02/03/2014 Sunday Politics South East

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Fears that Ukraine could face invasion escalate this morning as

Russian forces take control of Crimea. President Obama and his

European allies tell President Putin to back off. It doesn't sound like

he's listening. Shadow Education Secretary Tristram

Hunt has started spelling out Labour's plans for schools. So

what's the verdict - full marks or must try harder? He joins us for the

Sunday Interview. And all the big political parties

And in The Sunday Politics hn the appeal. We'll look at some unusual

And in The Sunday Politics hn the South East... It is a hugelx

traumatic experience for changes. And tightening household

finances. And with me, as always, three

journalists who'd make a clean sweep if they were handing out Oscars for

political punditry in LA tonight. But just like poor old Leonardo

DiCaprio they've never won so much as a Blue Peter badge! Yes, it's

Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh. Instead of acceptance

speeches they'll be tweeting faster than the tears roll down Gwyneth

Paltrow's face. Yes, that's as luvvie as we get on this show.

Events have been moving quickly in Ukraine this weekend. The interim

government in Kiev has put the Ukrainian military on full combat

alert after Russia's parliament rubber-stamped the deployment of

Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine. Russian troops seem already to be in

control of the mainly Russian-speaking Crimea region,

where Russia has a massive naval base. President Obama told President

Putin that Russia has flouted international law by sending in

Russian troops but the Kremlin is taking no notice. This is now

turning into the worst stand-off between Russia and the West since

the conflict between Georgia and Russia in 2008, though nobody

expects any kind of military response from the West. Foreign

Secretary William Hague is on his way to Kiev this morning to show his

support for the new government, though how long it will survive is

another matter. We can speak to our correspondent David Stern, he's in

Kiev. As things look from Kiev, can we

take it they've lost Crimea, it is now in all essence under Russian

control? Yes, well for the moment, Crimea is under Russian control

Russian troops in unmarked uniforms have moved throughout the peninsula

taking up various positions, also at the Ismis which links Ukraine into

Crimea. They've surrounded Ukrainon troops there. Three units have been

captured according to a top officials. We can say at the moment

Russia controls the peninsula. It should also be said, also they have

the support of the ethnic Russian population. The ethnic Russians make

up the majority of the population. They are also not entirely in

control because there are other groups, namely the Tatar as and the

ethnic Ukrainian speakers who are at least at the moment tacitly

resisting. We'll see what they'll start to do in the coming days.

David, I'm putting up some pictures showing Russian troops digging in on

the border between Crimea and Ukraine. I get the sense that is

just for show. There is, I would assume, no possibility that the

Ukrainians could attempt to retake Crimea by military force? It seems

that the Ukrainians are weighing their options right now. Their

options are very limited. Any head-to-head conflict with Russia

would probably work against the Ukrainians. They seem to be taking

more of a long-term gain. They are waiting for the figs's first move.

They are trying not to create any excuse that the Russians can stage

an even larger incursion into Crimea or elsewhere, for that matter. They

also seem to be trying to get international support. It should be

said, this is a new Government. It has only been installed this week.

They are trying to gain their footing. This is a major crisis

They have to count on the loyalty of the army they might have some

resistance from solders from the eastern part of the country who are

Russian speaking. They probably could count on Ukrainian speakers

and people from the centre and west of the country as well as regular

Ukrainians. A lot of people are ready to fight to defend Ukrainian

Terre Tory. Where does the Kremlin go next? They have Crimea to all

intents and purposes. There's a weak Government in Kiev. Do they move to

the eastern side of Ukraine which is largely Russian speaking and there's

already been some unrest there? That's the big question, that's what

everybody's really asking now. Where does this go from here? We've had

some unrest in the eastern part of the country. There have been

demonstrations and clashes. More ominously, there have been noises

from the Kremlin they might actually move into eastern Ukraine. Putin in

his conversation with Barack Obama said they might protect their

interests there. It should be said, if they do expand, in fact, they've

also said they are dead against the new Government seeing it as

illegitimate and fascist. It does contain risks. They will have to

deal with international reactions. America said there will be a deep

reaction to this and it will affect Russia's relations with Ukraine and

the international community. They have to deal with the reaction in

Ukraine. This may unite Ukrainians behind this new interim Government.

Once Russia moves in, they will be seen as an invading force. It plays

on historical feelings of Russia being an imperial force.

Joining me is MP Mark Field who sits on the security Security and

Intelligence Committee in the House of Commons. What should the western

response be to these events? I can understand why William Hague is

going to Kiev tomorrow to stand side by side whizz whoever's in charge.

They need to CEOP sit numbers and also President Putin. The truth is

we are all co significant fatries to the Budapest Memorandum of almost 20

years ago which was designed to maintain the integrity of the

Ukraine and Crimea. There needs to be a discussion along those lines.

