:00:28. > :00:32.Afternoon, folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics of. The row over
:00:32. > :00:34.the government scheme to change its planning policy is hotting up. The
:00:34. > :00:39.coalition promised to put communities in the driving seat,
:00:39. > :00:44.critics say the plan could cause irreversible damage to England's
:00:44. > :00:48.green and pleasant land. Who is right?
:00:48. > :00:52.Just how united is the United Kingdom? We will take a look at why
:00:52. > :01:00.the Unionist parties in Scotland are doing so badly. Together, on
:01:00. > :01:05.Ed Miliband has just made a speech to the TUC, promising to be a
:01:05. > :01:11.critical friend of the unions. You can hear how much they like his
:01:11. > :01:14.criticism! We will look at how he did. And they have had their
:01:14. > :01:19.expenses cut, their pay frozen, and now some of them can lose their
:01:19. > :01:29.constituencies. We will be speaking to some MPs facing an uncertain
:01:29. > :01:36.
:01:36. > :01:39.future following the proposed The aim man who knows what it was
:01:40. > :01:49.like to be a Labour politician who was successful in Scotland, Jack
:01:49. > :01:57.McConnell. Welcome to the programme. Let's take a look at his leader, Ed
:01:57. > :02:02.Miliband, who has been addressing Despite being heckled over his
:02:02. > :02:05.decision not to back strikes for pension reform and his support for
:02:06. > :02:10.academy schools, Mr Miliband warned the union should not be "the
:02:10. > :02:20.enemies of change". Of course the right to indust reel action will be
:02:20. > :02:32.
:02:32. > :02:36.necessary and is important as a As you know better than I do, just
:02:36. > :02:42.15% of the private sector workforce is represented by trade unions. You
:02:42. > :02:50.know that you need to change if that is to change. That was Ed
:02:50. > :02:56.Miliband. He was heckled... His grasp of Education and Grammar...
:02:56. > :03:01.We will get letters about that. We will send them to the Labour leader.
:03:01. > :03:07.Now, he was heckled there, perhaps unsurprisingly, because he said it
:03:07. > :03:10.was a mistake, the strikes in the summer, but Mark Serwotka, the
:03:10. > :03:15.leader of the public services union, said the speech was a misjudgment.
:03:15. > :03:18.Was he right? It seems to me that sometimes Labour leaders like to be
:03:18. > :03:23.heckled at the TUC because it gives them a wider appeal outside that
:03:23. > :03:26.forum. Was his top language the right language to use? Is it time
:03:26. > :03:30.to distance himself from the union's first marked from what I
:03:31. > :03:34.saw, he was probably trying to strike the right tone. He said
:03:34. > :03:37.there would be times when we would work together and times when we
:03:37. > :03:40.would disagree, and we would have to live at that. The bigger
:03:41. > :03:44.challenge on these occasions is to lay out a vision for the country. I
:03:44. > :03:49.have not seen the whole speech, I am not sure whether he attempt to
:03:49. > :03:53.that. Arguably, he owes his leadership to the unions. To what
:03:53. > :03:58.extent is he in their pockets? don't think he is in the pockets of
:03:58. > :04:05.everybody. Is he not? I think the result last September left him with
:04:05. > :04:09.a problem in terms of where support from the unions was. He needs to
:04:09. > :04:12.make sure he is working for the wider appeal and not just returning
:04:12. > :04:17.to the base, because the base is not big enough to win an election,
:04:17. > :04:21.and it is not right in principle. But has he got a problem, though?
:04:21. > :04:29.He may want to distance himself, but does he have the power to
:04:29. > :04:32.reform the unions? They give 80% 7 -- 87% of donations to the Labour
:04:32. > :04:37.Party. They can determine the results of the leadership election.
:04:37. > :04:40.Haven't they got him? I think he probably does. I was surprised when
:04:40. > :04:45.he managed to secured the change to the Shadow Cabinet elections. I
:04:45. > :04:50.thought that was quite a brave move, a controversial one, and he
:04:50. > :04:55.achieved it quite easily. I think a new leader, and he is relatively
:04:55. > :04:59.new, as a lot of power and momentum. The question is how he will use it.
