. John Prescott department seem to have a clue either about

what it would really mean, other than he was broadly in favour.

see. Will it all be on the issue of process? I think so. I think David

Cameron thinks he created the speech we saw by the Labour Leader

yesterday. He'll want to talk about it and he believes he's making the

weather. Let's find out. Here is the Prime Minister at PMQs.

I'm sure the whole House and country will wish to join me in

congratulating Andy Murray on his historic Wimbledon success. To

become the first British player to win Wimbledon for 77 years is

fantastic and it will go down in our history books. This morning, I had

meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and in addition to my

duties in this House, I shall have The government is setting out plans

to modernise the Royal Mail and to allow modern people to own 10% of

the shares. Could the Prime Minister tell us what support he's expecting

to see for this measure? I think there will be widespread support

around the country to modernise this great public service and to get new

capital into this service and to make sure that 10% of the shares

will go to the people who work for the Royal Mail. What is remarkable

is it was proposed by the Labour Party when they were in Government,

but of course, because the trade unions now oppose it, they have to

oppose it too. Fresh evidence today that they are still in the pockets

of their trade unions paymasters. Let me first join the Prime Minister

in paying tribute to Andy Murray, for his fantastic victory following

Virginia Wade's victory in 1977. It was a fantastic achievement. He

showed extraordinary determination and the whole country is incredibly

proud of him. As the Government considers the issue of party funding

reform, can the Prime Minister tell the House how much his party has

received in donations from hedge funds? I'm not surprise surprised -

THE SPEAKER: Order, the Prime Minister will want to answer - I'm

sure he will - I know he will want to answer the question that has been

put to him and we must hear him do so. The Prime Minister. I'm not

surprised he's got this sudden interest in party funding. However,

let's be frank, every donation to the Conservative Party is fully set

out and public. Let's be clear what this real scandal is about. It's

about trade union fixing of political appointments to this

House. That's what it's about. When he gets to his feet let's hope he

addresses the 40 seats that Unite have fiddled and let's hope he

publishes the full report and let's hope he tells - they don't want to

hear! THE SPEAKER: Order, order. I'm

always concerned about the rights of backbench members and they will be

heard and if we run over for the purpose, because of this sort of

conduct, so be it. They will be heard. Please, let's have a bit of

order and some answers. The problem is they're paid to shout and they're

doing nothing about it. I don't think he wanted to answer the

question, did he? Let's give him the answer. The Conservative Party has

received 25 million from hedge funds. Now, next question. In the

Budget, the Chancellor gave hem funds �145 million tax cut. Can the

Prime Minister tell us was it just a coincidence? The tax raid under this

Government is going to be higher than it ever was under his

government. But let me tell him this important point. There is a big

difference between donations to the Conservative Party and donations to

the Labour Party. And the difference is this - donations to the Labour

Party buy votes at your conference and candidates and MPs in this House

and pay for the votes that gave him his job. They pay their money and

bought their votes and put him in his place and that hasn't changed a

thing. I'll tell him what the difference is, six pence a week in

fees from ordinary people up and down the country. I guess the party

funded by a few millionaires at the top.

THE SPEAKER: Mr Ellis, you find it so difficult to control yourself.

I'm sure you didn't when you were practising at the Bar. Calm it man,

get a grip of the situation. What is shameful about it, he doesn't even

know about the extra tax cut he gave to hem funds. Now, he says he wants

reform. He says he wants reform. So I've a proposal for him. I'm

willing, as I've said before, to have a �5,000 limit from unions and

businesses and individuals as part of a reform in the way the parties

are funded. Is he willing to do that? Firstly, let me deal with six

pence a week. THE SPEAKER: Order. We have to

listen. Here are the figures since he became leader. 8 million from

Unite, 4 million from GMB, 4 million from Unison. They bought the

policies and the candidates and they bought the leader. I have long

supported caps on donations. I think we should have caps on donations and

they should apply to trade unions, to businesses and to individuals.

But let me say this - THE SPEAKER: Order. Order. There is

still far too much shouting. It's on both sides. The Prime Minister, I

think is concluding his answer. me be frank with him, there is a

problem with a �5,000 cap and it's this - it would imply a massive

amount of taxpayer support for political parties. Frankly, Mr

Speaker, I don't see why the result of a trade union scandal should be

ever taxpayer in the country paying for Labour. So there we have the

truth. THE SPEAKER: Order. Mr Miliband.

He's ducking reform. That's the truth. He's ducking funding reform.