The difficulty is President Putin has watched events in recent months,

in relation to Syria, it is palpable President Obama's focus of attention

ask the other side of the Pacific rather than the Atlantic. The vote

in the House of Commons, I was very much against the idea of military

action or providing weapons to the free Syrian army. My worry is,

events proved this, the majority of the other options toed as sad are

rather worse. It is clear now we are in a constitutional mess in this

country. We cannot even contemplate military action without a

parliamentary vote that moves against quick reaction that is

required from the executive or, I suspect, there will be very little

appetite for any military action from the West over in Ukraine. We

are corn tours under the agreement of less than 20 years ago. We may be

but we've guaranteed an agreement which it is clear we haven't the

power to enforce. You wrote this morning, Britain is a diminished

voice. Clams Iley navigating the Syrian conflict we relick wished

decisions to the whims of parliamentary approval. That may or

may not be but the Kremlin's not watching how we voted on the Syrian

issue? In relation to Syria, it was where is the western resolve here.

The truth ask Putin's position is considerably less strong. In

diplomatic terms. He had a victory in Syria in relation to chemical

weapons and in relation to the West's relationship with Iran. Putin

is a vital inter locking figure In demographic and economic terms,

Russia's in very deep trouble. The oil price started to fall to any

degree, oil and gas price, given the importance of mineral wealth and

exports for the Russian economy Putin would be in a lot of trouble.

It requires an engagement from the EU and the EU are intending to look

at their internal economic problems and will be smarting from the

failure within a matter of hours of the deal they tried to broker only

nine days' ago. You say if Mr Putin decides to

increase the stakes and moves into the east, takes over the whole

place, our Government, you say, will find itself with another colossal

international headache. Some people watching this will be thinking,

what's it got to do with us? It s a long way away from Britain. We

haven't a dog in this fight? We have in this regard for the longer term

here. I think if there were to be some military action in Ukraine the

sense of Russia taking over, it could have a major impact on the

global economy in very quick order. You should not deny that. There will

be move to have sanctions against Russia. The escalation of that will

be difficult. The other fact is looking at our internal affairs and

reform, partners, the Baltic states, Finland, Poland, the Czech Republic,

they will be looking at a resurgent Russia now and think they'll need to

hold as tightly as possible to the EU institutions and the power of

Germany at the centre of that. This whole appetite for the reforms

politically and economically will be closed very much within a matter of

a short period of time. It has longer term implications. Mark

Field, thank you. We're joined now by BBC News night's

Diplomatic Editor Mark Urban. Is there any prospect of a western

military response? Clearly at the moment, it is nil. The boat has

sailed with the Crimean. It has been per performed by Russian forces It

is now a matter of coordinating a plate cal line. European foreign

ministers tomorrow. To say what will our future limits be? Where could we

possibly draw red lines? To try to think a couple of steps down this,

what happens if Russia interrupts energy supplies to EU member states

ornate owe countries? These are the important steps they have to think

about. It is quite clear we are in a different world here now. Also,

Ukraine is facing a urgent foreign exchange crisis. Within literally a

few weeks they could run out of money. All of these are rushing

towards decision makers very fast. There is an interim and I suggestion

unstable Government in Kiev. Crimea semi-to be under Russian control.

There are clashes between the reformers and Russian nationals in

the east of the country. What does Mr Putin do next? He has lots of

options, of course. He has this carte blanch carte blanch from his

Parliament to go in to the rest of Ukraine if he wants to. His military

deployment suggests the one bite at a time, just Crimea to start with.

See what response comes from the Ukrainian Government. Of course so

far, there hasn't been a coherent response. The really worrying thing

about recent months, not just recent days, are the indications that the

future of Ukraine as a unitary state is now in doubt. Look at it from the

other side of the equation. The President when faced with

demonstrations, many extremists he was unable to deal with that. Now we

have the other side, if you like, the Russian speakers, the other side

of the fight, Russian nationalists showing they can get away with

unilateral action more or less with impunity. The Ukrainian chiefs have

been sacked. I think there are considerable questions now as to

whether Ukraine is falling apart and, if that happens, we're into a

Yugoslav-type situation which will continue posing very serious

questions for the EU and NATO for months or years to come. So, Janan,

Ukraine is over? Where the west to concede to the Russian in Crimea, it

would perversely be a net loss for Russia. You'd assume the rest of

Ukraine would become an un unambiguously a member of the the

EU, maybe NATO. On top of that a Russian dream of Eurasion dream

they will look at Putin's behaviour and is a, no, thanks, we'll head

towards the EU. It is a short-term victory for Putin which backfires on

his broader goals in Well, many people said if he grabs Crimea, he

loses Ukraine, which is your point. We have seen violent demonstrations

in the big eastern cities in Ukraine yesterday. People taking control of

certain buildings. The risk is there of spreading beyond Crimea. I think

the lack of any unified or visible response from Ukrainian armed

forces... They allowed Russian troops to walk into the bases in

Crimea. They have supposedly gone on red alert but they have done

absolutely nothing. We don't see them deploying from barracks. There

are serious questions about whether they would just fall apart. Putin is

not going to let them split away. I would have thought he would like the

entire Ukraine to come into the Russian ambit. Barack Obama is

saying this will not stand. He has a 90 minute conversation with Vladimir

Putin and what is his response? I am suspending my cooperation in the

run-up to the Sochi Summit. What is the EU doing? Nothing. There is

nothing they can do and Putin knows there are a series of lines that he

is able to cross and get away with it. Why should Berlin, London,

Washington be surprised by the strength of Vladimir Putin's

reaction? It was never going to let Ukraine just fall into the arms of

the EU. That is the interesting point. And who does he listen to?