:04:59. > :05:02.The challenge is to move on from the record of the last two years
:05:02. > :05:10.and used it positively to lay out a vision for the future, not to get
:05:10. > :05:15.stuck in what happened in the past. Thank you. Why we were talking, we
:05:15. > :05:21.have just heard from the House of Commons that James Murdoch will be
:05:21. > :05:24.recalled to the Culture Select Committee while they continue his
:05:24. > :05:28.interrogation. You will remember we carry that live on the Daily
:05:29. > :05:33.Politics, his appearance with his father. They will have him back a
:05:33. > :05:40.loan at the lawyer's seemingly contradicted his evidence. -- Be
:05:40. > :05:44.alone. Could Jack McConnell's period in Scotland be the last time
:05:44. > :05:48.a Labour politician holds the pose while Scotland is still in the
:05:48. > :05:52.United Kingdom? Alex Salmond has promised a referendum on
:05:52. > :05:56.independence, but not quite now, perhaps because most polls show
:05:56. > :06:01.that an independent vote would be a gamble for the nationalists. Even
:06:01. > :06:05.so, the SNP's own ratings are well above the union parties, and in a
:06:05. > :06:08.moment we would get the thoughts of Jack McConnell and Murdo Fraser,
:06:09. > :06:12.the guy in the running to become the next leader of the Scottish
:06:12. > :06:17.Conservatives. He is campaigning to wind them up, which is an
:06:17. > :06:22.interesting way to become leader. But first, here is Adam Fleming.
:06:22. > :06:26.These Scottish National Party's most recent victory, preventing the
:06:26. > :06:29.nation's favourite fizzy drink being watered down by the EU when
:06:29. > :06:34.they considered limits on how much colouring you could put in one
:06:34. > :06:38.product. The issue of independence is still bubbling away as well.
:06:38. > :06:41.When Alex Salmond led the SNP to one unprecedented majority in the
:06:41. > :06:44.elections to the Scottish parliament in May, it became
:06:44. > :06:48.inevitable that there would be a referendum on whether Scotland
:06:48. > :06:53.should stay part of the UK. When the referendum happens, the
:06:53. > :06:56.campaign will be run by this Westminster MP, reckons that
:06:56. > :07:00.history is on his side. 20 years ago, people said there would not
:07:00. > :07:04.even the devolution, and then we had a referendum and there was. And
:07:04. > :07:07.then people said, there is a Scottish parliament, but there will
:07:07. > :07:12.never be an SNP government, and now there is. People say there will
:07:12. > :07:16.never be an independence referendum, but there will be. What are the
:07:17. > :07:21.tastes of the Scottish public? A poll for the Herald found that 39%
:07:21. > :07:26.agreed with independence, 38% disagree, the first time it has
:07:26. > :07:30.ever been that way around in this series. Their mind that lead of 1%
:07:30. > :07:34.is well within the margin of error. -- bear in mind. The nationalists
:07:34. > :07:37.will not be swapping to champagne just yet, but they are celebrating
:07:37. > :07:42.that their opponents are losing their fears. Since the election,
:07:42. > :07:45.the leaders of Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories in Scotland have all
:07:45. > :07:49.stood down or announced they are going to, meaning that focus has
:07:49. > :07:54.been on campaigns for the leadership rather than for a future
:07:54. > :07:58.referendum. Scotland's only Tory MP, also a Scotland Office minister,
:07:58. > :08:01.says it is now time to toughen up the message. The Government is
:08:01. > :08:07.already making the case for the union. We are not neutral on the
:08:07. > :08:12.issue of Scottish independence, but I think it is clear that we need to
:08:12. > :08:16.set out more clearly to people in Scotland exactly what the UK
:08:16. > :08:26.government does in Scottish terms. David Cameron's preferred solution
:08:26. > :08:27.
:08:27. > :08:30.is the Scotland Bill, currently going through the -- currently
:08:30. > :08:34.going through Westminster, which would give more tax-raising powers
:08:34. > :08:38.to Holyrood. Jack McConnell, as you have seen,
:08:38. > :08:43.is in the studio with as in Westminster, and Murdo Fraser, the
:08:43. > :08:50.deputy leader of the Conservative Party, he is, by the look of that
:08:50. > :08:54.Crane, in Glasgow. That is right. How does separating the Scottish
:08:54. > :08:58.Conservatives from the UK Conservatives make the case against
:08:58. > :09:03.separatism? Because we need a stronger centre-right Unionist
:09:03. > :09:07.Party in Scotland, and what we currently have, the reality is that
:09:07. > :09:11.there are many people and Scotland who share our political values on
:09:11. > :09:14.issues like enterprise, taxation and law and order and so on, but
:09:14. > :09:18.they do not on to vote for the Conservative Party, because we have
:09:18. > :09:22.a huge identity problem. People think we are controlled from London
:09:22. > :09:26.and we do not but Scotland first. I think the best way to save the
:09:26. > :09:30.Union is to have a strong centre- right Unionist Party taking on the
:09:30. > :09:33.SNP and campaigning for Scotland's place in the UK. We have to accept
:09:33. > :09:38.that the Conservative Party in Scotland has not done that well. I
:09:38. > :09:41.think it is a disgrace that in the last three general elections, we
:09:41. > :09:45.have only managed to return one member of parliament to Westminster.