He doesn't want it to happen. Look, let's test his willingness to reform

in this House. Current rules allow MPs to take on paid directorships

and consultancies as long as they're declared. It's in the Register of

Members' Interests. Members on both sides abide by those rules. I say,

in the next Parliament, and this will affect both sides of this

House, MPs should not be able to take on new paid directorships and

consultancies. Does he agree? think what matters is that

everything is transparent and open. Those are the rules. Look, he made

me an offer - THE SPEAKER: Order. I said one

moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition must be heard and he must

be and the Prime Minister must be heard. He made me an offer. Let me

make him an offer. If he wants change, I make this offer, there is

a Bill coming to this House next week covering trade unions. If he

wants to legislate to move from opting out to opting in, if he wants

to give union members the chance to choose whether to donate, if he

wants to allow union members to vote on whether they should give to

Labour, we will legislate. Will he accept that offer of legislation?

Yes or no. Mr Speaker, I've got to say to him he's got to do a lot

better than that and answer the question on second jobs. He has to -

let me just tell the Prime Minister and all the members opposite,

between now and the general election they will be subject to this test.

Do they support second jobs, new directorships? Yes or no. That is

the test. Let's try him on another test. I say

THE SPEAKER: Order. The question must be heard and people that I

might have thought about calling to ask a question, who are shouting

from a sedentary position, might just as well leave the chamber.

say this as well, as well as ending new direct orships, there should be

a limit on earning on top of the salaries as they have in other

countries. The public would expect nothing less from that. What does he

say? What is interesting, he doesn't want to talk about the trade union

stitching up Parliamentary selections. He doesn't want to

address that. That is what this scandal is about. Let us ask what

has actually changed since yesterday? Will the unions still

have the biggest vote at the conference? Yes. Will they still be

able to determine the party's policy? Yes. Will they still have

the decisive vote in voting for the leader? Yes. That is the fact. They

own you lock, stock and block vote! This is a man owed by a few

millionaires at the top of the pile and everyone knows it. Here's the

difference between him and me, I want action on second jobs, he

doesn't. I want party funding reform, he doesn't. I am proud that

we have links with ordinary working people. He's bank rolled by a few

millionaires. The party of the people, the party of privilege.

not the party of the people, it's the party of Len McCluskey. Those

are the facts. THE SPEAKER: Order, we cannot just

have a wall of noise. What we need is questions and answers. The Prime

Minister. We are the party of the people. You are party of Len

McCluskey. They buy the candidates. They buy the policies. They buy the

leader. What is their policy on the Royal Mail determined by the

communications union? What is their policy on health? Determined my

Union. What is their policy on party funding? Determined by Unite. No

wonder he thinks that bud that. He wants to be reincarnated and come

back as a proper leader. THE SPEAKER: Order, the question,

however hong it takes, will be heard. Thank you very much. Three

quarters of a million British people suffer from heart failure, a

condition which uses one million hospital beds every year. Recent re

research says low levels of air pollution can significantly increase

this Is are being. Will the Prime Minister commit to meeting European

standards on air quality, which if implemented could increase life

expectancy by up to eight months? makes an important point about air

quality. We have seen real improvements in recent years. It

makes a genuine difference to public health there are important

discussions on going, particularly about car emissions and I'll perhaps

write to him about the conclusions. The Government has diverted EU

regeneration funds intended for South Yorkshire to benefit wealthier

parts of the UK. The Chair of Sheffield City have said that

arguments of loeBgsals have been ignored and the decision will have a

hugely negative impact on the area. Why has he ignored local business

leaders? How can the Prime Minister justify allocating 34% more per head

to Cheshire than South Yorkshire? have done a very fair assess

assessment between the nations and the regions in the United Kingdom

about how to distribute this money. We have distributed it in a fair way

and I note if you look at Yorkshire and Humber you see enployment up

11,000 this quarter and employment up 86,000 since the election. But as

he is a member of Unite, it's not surprising he doesn't mention that

fact. Does the Prime Minister welcome last Friday's vote to give

the British people a say on their relationship with Europe? A vote

with a stark contrast where the party opposite chose to stay away,

to squabble within themselves over this side of the House from the

Conservative Party. What was noticeable is, even though there was

a 19-page briefing from the Labour Party, which like every other bit of

paper now refind lying around the House of Commons, they couldn't

actually make up their mind which way to vote. Pf

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree with the former

Conservative treasurer that the Munsefed from Azin Nadir is tainted

and they have a moral duty to give it back and, will he return that

money? The fact should start with the fact

that his party's taken �1. 6 million, not a �5,000 cap, but �1. 6

million from Mr Mills and advised him how to dodge the tax!