Paddy Ashdown was saying sent Angela Merkel because she is the only

person who can talk to him and I find that response worrying. We need

to speak with a united voice but nobody knows what we should be

saying. Military intervention is out for the West so we go to economic

sanctions. Doesn't Vladimir Putin just say, oh, you want sanctions? I

have turned off the gas tap. Yes, it is move and countermove, and it is

difficult to predict where it will end up. In all these meetings that

are being held, they do think a step or two ahead and try and set out

clear lines. Thank you for coming in this morning.

Labour has been struggling since 2010 to decide exactly how to take

education secretary Michael Gove, one of the boldest reformers of the

coalition and most divisive figures. Ed Miliband appointed TV historian

Tristram Hunt and many thought Labour had found the man to teach

Michael Gove a lesson. But how much do we really know about the party's

plans for England's schools? Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are a

devolved matter. Child has been back to school to find out. A politician

once told me, do you know why education secretaries changed

schools? Because they can. Michael Gove might dispute the motive but he

is changing schools, like this one. The changes he is ringing in our

encouraging them to be academies, free from local authorities to

control their own budgets, ushering in free schools, focusing on

toughening exams and making them the core of the curriculum with less

coursework, and offering heads more discretion on tougher discipline.

And he is in a hurry to put all this in place. But has that shut out any

chance for a Labour Government to change it all themselves and do they

really want to? Any questions? Visiting a different school, first

in line to get a crack at that would-be Labour's third shadow

education secretary since 2010, Tristram Hunt. In post, he has not

been taken about fine tuning previous direct opposition to free

schools and he has also suggested teachers in England would have to be

licensed under a Labour Government, allowing the worst to be sacked and

offering training and development to others and of course ending

coalition plans to allow unqualified teachers into classrooms. Full

policy detail is still unmarked work. Your opinion about evolution?

What is very clear is that Labour's education policy is still evolving.

We are learning that they have some clear water, but we also seem, from

the sting at the back, to get the feeling that there is not a great

deal of difference from them and the current Government on types of

schools and the way education should proceed. -- from listening at the

back. So what exactly is different about their policy? What Tristram

Hunt's job is to do is to be open and honest about the shared agenda

between us and the Tories. There are a lot of areas where there is clear

water between us and Tristram Hunt as to turn his back, shared agenda,

stop fighting it, and forge our agenda, which I think people will be

really interested in. The art of Government, of course, is to balance

competing pictures of policy, even inside your own party. It is fair to

say that if Labour reflects and draws its own visions of a shared

agenda, it might have to square that idea with teaching unions, who are

already unhappy with the pace and tone of change that the Government

had sketched out. What we sincerely hope is that if Labour were to form

the next Government, that they would look at a serious review of

accountability measures. That is really what ways on teachers every

single day. Actually they would look at restoring the possibility, for

example, of local councillors to be able to open schools. That seems

eminently sensible. If they are not going to move back from the free

schools and academies programme at the very least they need to say that

academy chains will be inspected because at the moment they are not.

Labour have balls in the air on education and are still throwing

around precise policy detail. There are areas that they could grab hold

of and seize possession. A focus on the rounding of the people,

developing character, the impact of digitalisation on the classroom

Also the role and handling of teachers in the system and the

interdependence of schools. That is all still to play for. Currently I

think the difference between the parties is that the coalition

policies, while we do not agree with all of them, are clear and explicit,

and Labour's policies are yet to be formulated in a way that everybody

can understand clearly. I don't think that Tristram Hunt or Miliband

will want to pick unnecessary fights before the election. I think we will

have quite a red, pinkish fuzziness around the whole area of policy but

after the election there will be grey steel from Tristram Hunt. But

if fuzzy policy before the election is the lesson plan, it does rather

risk interested voters being left in the dark.

Tristram Hunt joins me now for the Sunday interview.

Welcome. Thank you. Which of Michael Gove's school reforms would you

repeal? We are not interested in throwing a change for the sake of

it. When I go round schools, teachers have been through very

aggressive changes in the last three years, so when it comes to some of

the curriculum reforms we have seen, we are not interested in changing

those for the sake of it. Where we are interested in making change is

having a focus on technical and vocational education, making sure

that the forgotten 15% is properly addressed in our education system.

What we saw in your package was an interesting description of how we

have seen structural reforms in the names of schools. Academies, free

schools, all the rest of it. International evidence is clear that

it is the quality of leadership of the headteachers and the quality of

teaching in the classroom that transforms the prospects of young

people. Instead of tinkering around the names of schools, we focus on

teacher quality. Viewers will be shocked to note that this Government

approves of unqualified teachers in the classroom. We want to have fully

qualified, passionate, motivated teachers in the classroom. It sounds

like you might not repeal anything. You might build on it and you might

go in a different direction, with more emphasis on technological

education but no major repeal of the reforms of Michael Gove? I don't

think you want to waste energy on undoing reforms. In certain

situations they build on Labour Party policy. We introduced the

sponsored academy programmes and we began the Teach First programmes,

and we began the London challenge which transformed the educational

prospects of children in London We want to roll that out across the

country. You have said there will be no more free schools, which Michael

Gove introduced, but you will allow parents let academies, which just

means free schools by a different name. No, because they will be in

certain areas. We want to create new schools with parents. What we have

at the moment is a destructive and market-driven approach to

education. I was in Stroud on Thursday and plans for a big new

school, in an area with surplus places, threatened to destroy the

viability of local, rural schools. We want schools to work together in

a network of partnership and challenge, rather than this

destructive market-driven approach. You say that, but your version of

free schools, I think, would only be allowed where there is a shortage of

places. That means that where there is an excess of bad schools, parents

will have no choice. They still have to send their kids to bad schools.

And we have to transform bad schools and that was always the Labour way

in Government. At the moment we just have an insertion of new schools.

Schools currently underperforming are now underperforming even more.

Children only have one chance at education. What about their time in

school? Our focus is on the leadership of the headteacher and

having quality teachers in the classroom. So they cannot set up new

better schools and they have to go to the bad schools. Tony Blair said

it should be easier for parents to set up new schools where they are

dissatisfied with existing schools. You are not saying that. Even where

they are dissatisfied with existing schools, they cannot set up free

schools and you are reneging on that. We live in difficult economic

circumstances where we have got to focus public finances on the areas

of absolute need. We need 250,0 0 new school places. 150,000 in London

alone. We have to focus on building new schools and where we have to put

them. And secondly... Absolutely not. Focusing on those schools.

Making sure we turned them around, just as we did in Government. We

have had a remarkable degree of waste under the free school

programme. If you think of the free school in Derby, the Academy in

Bradford, and as we saw in the Telegraph on Friday, the free

schools in Suffolk, a great deal of waste of public money on

underperforming free schools. That is not the Labour way. We focus on

making sure that kids in schools at the moment get the best possible

education. Except that in your own backyard, in Stoke, only 34% of

secondary school pupils attend a good or outstanding school. 148 out

of 150 of the worst performing local authorities and it is

Labour-controlled. Still terrible schools and yet you say parents

should not have the freedom to start a better school. We have great

schools in Stoke-on-Trent as well. We face challenges, just as

Wolverhampton does and the Isle of Wight and Lincolnshire. Just like

large parts of the country. What is the solution to that? Making sure we

share excellence among the existing schools and making sure we have

quality leadership in schools. Those schools in Stoke-on-Trent are all

academies. It is not a question only of structure but of leadership. It

is also a question of going back to the responsibility of parents to

make sure their kids are school ready when they get to school. To

make sure they are reading to their children in the evening. We can t

put it all on teachers. Parents have responsibilities. I understand that

but you have told me Labour's policy would not be to set up new schools

which parents hope will be better. Parents continue to send their kids

to bad schools in areas like Stoke. Labour has had plenty of time to

sort out these schools in Stoke and they are still among the worst

performing in the country. You are condemning these parents to having

to send their kids to bad schools. Where we have seen the sett ing up

of Derby, Suffolk, we have seen that is not the simple solution. Is

simply setting up a new is not a successful model. What works is good

leadership. I was in Birmingham on Friday at a failing comprehensive is

not a successful model. What works is good leadership. I was in

Birmingham on Friday at a failing comprehensive school and now people

are queueing round the block to get into it. You can turn around schools

with the right leadership, passionate and motivated teachers,

and parents engaged with the learning outcome of their kids. In

the last few years of the Labour Government, only four kids from your

this Government would set up the new school. In Birmingham, they got in a

great headmaster and turned the school around and now people are

queueing round the block to get into it. You can turnaround schools with

the right leadership, passionate and motivated teachers, and parents

engaged with the learning outcome of their kids. In the last few years of

a Labour Government, only four kids from your area of and you had plenty

of chances to put this right but only four got to the two and you had

plenty of chances to put this right but only four got to the two leading

universities. Traditionally young people could leave school at 16 and

walking two jobs in the potteries, the steel industry, the

traditionally young people could leave school at 16 and walking two

jobs in the potteries, the steel industry, the but also to get an

apprenticeship at Jaguar Land Rover, JCB, Rolls-Royce. That is why

Ed Miliband's focus on the forgotten 15%, which we have just not seen

from this Government, focusing on technical and vocational pathways,

is fundamental to Your headmaster was guiles Slaughter. Was he a good

teacher? He He never taught me. Over 90% of teeners in the private

sector are qualified. They look for not simply teachers with qualified

teacher status. Teachers with MAs. Teachers who are improving them

cephalitis. Becoming better educators.

cephalitis. Becoming better teaching. You were taught by

unqualified teachers. Your parents paid over ?15,000 a year for you

being taught by unqualified teachers. Why did you make such a

big deal of it? Because we've seen right around the world those

education systems which focus on having the most qualified teachers

perform the best. It cannot be right that anyone can simply turn up, as

at the moment, have schools at veritising for unqualified teachers

teaching in the classroom. We want the best qualified teachers with the

deepest subject knowledge, for the passion in learning for their kids.

It is absurd we are having arguments about this. Simply having a paper

qualification doesn't make you a great teacher. Let me take you to

Brighton college. It is gone from the 147th to the 18 18th best

private school in the land. Fllt the headmaster says:

This is the top Sundaytimes school of the year. The school in derby

where this Government allowed unqualified teaching assist taints.

We had teachers who could barely speak English. That is because if

you have unqualified teachers you end up with a dangerous situation.

The problem with that school was not unqualified teachers. People were

running that school who were unfit to run a school. We have an issue

about discipline and behaviour management in some of our schools.