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under the last Government, communities like

Thanet were left and aJuan donned on benefits. Was the right honourable

gentleman impressed by the thousands of jobs created? This Government is

putting people back into work. Well, my right honourable friend is

absolutely right and I was impressed on visiting Thanet to go and see the

jobs being created by the London Array because it's jobs in shipping

and for seamen, in terms of engineering and apprenticeships. A

really important investment for the UK and we hope to see more.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware about

the importance of investment in infrastructure and widespread

agreements about its job-creating potential. Can he tell the House why

after three year, in office, the employment in the construction

centre has fallen by 84,000 people? The employment in construction's

currently rising. The recent news on construction has been very good.

That is because we have an infrastructure plan, a fifth of the

projects are under way, we have got road-building at far higher levels

than it ever was under the Labour. They electrified five miles of

railway line, we are going to be electrifying hundreds of miles of

railway line. I know he doesn't mention the fact that he's been

paying rent to Unite in his constituency office. Normally it's

money from Unite to Labour, on this case it's money from Labour to

Unite. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is my right

honourable friend aware that after yesterday's surrender of powers by

the Home Office to the European Union by bringing the European Court

of Justice into the arrest warrant, the Commission has welcomed it as

pragmatic? Has bra thattively overtaken the Prime Minister's

popular desire to repatriate powers? What I would say to my right

honourable friend is that the Home Secretary's announcement yesterday

represents the repatriation to the UK of 98 powers. There were 133

items on the justice and Home Affairs list and that's a mattive

transfer of power back here to the UK which I think my right honourable

friend should welcome. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

-- massive transfer. A career and her husband with Parkinson's disease

were moved to a two-bedroomed property because he found it

impossible to sleep when sharing a room. The cumulative effect means

she'll have to find an additional �1,000 a year. Evidence has been

published which says discretionary payment schemes are only actually

benefitting one in ten. That's the scheme that Government ministers

frequently pray in aid. Was it his intention that nine out of ten

careers should face eviction, debt, arrears and bailiffs? Well, first of

all, let me make clear that Disability Living Allowance, the

main benefit received by disabled people is being uprated by inflation

and excluded from the welfare cap. When it comes to the spare room

subsidy, anyone who needs a career sleeping in another bedroom is

exempt from the spare room subsidy. Of course, also there is the

discretionary payment. Members opposite shake their heads. The fact

is, they have opposed each and every one of our welfare savings. It's

their poll sill to adopt our spending plans -- policy. They can't

go on accepting the plans but criticising at the same time.

It's one year since the Government suspended aid money that goes

directly to the Kagame regime in Rwanda over the role they played in

supporting warlords and militia gangs in the Congo. Recently, the UN

confirmed Rwandan Army officers are still involved in such activities.

Does my right honourable friend agree with me that these actions are

unacceptable for a Commonwealth nation and, will he work with the

international counterparts by ensuring those committing war crimes

are brought to justice? The war crimes should always be brought to

justice. I've raised the issue for support with President Kagame on a

number of occasions. We need to bear in mind that fact. We should also

recognise, and this goes across parties in this House, that British

investment in aid in Rwanda has created one of the great success

stories of African development over the last decade and we should

continue to invest in that success and lift people out of poverty while

delivering a clear message to President Kagame at the same time.

Prime Minister, how many job jobs (inaudible)

All members of Parliament have the cleers possible duty to their

constituents. But let me make this point. Do I think the House of

Commons benefits from people like the honourable member for Blackburn?

And his experience? Do I think the House of Commons benefits from the

honourable member for Sheffield Brightside who comes to this House

with his experience? I think we do benefit. I'm not sure we benefit

from my immediate predecessor, but there are honourable members

opposite who give good service to this House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, we are all celebrating Andy Murray's

historic victory this week. The Prime Minister may not know that

history was also made in 1954 when Dave Valentine, a Scotsman, was the

first man to lift the Rugby League World Cup trophy for Great Britain.

With the 14th Rugby League World Cup happening this year, the first major

sporting tournament on these shores since last year's wonderful London

2012 Olympics and Paralympics, will the Prime Minister give full support

and come to one of the games? wasn't aware of that important piece

of history and I'm grateful for him bringing me up-to-date on that. I

strongly support the fact we are holding this tournament and will

give it all the support we can. We have the small issue of the Ashes

which is very important as well. Thank you, Mr Speaker. When the

Prime Minister entertained the hedge fund owners of Circle Health, the

private hospital company, to a dinner for donors in Downing Street,

what did he promise in return for their �863,000 donation to the Tory

party? Let me give him the figures. �8

million from Unite, �4 million from GMB, �4 million from unison. And the

difference is this - those donations, they buy your leader.

They buy your policy. They buy... THE SPEAKER: Order, order!

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it's welcomed that 2,500 out

of workhouse holds in London can no longer claim more...

THE SPEAKER: Order. Mr Lord's question must be heard!