Some of the skills teachers gain through qualifications and learning

is how to manage classes and get the best out of kids at every stage It

doesn't end with a qualified teacher status. That's just the beginning.

We want our teachers to have continue it will development. It is

not good enough to have your initial teacher trainingaged work through

your career for 30 years. You need continual learning. Learning how to

deal with digital technology. Refresh your subject knowledge. As

an historian I help teachers. You've taught as an unqualified teacher.

Not in charge of a subject group. I give the odd lecture. I'm-y to go to

as many schools as possible. I don't blame you. It is uplifting. Would

you sack all unqualified teachers? We'd want them all to gain teacher

status. What if they say no? If they are not interested in improving

skills and deepening their knowledge they should not be in the classroom.

If a free school or academy hired a teach thinking they are a great

teacher but unqualified, if they are then forced by you to fire them

they will be in breach of the law. They are being urged by us to make

sure they have qualified teacher status. We've lots of unqualified

teachers as long as they are on the pathway to making sure they are

qualified. But if they say they don't want to do this, will you fire

them? It is not an unreasonable suggestion is that the teachers in

charge of our young people have qualifications to teach and inspire

our young people particularly when we face global competition from

Shanghai, Korea and so on. The head teacher of Brighton college finds

incredibly inspeechational teachers who don't' necessarily have a

teaching qualifications. It is a different skill to teach ten young

nice boys and girls in Brighton to teaches 20 or 30 quids with

challenging circumstances, special educational needs, different

ability. Being a teacher at Brighton college is an easy gig in comparison

to other schools. Where we want teachers to have a capacity to teach

properly. Do you think Tristram could ever lead the Labour Party? I

think Ed is a great leader, the reforms yesterday were a real sign

for his leadership. And the fact David Owen, the man with a

pre-history with our party is back with us. It is great. Even Gideon

had to change his name to George. Have you thought of switching to

Tommy or Tony? Maybe not Tony! Michael Foot was called Dingle Foot.

I love the Labour because it accepts everybody from me to Len McCluskey.

We are a big, broad happy family on our way to Government. Thank you

very much. You're watching The Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us for Sunday

politics Scotland. In over 20 minutes

I am Natalie Graham and this is The Sunday Politics in the South East.

Coming up later... Local councillors are not allowed

to, so why are MPs and peers able to vote on matters in which thdy may

have a potential conflict of interest?

Joining me in the studio today to discuss this and other topics are

the Conservative MP for Chatham and Aylesford, Tracey Crouch and

Labour's prospective parlialentary candidate for Brighton Kemp Town,

Nancy Platts. Welcome to yot both. Now, before we go on to talk about

our main topics, I wanted to get your thoughts on fixed odds betting

machines, which have been c`lled the "crack cocaine" of gambling. This

weekend, a new code of condtct by the gambling industry comes into

force, meaning people who play on the machines will be able to set

their own limits on how long they spend on them and how much they

gamble. Critics say the measures are just window dressing and do not go

far enough to tackle addicthon to the machines. This is a particular

problem in Medway, which has the highest concentration of thdm

outside London. Does this go far enough? I have campaigned on this

for a long time. We will nedd to see how it works. There does nedd to be

something done, because thex are causing problems. Hopefully, it will

help control some gambling. The Labour leader wants these m`chines

banned altogether? We know they can be damaging, but we want to curtail

the element of these fixed odds betting terminals in the high street

betting shops and tillage is the amount of bookmakers also on the

high Street. If we have less of these machines no than we dhd in

2010, so the numbers are falling. You could ban them? It would be

strange for them to ban a m`chine that they introduced in 2000. What

we need to do is make sure that people who do get addicted to the

machines get the support thdy require. I think a lot of l`ws have

unintended consequences. Tr`cy is great rate and what she raises, but

this would require local authority process. What we want to do is give

the local authorities more power to act. When they see the all these

betting shops opening on thd high Street, is to say, no more. What can

be done to stop people becoling addicted to these machines? I think

things could be done around the planning laws, as I have sahd. You

have the choice of what you have on the high Street. At the momdnt,

local authorities are being starved of cash and funding. We need to make

sure that the planning officers are employed to can enforce all the

various laws in the area. The industry says there is no evidence

that these machines are a ddck. It is fair to say from the all`male I

get, there are people who are addicted to these. I think this

could of conduct will help. Now, dealing with the loss of a

stillborn baby is a dreadful ordeal for families to go through, but in

some cases, the bereavement process is made all the harder becatse, if a

baby is lost before 24 weeks' gestation, as far as the law is

concerned, it never existed. One MP from West Sussex thinks that should

change and has taken his calpaign to Westminster. This might feel a

little bit cold. This film, called the deadening silence, is b`sed on a

real`life story. We cannot hear a heartbeat. We are just going to get

the doctor to have a cheque. It is harrowing to watch, but equ`lly so

for the couple who enjoyed the experience for years ago. They went

on to have two other childrdn, but the charity established, and memory

of the stillborn daughter. Ht gets a subject out in front of everybody.