Mr Lord? These out of workhouse holds can no longer claim more than

the average work family earning, a welfare reform opposed by the party

opposite? The party opposite have opposed

every single welfare change we've made. �86 billion in total, and

people in this country, including Trade Union members, will find it in

xplicable why the party opposite think you ought to be better off on

benefits than in work. Shows that they have the wrong relationship

with the unions and have the wrong values too.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House (inaudible)

THE SPEAKER: Order. Some basic manners would suggest

that the question be heard. Just as I said about Mr Lord, so too Cathy

Jamieson will be heard. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Perhaps the Prime Minister could tell the House whether the donations

to the Conservative Party had any influence on the Foreign Secretary's

intervention in his company's tax dispute?

The donations to the Conservative Party do not buy votes at our Party

Conference. They don't buy votes for our leader. They don't mean you can

select candidates. That is the unhealthy relationship in British

politics. They can say all they want, but they've been found out in

Falkirk and are being found out across the country.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Every Shropshire child receives

�4,612 per annum for their education. In other parts of the

country, that figure is as high as �7,000 to �9,000. This is completely

unjust and puts Shrewsbury children at a disadvantage. Will the Prime

Minister do all he can to help the Education Secretary to change this

funding Meg name before the unions try to block it? We agree the

current system is unfair and my right honourable friend gave the

figures. We have committed to consulting on how best to introduce

a national funding formula for 2015-16. We'll consult widely with

all of the interested parties to get this right. We'll obviously include

all Members of Parliament and I know that my right honourable friend, the

member for Shrewsbury, will campaign very hard on that issue.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Tory chair of the Treasury

Select Committee's described the Government's banking reforms as

falling short and, in some respects, virtually useless. Is this the pay

off for all the millions the bank banks... (Inaudible) Is this

Commission that commissioned the Vickers Report, committed to a

ringfence around retail banks, it's this Government that's legislating

to have criminal sanctions against bankers. What did the last

Government do? What did those two do when they were sitting in the

Treasury, when Northern Rock were handing out 110% mortgages? They

were knighting Fred Goodwin. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, on Friday, the town centre of Bury will fall silent as

the people of Bury lead the nation in paying respects to drummer Lee

Rigby, so horrifically murdered on the streets of Woolwich. Will the

Prime Minister join with me in paying tribute to all his family and

friends and his comrades in the Fusiliers for their calm and

dignified response to their loss and thank all those in the church, Armed

Forces, police and Public Services who've been engaged in the planning

and preparation for the funeral? My right honourable friend speaks

for the whole country and the whole House when he talks about this

issue. We should all pay tribute to drummer Lee Rigby for his service to

our country. I heard about it at first hand when in Afghanistan and

meeting members of his regiment. We should pay tribute to his family, to

all the pain and difficulty they are going through. I'm sure it will be a

very fitting and moving service on Friday and the whole country will be

mourning with them. I have a JCB factory in my

constituency and I represent their Parliamentary interests as part of

my Parliamentary duties. Will the Prime Minister tell us how much the

Foreign Secretary was paid by JCB whilst he was in opposition?

JCB is a Great British company that exports all over the world. Instead

of trying to take it down, we should be celebrating it. It's opening

businesses, creating employment, it's training apprenticeships, it's

backing our academy programme. How typical of the party opposite. All

they want to do is talk down Great British businesses.

Does the Prime Minister agree that what this Government does, as it

helped us save the Medway Insolvency Service is represent the interests

of ordinary, decent Trade Unionists who too often are lions led by

donkeys? I absolutely agree with my right

honourable friend. Can I pay tribute to him for his work in saving the

Medway Insolvency Service. This is important and the fact is, the party

opposite is in hock to union leaders and that is why they refuse to

investigate the scandal of these rigged appointments. That is what

this is scandal is about and that's what they refuse to talk about.

Major contributors to Conservative Party funds... . Could the Prime

Minister say what role will be played in Conservative Party

planning policy? As a member of Unite, she speaks

with great authority on this subject. Let me explain again - when

people donate to the Conservative Party, they are not buying votes for

the leader, they are not buying policies, they are not buying votes

to the Party Conference. The reason the right honourable gentleman has

his job is that Trade Unions bought votes in the Labour Party and put

him where he is. That doesn't happen in any other political party. If

they've got any sense at all, they'll realise it's profoundly

wrong. I'm sure the Prime Minister will

agree with me that there's no better way to build a stronger economy and

a fairer society than through apprenticeships. In Solihull, the

number of apprenticeships has nearly doubled already and I'm on a mission

to build on the success by working with local businesses to create 100

new apprenticeships in 100 days. Will the Prime Minister support this

objective? I certainly support her campaign, as

I would to all members to encourage to take up apprenticeships. It's

about encouraging young people and businesses as well. In the West

Midlands, we have Jaguar Land Rover powering ahead taking on many more

employees and investing heavily in apprenticeships. Thank you very

much, Mr Speaker. This morning I had a person threatening to commit

suicide because they were so depressed from the effect of welfare

reform. I would like to say this was unique, Mr Speaker, but it wasn't.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House today what is Government is