Obviously, having been throtgh, I can talk to other people who have

been through it. They have `ll been a lot of people who have trhed to

just call on their own and `lmost pretend it did not happen. @bigail

is still an important part of the couples live. Her bridal shop is

named after the child. Therd are thousands of mothers who go through

the pain and trauma of delivery only to realise that their baby

never existed because it was boring before the 24th week gestathon

period. Before then, it is simply registered as a miscarriage. No

that is a campaign that all stillborn buffs are recognised and a

death certificate is issued for each one. I think it would help greatly

in the Greek grieving process. It would also give us a much bdtter

picture of how many children are dying in this way. No one knows how

many babies are stillborn bdfore 24 weeks. With about 59,000

miscarriages in England and Wales each year and requiring a hospital

stay, it is thought to be a significant number. The United

Kingdom already has one of the worst stillborn records in the European

Union. Currently, the government and medical profession are not

supporting a change in legislation, based on lead medical evidence that

only a small number of babids born before the 24 week period strvive. I

think we need to be out there saying we will give support to the couples

who have been through this. The couple say that registration is more

than just an emotional step. As a mother, further you lose it at any

time, it is still a baby. It is very harsh to deny somebody that

existence. For anyone to have to go and and register both the B`th and

death at the same time as something you would never think you would have

to do. A change in the registration process would help the parents

recognise the importance of real`life unlicensed. This has been

dreadful for the families. But without the help of the medhcal

profession and government, what is going to change? I have strong

support in terms of this bill. At the moment, I do not think we have

an accurate reflection of the story. It is tragic and we should be doing

more to try and reduce the high levels of infant mortality `nd we

cannot do that if we do not have proper data. If there was hdlp from

the charities, medical profdssion and the government? I think we need

to talk to these people and make it very clear what we are trying to do.

People involved in this one to know that their child has been

registered. They had very pop powerful testament. Does thhs show

the limitations of Parliament. Is a difficult influencing the loss

because of the process of Parliament? I have been doing some

work with regard to infant lortality and I made five mothers who had lost

children and I think that wd need to keep the pressure up. There are

other ways of dealing with hssues in Parliament. Something like one in

ten babies being born every day There is little publicity about this

is this because of the nature of it, that maybe the parents do not want

to get involved and talk about this? I think it is an important problem

that has to be recognised in the parents need to be supported. I am

fully aware to the extent that this happens and the impact on their

lives. They are looking for some sort of recognition that thdy have

been through this and we have to look at the wider consequences

around it. What I do not accept is that there is not the reason for

collecting data. Yes, by moving the date back from 24 weeks, usd cue the

date. We have to do something about this because we have one of the

highest rates of stillborn babies in Western Europe. Yes, but thhs should

not stop us collecting data in that, the could be another issue here In

this age of technology, the must be a way of recording the data to get

to the underlying problems to find out what is causing this and doing

more to give better welfare and support. This is one very Mhck

modest measure which would have made changes, but should we have

standardised Kier for peopld who have been through this in the

National Health Service? Th`t is one of the things I have been looking

at. We have to deal with thhs sensitively and responsibly. We have

to make sure that we prevent this happening to other women in the

future. That is fine and I think all the certificate should show that,

but I would like employment legislation around women not having

to go back to work sooner than expected because of this experience.

Yes, unfortunately, sometimds this can be on a bit of the poem I am

certain you could get cross`party support on that.

When Westminster politicians pass new legislation they are allowed to

vote even if they have a potential conflict of interest. But some

people feel it is time that this changed and MPs and peers follow the

same strict rules as local politicians. Rachel Royce, of Inside

Out South East, reports. Westminster politicians decided on a new future

for the National Health Service passed the health and social care

bill. The act offers new opportunities to private firms to

compete for National Health Service business. But many of the s`me

politicians who voted yes to the fact have financial and bushness

interests that would have bdnefited from the act. Andrew Robertson found

more than 200 links between politicians and private health care.

Two politicians he investig`ted from the South East with strong health

interests. The baroness owns a company in Sussex which specialises

in training National Health Service staff. It is any position to money

from the health and social care act advice to clinical groups. She owns

her own company. She can trx and win contacts to develop the clinician

groups. She did this as she was walking in debating on the `ct.

Baroness Bottomley is a forler health secretary. One of our jobs is

to chair the board of a recruitment company. Several of the newly

created clinician groups have already spent over ?200,000 on

recruitment services. In addition, many key positions in the ndw

regulator have been filled tsing the company, at a cost of nearlx

?200,000. Both of the interdsts of the baroness 's have been ddclared

in the obligations of members, there is no indication that they have

broken any rules. But those sitting at local council level often have

two act and are much more strict rules. They are not allowed to vote

as they have any sort of financial interest. Some people think at this

time that MPs and those in the House of Lords followed exactly the same

conditions. I did not know that the rules were so different between the

two. This is totally wrong. Neither of the baroness 's wanted to give an

interview. The former government trade envoy

and the Conservative party treasurer. Most people who come into

the debate to the left open eyes and not with future legislation in mind.

We have to be wrecked realistic about this. If you exclude lany of

these experts, it is no longer a proper debate. The health and social

care act was controversial. Rules which allow Westminster polhticians

and whether they should fall if they have taken potential conflict of

interest have fanned the fl`mes of the controversy. Reform is not being

considered. Should reforms be considered? Yes, a lot of pdople on

the doorstep really see the world of politics has been very markdd here.