doing to analyse the effect of the welfare re reform and how he will

react to it? As I said many times, I'm always happy to look at

individual casings, but the fact is, we badly need to have welfare

reform, the system was completely out of control. Housing Benefit was

out of control. DLA had gone up by over a third. We need reforms and

it's no good the Shadow Chancellor gesticulating. He now is in favour

apparently of welfare reform. The only problem is that he opposed all

86 billion of the reforms that we'd made. Engineering work is under way

to finance Swindon. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it's a

good example of Spencible investment in infrastructure leading to

economic growth for Gloucestershire? My right honourable friend is

absolutely right. Investing particularly in some of the branch

lines, single track lines like some of the ones that serve my

constituency and turning them into double, makes the service far better

and we can get more people on trains and out of cars and use the service

like that. What I said to the honourable gentleman is that he

needs to examine again this relationship between the unions and

the Labour Party. That that's the problem. They do this, yes, they

give you the money, they buy the votes, they buy the leader. That's

how it works.let oo Prime Minister's Questions comes to an end. It was a

noisy rum bustious PMQs. Hasn't been that noisy for a while. It was all

about party funding in the exchanges between the two frontbenches. Mr

Miliband depicted Mr Cameron as being financed by millionaires and

hedge fund magistratements and Mr Cameron depicting Mr Miliband as

being in the pockets of the union leaders as some things never change

in British politics. This is one of scaring the people into voting for

them. Dave, you have UKIP breathing down your neck. Jill said, as usual

they accused each other of being corrupt. The sad part is they are

both probably right. Helen said Ed's predictable today. Amazing how he

wants to change the debate when they are trying to fix the candidate

voting system. They must think we were all born yesterday. Isabel

says, "It's giving me a sore head listening to the constant shouting.

They're like children in the playground." Class wear fair never

dies in this country, does it, Nick? I just sometimes wonder whether this

argument about process not about how to build homes or grow the economy

or make society fairer, whether it doesn't just go over the heads of a

lot of people? The other thing it may do is convince people to say

well they are all as bad as each other and they're all corrupt in

some way. Labour did to David Cameron what the Tory backbenchers

had done last week to Ed Miliband. They were organised and they all

this questions about hedge funds who had been to dinner at Downing Street

and given a lot of money. Last week it was all about Unite. What is the

impression? Remember, largely because we no longer have a Lib Dem

voice, the leader was able to pop up and he would have been able to

playing on both your houses. The result was you just get this wall of

noise and it's worth saying to viewers watching, they may think why

does the speaker keep popping up. You honestly wouldn't be able to

hear them in there. It's because the microphones are directional and they

are programmed to get the sound close to the speaker and you need to

get a sense of quite how noisy it is, but as you say, we have the

claim on the one hand from Labour, they are the people's party against

the party of privilege and the claim from the Conservative Party that

Labour have been bought lock, stock and block vote as the Prime Minister

put it by the unions. The funny thing is that report I mentioned

before, Sir Christopher Kelly, they posed a cap on donations, agreed by

all party leaders. The argument is about the level. He says 50 K a year

and Ed says five. He also said that was only possible if Labour moved

way from a system that they have, exactly what Ed Miliband announced

he intended to do yesterday. The people are automatically signing up

to the Labour Party. If you came down from Mars and you read the

report and you would think there was the makings of a deal. There was a

five between five and 50, but there should be a deal. That gives you the

impression there is not the slightest chance. The Prime

Minister's claim is that whereas that union donations by influence --

buy influence, that rich folks' donations buy no influence on policy

on the Conservatives. Is that really credible? People who make major

donations to the Conservative Party wine and dine regularly with

Conservative leaders and Cabinet ministers. They have special dinners

at party conferences, where all the Tory leaders turn up and they see

them regularly. Are we really meant to believe that all of that social

meeting that follows major donations has no influence at all? He was

drawing the contrast between formal influence, where there is a formal

input over the policy process, which is what happens to the Labour Party.

Ed Miliband wouldn't be there and what happens when someone makes a

donation to the Conservative Party, they can seek to influence, but in

the end it's transparent and they have no formal say over policy.

unions are transparent too. There are plenty of people who have

expressed dissatisfaction with the policies. Plenty of individuals have

expressed that. Doesn't it pass the smell test for ordinary viewers if

you give a couple of million to the Conservative Party and then that

gets you all sorts of access to social occasions and even working

dinners with leaders of the Conservative Party that the

Conservatives are not in anyway influenced by these people? That's

why there needs to be a cap on donations. Nick is right, that has

been agreed. They do have an influence? Of course, and it would

be better to have a cap. The Prime Minister is wrong when he says they

don't have an influence? I think it's just playing with words. What

we need to have is confidence in the system. There should be a cap. I go

back to the fact that as the former General Secretary of the Labour

Party admitted in his book, the talks collapsed or were collapsed by

Labour, because they wouldn't move on union funding. The view that was

taken by the others at the time is you can't have a cap on donations

and yet allow millions of pounds to flow through from the unions to the

Labour Party. If the Labour Party will agree that not just the

affiliation fee but the political fund as well is covered by all of

this, that people should have to opt into political fund too, then yes,

of course, we can go back to the position and talk about a cap. That

would be better. There is transparency on donations. People

can look to see who is donating. They don't have an influence over

the formal policy. They don't. What about Adrian Beacroft. He lobbied

David Cameron on workers' rights and got to write a report on it and the

document became Government poll -- policy. What about JCB. They've

lobbied on various matters and commissioned a report by the Prime

Minister on industrial policy. They have bought direct access to the

Conservative Party. The central recommendation of the report was

rejected by the Government. Many others were accepted. It's a public

report. You can judge the merits on it. Here was a businessman who

advised on competitiveness. I cannot think of a better person than to

advise on industrial policy than Sir Anthony Bamford who is leader of

JCB. He is a word leader. Every single pound of his money is

published and it's apparent and people can make their judgment. I go

back to the fact, we are not disagreeing about the fact that

there should be a cap. Why should it be? That is, as the Prime Minister

said, a matter for discussion. It was the Labour Party who walked away

because they refused to accept the fact that the unions would not be a

part of it. That is where the focus should lie. The unions now seem to

be a part of it. The point though that the Prime Minister made is

probably correct, isn't it, Hilary Benn, that if you go down to a

donation as low as 5,000 being the cap in the end the taxpayer will

have to stump in and finance your parties? I don't think there's a

public appetite for that. No.For reasons I think all of us

understand. Look, the Prime Minister was - The last report, I'm sorry to

interrupt, but the last report did say that if you went to a cap double

that, �10,000, every Westminster vote would then get �3 given by the

taxpayer to political parties and therefore a euro election vote would

get �1. 50 as a piece of information. Sure. Look, I think

what the public wants, they want to rereform of the system and the fact

that why did the head funds get a large tax cut in the budget? The

Prime Minister couldn't answer that. He wasn't prepared to say what he

will do in answer to Ed Miliband on a cap on donations and we have

moved, as you've acknowledged, and that is what Ed did. Because you've

had to. You refused to talk before because you didn't want the unions

to be affected. You've oenT moved because you had to, because of the

scandal of Unite trying to buy influence in the party in not just

one Parliamentary selection, but 40 of them and you still haven't

answered questions about that. the case. - You have a Unite

official leading the inquiry. case has been referred to the

police. A crisis arose and what Ed decided to do was lead from the

front and make a profound change, which everybody has acknowledged.

The Prime Minister wouldn't answer on paid directorships and the like.

Nick, you know, see the grainy footage that we've been suspected to

as members of Parliament have been discussing how much they might

charge in response to businesses that approach them. The fact is that

shouldn't have a place in Parliament, which is why Ed Miliband

said today that they shouldn't be allowed. What is the Prime

Minister's position and yours on that? Quick response. I don't know.

Blunket, Straw, Brown, who are the biggest earners outside the --

blunket, Straw, Brown, who are the biggest earners outside the party.

The danger here is the sum of the proposals will lead to the wholesale

professionalisation of the parties, where there is no outside interests.