We need more open politics. My personal view is that they should be

excluded from voting if thex have an interest. We cannot argue that it is

not transparent, because thd is the declaration of interests. I do not

agree. People going into thdse debates and speaking, if thdre is a

vote taking place, if one of these motions is lost by one vote and

someone is they are benefithng, people can look at this and see that

it is. They are not doing anything wrong. I do not care, I think it has

to change. People need to sde the politics are transparent.

Personally, I would like to see the House of Lords as a fully elected

chamber as well. Members of Parliament are allowed to h`ve

companies, so is there any problem with this. I think, as was said

they can often bring great dxpertise to these debates. A lot of the

people are dealing with constituents for 85% of the time, so it hs very

hard to get round the legislation and a lot of the very good work is

done by the House of Lords. It is not just a case of your intdrest

been registered in some book that you cannot find, you have to declare

it before you start speaking in a debate and that is why it is

effective. In the House of Lords, you have the opportunity whdther,

based on your interest, for that you do actually vote. Too many of them

do the right thing and do that, because they could get away with

that of the wanted to. It is not a case of getting away with it. It is

very self regulating. Nancy brought up the point that there shotld be

more openness. How we do th`t, I do not know, but I think banning people

from voting on legislation, because they have an interest, financial or

otherwise, is necessarily the right way forward. I want people to be

upfront and I have been in debates via people have declared interest,

but brought more than anythhng to the debate.

And now it is time for some of the other political stories you might

have missed this week, with James Fitzgerald. A trade union h`s taken

issue with the Medway Counchl. They say that there is a real terms 8%

pay cut. The council is planning live exports after she died. Kent

council is announcing the closure of the sure start school. It h`d been

put into special measures. Ht protest, the council failed any six

hour meeting. The council whll borrow ?36 million from the

government for the project. They can agree on that, but not on the

budget. We think this is too much of a risk. The private sector have

pulled out of the funding. H think it is crazy. They are putting public

money at huge risk by buildhng this tower. What about the budget? Yes,

this is disappointing. The Green party where elected and the prime

responsibility is to set thd budget, which they have failed to do so I

can understand the frustrathon of my colleagues in Canterbury. The school

had been through some very difficult times, but at putting measures in

place to improve. That is all we have got timd for

from Government to change it. Thank you

both for being here. Andrew, back to you.

This week grant Shap said he wanted to rebrand the Tories as the

workers' party to show it can reach out to blue-collar workers. One

Conservative Party MP said they should scrap what he said was their

boring old logo. We asked him and two other independent MPs how they'd

freshen up their logos. Aspiration's always been our core

value. About helping people get on with life. Giving people ladders of

opportunity. That's why our symbol must reflect our values of

aspiration and why I'm calling for our symbol to be changed from a tree

to a ladder which symbolises social mobility and stands up for

everything conservatism represents. I like an he will fanned, an animal

that never forgets. We're the only party which seems to remember what

life was like before the NHS and minimum wage and the global

financial crash was caused by too little regulation not too much. We

have a leader who can spot the elephant in the room, the lack of

women on the Tory frontbench. The republicans in America have had the

same idea. Theirs is a suspicious blue. Our would be deepest red. We

love our Liberal Democrat bird. Mrs Thatcher called it the dead parrot

when we launched it. We won the Eastbourne by-election off the

Tories very soon aftered with. Perhaps it feels like we're in a

coalition cage but we're escaping that soon. Why does it fly to the

right? Most Liberal Democrats would want it to fly to the left. I hope

it will soon. Interesting there. Let's stick with

the Robert Hall pin one. He was being serious. The others were fun.

It is interesting that talking about appealing to the blue collared vote,

the upper working class, lower middle class, curiously now neither

Mr Cameron nor Mr Miliband has great cut through with these people. But

in wanting to be the Workers Party, how do you square that with choosing

five old Etonians to draw up four next manifesto. Labour said one of

the things was cutting inheritance tax, after all their priorities they

went to privilege rather than earned income. Rebranding is not enough.

The one question the modernisers never asked themselves when they

took party ten years ago is the thing we know as the Conservative

Party, salvageable as a brand? I'm beginning to think it isn't. If you

look at all public opinion research, there are lots of people in this

contrary with Conservative views. They won't vote Tory or contemplate

the possibility of voting Tory. Can we get over the electoral problems

by relaunching as a different pro-business, pro-worker party. That

means new name, new logo. It will mean new people as well. If you say

you're on the sides of what Thatcher called the strivers, the people

themselves want to see you have strivers in the people who run your

party so you know what we've been through, the struggles we've had.

How many of the six drawing up the manifesto have had ever a mortgage.

The one who's not an old Etonian went to St Paul's. He's a day

schoolboy! It is interesting and it was funny you mentioned an elephant.

Don't think of an elephant as the title of that book. Calling it the

Workers Party draws attention to the Tories biggest electoral weakness.

The idea they are a class apart Out of touch. I think it is interesting,

they have identified their elections are won or lost by this particular

demo graphic of the C 1, and C . Mrs Thatcher got them by the shed

load, Tony Blair got them. His failure in 2010 is the reason David

Cameron didn't win an overall majority. I'm disappointed with the

ladder. You should have a hammer or sickle! The Conservatives have a

terrible brand problem. You heard them explaining why they did badly

in the Wythenshawe by-election, saying there's quite a large council

estate there In 1961, I think the Conservatives won a by-election back

then, they were getting through to those sort of voters. There is not a

single Conservative councillor in Manchester. They have this terrible

problem. You're right for them to pick up on the five Etonians writing

their manifesto. David Cameron sir rounding himself with his own. He

doesn't have to do that. I seas things like isn't Robert Halpen

great. He decides and has his own. He has some more slightly common

people from St Paul's! One of the ways the Conservatives hoped to

broaden their appeal is the tougher line on immigration. We learned net

immigration is rising substantially. Back up over 200,000. Nigel Farage

of UKIP wrapped up the rhetoric In scores of our cities and market

towns, this country, in a short space of time, has become N'Zonzi

rkable whether it is -- unrecognisable. Whether it is the

impact on local schools and hospitals. In many parts of England

you don't hear English spoken, this is not the kind of the community we

want to leave to our children and grandchildren. Helen, maybe people,

I assume, will love the sentiments. Others will say, this is getting...

It is going down a dangerous road. Nigel Farage's wife is German and he

shares a flat with Godfully Bloom, nobody knows what he's saying half

of the time. You can handle the letters from Yorkshire. Alex Salmond

does not make his case on Scotland for the Scottish. Let's put aside

whether the policy's right or wrong. How bad, by the Tories own lights,

is the fact the net figure for immigration went up 60,000? It looks

really bad. If I was a Tory strategist, I'd be philosophical

about it. Immigration, even if they were meeting the target, I don't

think the public would believe it. It is like crime a few years ago,

the crime rates had been declining for the best part of 20 years but

the fear of crime remains high. There's such a degree of cynicism

that regardless of your administrative record in Government,

the public will remain hostile to you. This is where Nigel Farage can

be potent. He said it is not about numbers. It is about community. It

is about people seeing their communities change. And in the

Sunday Telegraph, it was said this isn't a dog whistle, a it is a meaty

bone for a bull terrier. The problem for the Government on these figures

is we know why the net migration figures are not looking good. They

got down the non-EU figures but the EU figures are going up. From Italy

and Spain as their economies tanked, people came here. If he hadn't made

such a big deal of the numbers, the Tories, I mean, you could present

this as a huge success story. If you believe immigration was good for the

country. You would say it doesn t matter what Labour says, the best

and the brightest young people from all over Europe are voting with

their feet to come to Britain. But you never hear that case being made

and certainly not by Labour. They acknowledge although immigration is

best in the abstract for the economy, people don't feel it in

their daily lives. There's a huge vacuum for the case where

immigration should be in our public life. I remember a time when the

economy was in such decline there was a rush to the door in the

sixties and seventies. Now we are claiming our economy's doing better

than any of the other major economies bar Germany, people want

to join in our success. London was a declining city until the

mid-eighties. Theresa May cannot be honest. She was proposing a cap on

immigration. Not going to happen. Today she is saying maybe people

from poorer member states cannot come in until their economies grow.

That's future accession states. That's Turkey in ten years' time It

is causing divisions with the coalition. She's bashing Vince

Cable. You often see Liberal Democrats bashing the Tories. You

don't often see a Tory minister bash Vince Cable. She does on the

immigration figures. He thought they were good news. Last week, Vince

responded to the news by saying it was a policy he was happy for the

gift to flunk. The problem was going for a cap. There are six moving

parts. UK citizens leaving, coming back. EU citizens leaving and coming

back and then third party nationals. And students coming to study. Of

course. You only have control over the EU citizens. Have you to clamp

down on ace strayian, Chinese or American graduates. They should have

gone for the Australian points system. I don't have a pure cap on

numbers just background etc. Tim Farran said in the European election

either vogue Liberal Democrat or UKIP. He turned that to his

advantage. It is hopeful but he s come up with a way to spin this

Labour has his special conference. Was it or was it not an event? Not

sure it was the biggest moment in the party since 1918. But things

fell apart in the special conference in 1981. 2004 got another special

conference. Who's on board? David Owen who founded the gang of four.

He's not joined but he's given them money. He's not going to sit with

them in the Lord's. He's given money. They lost the gang of four.

Back comes David Owen. Not historic? Why would he want it to be more

significant than it was. There's a tendency to see him taking the fight

to his party. Why would he want that? The fact it has not pleased

Grant Shapps is not a test to see whether this has worked. It has been

described as an historic moment and incremental of what John did. The

trade union block voters disappeared a long time ago. They still have 50%

of the vote. But 2,000 of union members voting for this guy has

gone. It is a reform from 20 years ago. Welcome but not historic. Ed

Miliband's stored up trouble. Len McCluskey wants a million new homes

and answered to the benefit caps is not reconcilable with the deficit

reduction strategy. In five years' time if there is a Labour Government

it becomes very difficult. We should keep an eye on it? Always. Labour

Party process is never ending. Unlike this programme. That's all

from us today. Continuing reports of events in the Ukraine on the BBC

News Channel. There's no Daily Politics tomorrow because of cover

Arg of the Nelson Mandela memorial service at Westminster Abbey on BBC

Two live. We'll be back on the Daily Politics on Tuesday at midday. We'll

be back here next week with the Work and Pensions Secretary, Ian Smith.

If it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.