If you are a minister you give all up, but there is quite a big

question whether for instance you are a director of a family company,

or whether you are a solicitor, if you have some outside experience or

interest, whether you should not be allowed to have that at all. I

wonder if that's whether the public want that. I agree.You are putting

this down as a smokescreen to deflect. I'm not talking about

experience. It's people because they've been elected as a MP. -- an

MP. I'm talking about new ones. No ones that they bring in. If they've

founded a family firm, it's different. It's people who are

approached once elected to come on the boards and what Ed Miliband is

saying it's stopping now. I need to hear from Nick Robinson. I do

sometimes despair. The one view I'm allowed to have as BBC political

editor I believe in politics. I think it's a good thing. The slight

feeling of despair I have to say that I have today is that with a

recommended pay rise for MPs tomorrow, being made not by them,

but being made by aned pent body, it will be less than �10,000 a year,

but it will seem like a fortune to many watching this. There is not a

lot these guys can do about it. They would have to overturn that. But

with that, with Labour saying the Tories are corrupt as they take

money from the rich and the Tories say their corrupt with the unions

and now we are talking second earnings. I have a horrible feeling

that the only impact on most people will be to say a playing on all of

you and we don't trust any of you. The increase will be vast and it

won't compensate people for some change to outside earnings, so

simultaneously, members of the public will be outraged and members

of Parliament will feel they are now in danger of earning less than they

ever did. It's a self-generated and ever did. It's a self-generated and

very painful political story. Hilton, one of the Prime Minister's

senior advisers reportedly said British bureaucracy masters the

politicians. It's not unusual to hear ministers complain the Civil

Service machine is not up to the job. There are plans for a big

shake-up of the way Whitehall has been working. Francis Maude spoke

earlier. We think the current system where we have an impartial Civil

Service capable of serving any Government with equal enthusiasm and

dedication and passion and commitment is a very important part

of how Britain can be made to be really successful and win in the

global race. But actually, it whats to be the case that ministers need

to feel that their offices are their offices, not the department's office

and that's the change that will will be put in place. You said one thing

you discovered is that civil servants don't work for you. Is it

really that bad a problem? Imagine you were asked to do a job, say that

you were asked to be chairman of a company but none of the people in

the company worked for you, you can't vary or alter their pay

according to performance, the Chief Executive doesn't actually work for

you, would you take the job? Nobody would. That's what we ask ministers

to do. Real questions now do arise about accountability. I strongly

welcome what the Government has announced today, which I think is a

sensible step forward that enhances the accountability of a system of

the permanent Civil Service, for instance by saying that the

Permanent Secretaries should not suffer a long-term more than five

years and allows ministers to have extended offices to bring in people

and make use of civil servants as well with real policy expertise.

That happens in other Parliamenty democracies. It was recommended by

the IPPR, it has been endorsed by the Institute for Government and I

think it's a very good foreword to make sure that it's equal to the

task of delivering a modern Government. Will it make civil

servants equal to the task? Obviously, Whitehall's been painted

as this independent institution that puts into place Government policy.

Is the Government in danger of blurring that line, or is it the

pragmatic way forward? You have to make sure there are proper

safeguards and the fact that we have it independent. We haven't got the

American system. You get a President elect and everybody goes and there's

chaos for three months while confirmations take place. I've been

a Cabinet Minister for seven years, and in the end, you are the person

responsible and it's important that the people you are working with are

properly accountable to you. That's about the clarity you give, the

extent to which you are on top of the job. When I reflect to my time

as deputy council lead leader, we took part in electing electing ours.

I think it's fair, frankly, that Secretary of States should be able

to bring in other outside expertise to assist them. We have seen that

under both Governments. You get specialist advise advisers

recognising that we are politicians, as well as holders of the office of

state and we come with a particular perspective and view and it's

important that that's reflected in the decisions that the Government

makes. That sounds like consensus for it, at least certainly the

direction ofle - travel. You have a group of people hand picked by the

minister, one of you two, whose job will depend on that minister, to

some extent staying in office. That will become more political? There is

an emerging consensus but the reforms are sensible. What we are

not talking about is hugely increasing the number of political

advisers. Are you sure that just won't happen as a consequence

though? There 'll be loads more paid special advisers? But I think what

the proposal is talking about, people of expertise, there is a

desire to bring in people of calibre and experience and expertise and to

make use of them from within the existing Civil Service. That happens

in other comparable systems. If you look at the support that a minister

in Australia or Canada receives, it's far greater. They have much

bigger offices than our own ministers who're under supported and

I don't think the system is sufficient to do what we now need to

do. We need a different kind of Civil Service today. If it's about

winning the global race, we need a better skilled Civil Service with

very strong commissioning skills. We have seen failures with things like

the West Coast Mainline, so there needs to be a shake-up. Do you think

that civil servants should be made for publicly accountable? I think

the accountability arrangements are unsatisfactory because ultimately,

ministers are accountable for everything. Because they can't be

accountable for the minutiae, the reality is that nobody is

accountable. In the West Coast Mainline, it wasn't just the

minutiae, there was the sense that ministers were perhaps blaming civil

Searle have beens -- civil servants. Is that a case of ministers saying,

I'm covering my back here? I don't think you can have a working

relationship if you are going to blame the civil servant colleagues.

Your job is to take responsibility. That's what happened here? ! I take

the blame for everything. You have to be on top of staff, but it's

right and proper that, as Cabinet Ministers, you are able to call in

other expertise and support to help you through. Nike's -- Nick's

thought about this. It's a typically pragmatic British compromise.

fudge? Well, no, it's not a fudge. It is after all, special adviser

were created as a body and it recognised, we bring politics, views

and values into our job. You could have a French system of an interim?

It'sle an extended ministerial office because there should be

guards built around it, I agree. But it works well in other Commonwealth

countries. The secretary has to be someone you have confidence in.

you should select? I certainly took a decision about who would be a

private secretary because it's about a working relationship, not about

politics. I remember that bit of France from

my science class. Here is a test for you, name we once

Great British institution which hasn't fallen from grace in recent

years? Not even the dear old BBC. It's been through the ringer whosmt

will be the next focus of public derision. Ross Clarke's got his soap

backs to argue that it's time we put We've done bankers, politicians and

even journalists. But what about the one group of professionals which has

never been reformed? Lawyers. Even the coalition's attempts to tripe a

mere 10% from the hideous legal aid budget has run into the sand. As for

the chronic overcharging on nonlegal aid cases, it goings on -- goes on,

unabated. Critics of legal aid reforms like to damn the idea of

cheaper legal services as Tesco justice, but the reality is that

legal costs are spiralling out of control. Even a junior counsel in

the Leveson Inquiry was paid �218,000 for a few months' work.

To use the courts, you need to be either very rich or very poor. If

you are very rich, you can behave like Robert Maxwell, threatening

anybody who crosses you with ruinous legal costs. If you are very poor,

you might qualify for legal aid, if which case the taxpayer picks up the

tab. But I have an idea of how we could create a level playing field.

Why not allow anybody involved in a court case to set a cap on the cost

which they will claim from the other side in the event of them whipping.

The cap could work both ways and serve as a limit on the costs which

the other side can claim from you in the event of you losing.

-- winning. Wealthy litigants could still pay for fancy law, but they

wouldn't be able to frighten their poor opponents into submission.

Go into court and it's not cheap, but there's no reason why it should

have to cost you your shirt or even your house.

Ross Clarke joins us now. Do you think any Government of the left or

the right will ever take that on? The big problem is the House of

Commons is stuffed with lawyers. This is true. When see set out to

reform education, you don't put a teacher in charge. You don't put a

doctor in charge of reforming the NHS. An attempt at legal reform, we

always sealp to get a lawyer to do it. It's a difficult one to get

progress? For that very reason, yes, the vested interests. Hilary Benn,

if you look at the, never mind the public sector, take the private

sector, look at the huge changes blue collar workers have gone

through in the car industry, in the newspaper industry, in broadcasting,

all of them are bywords for restrictive practice and overmanning

and inefficiency. All gone, all state-of-the-art doing all these

things now. Yet, the white-collar professions are still mired in the

restrictive practices of overmanning and absurd costs. Why? I think Ross

has a point. One of the last things we did when in Government was to

reduce the criminal legal aid fees that could be charged and there was

quite... Outcry.Indeed. The introduck shufr of no-win no-fee was

in part an attempt - we strengthened it - the previous Government began

the change. But in an attempt to enable people to get access to law.

You make a very fair point. If you are talking about access to civil

justice, it's either the very rich and before some of the changes the

current Government's made, or those on very low income who is 'ed have

the opportunity and for most of the rest of the country tlfrksn't any

access to justice. Look at the outcry. Mr Grayling suggested some

people may regard things as modest reforms. Huge outcry, after

listening to well-spoken judges saying it's the end of life as they

know it and he's had to Iran back already? The criminal legal aid

system is too expensive. If you look at comparable systems of legal aid.

Our system is twice as expensive as New Zealand. I think in n all the

reforms you have to separate what's in the public interest and in the

producer interest and those are not necessarily the same thing. So you

have to separate out when lawyers are saying this is all appalling and

so on, actually is that an access to justice argument, whether it's right

to protect access to justice or is it about defending a particular way

you are working. Medicine is a classic example. If you capitulate

too much to that producer interest, you, as happened in the previous

Government in relation to the GP contract, then what happens is the

patient interest suffers. If the Labour Party supports the

Government, it would be good, on the legal aid reforms. Ross, this sounds

a tough mountain to climb. Are you going to continue your campaign?

shall do, yes. I'm amused by the idea the High Court judges slam any

reform as Tesco justice, but I'm sure that the point of Tesco and

other supermarkets is, they come up with this brilliant compromise

between quality and price and the law seems to think it should be

immune from that. Ross, we'll leave it there. Keep us

posted. What was the year? I'm going to tell you. Time to put you out of

your misery. The year was 1951. We need to have a winner. Press the

red button, Nick, Hilary, anyone! Even a lawyer could do it.