:09:45. > :09:48.Unless we change drastically, the prospects for the future are not
:09:48. > :09:53.looking very good. Other than changing a name, what else would
:09:53. > :09:57.change? First of all, this is not a name change. It is not disbanding
:09:57. > :10:00.of rebranding. You would still be the Scottish Conservatives?
:10:01. > :10:04.would, of course have a new name, but we are having a new party, and
:10:04. > :10:08.we will have a relationship with the UK Conservative Party, in the
:10:08. > :10:12.same way that the Conservatives in Bavaria have a relationship with
:10:12. > :10:15.the Christian Democrats in the rest of Germany. We would be Sister
:10:15. > :10:18.parties. That would allow us to articulate the Scottish interest. I
:10:19. > :10:23.think the key difference at the heart are the party would be a
:10:23. > :10:26.belief in devolution and decentralisation of power. In the
:10:26. > :10:30.past, the Conservative Party was always hostile to devolution. That
:10:30. > :10:36.has allowed power of bonus to paint us as anti-Scottish, and that has
:10:36. > :10:39.led to our vote slipping away. We have been champion devolution and
:10:39. > :10:44.decentralisation as a way to defeat nationalism. You mentioned Bavaria.
:10:44. > :10:49.Can I point out that Bavaria is the richest part of Germany? It is also
:10:49. > :10:53.the most right-wing part of Germany, and it is not looking for
:10:53. > :10:57.independence. What does it have in common with Scotland? Scotland has
:10:57. > :11:00.many natural resources, as you probably know, and a lot of
:11:00. > :11:05.industries that are doing pretty well at the moment. It is the most
:11:05. > :11:08.left-wing part of Britain and per- capita incomes are a percentage of
:11:08. > :11:13.those in Bavaria. There is no evidence at all that Scotland is
:11:13. > :11:16.the most left-wing part of Britain. People may vote for parties of the
:11:16. > :11:20.left, but if you look at social attitudes, people's opinions are
:11:20. > :11:23.very similar to those in the rest of the UK, and it is a sign of the
:11:23. > :11:26.failure of the Scottish Conservative Party in recent years
:11:26. > :11:30.that the only party of the centre- right in Scotland has not been able
:11:30. > :11:35.to attract the votes are lots of people who share our political
:11:35. > :11:42.values. That is why we need to change. Do you buy that plan?
:11:42. > :11:48.think it is interesting, but it is... It may be part of the
:11:49. > :11:58.solution. Their biggest problems since 1997 is a complete lack of
:11:59. > :11:59.
:11:59. > :12:01.confidence. I think they have failed, in some ways, similar to
:12:01. > :12:08.some of the labour difficulties more recently in Scotland, they
:12:08. > :12:11.have failed to articulate a series of policies that came together as a
:12:11. > :12:15.centre-right vision for Scotland. I think in many ways both main
:12:15. > :12:21.parties allowed the nationalists to fill both their spaces by appearing
:12:21. > :12:24.to be more both Social Democrat and centre-right, because both main
:12:24. > :12:29.parties were failing to declare a vision for Scotland that was in
:12:29. > :12:32.that space. To get to fundamentals, isn't it hard for his centre-right
:12:32. > :12:36.party in Scotland, whatever it is called for its links with the
:12:36. > :12:40.Conservatives here, it is hard for it to prosper because of the very
:12:40. > :12:45.devolution settlement that you agreed to? You agreed to a
:12:45. > :12:49.parliament that spend �30 billion a year and doesn't raise one penny of
:12:49. > :12:52.that money. It all comes in a grand. I think that makes it very hard for
:12:52. > :12:56.a centre-right party to get anywhere, because the centre-right
:12:56. > :13:00.message all over the world is you have to balance tax and spending,
:13:00. > :13:05.spending and tax. We could have done that anyway. I think the
:13:05. > :13:08.taxation changes in Scotland will improve that situation and a return
:13:08. > :13:12.to at least more normal politics, but at any one of the last four
:13:12. > :13:16.Scottish elections the Scottish Conservatives could have proposed a
:13:16. > :13:20.cut in income tax and a cut in public expenditure. They were not
:13:20. > :13:23.brave enough to do it, and they paid a price for that. There is
:13:23. > :13:28.space for a centre-right party, but they need to fill that space
:13:28. > :13:32.aggressively. Murdo Fraser, the accent that Jack McConnell has said
:13:32. > :13:37.the unionist parties have been asleep on the job? -- do you
:13:37. > :13:41.accept? Will you join with Jack McConnell, who wants to try and put
:13:41. > :13:46.together a broadly based movement to save the Union? It is essential
:13:46. > :13:49.we have a broadly based movement to save the Union. That needs to be
:13:49. > :13:52.across all political parties and reach beyond politics and reach out
:13:52. > :13:56.to people in the business community and in civic Scotland who share our
:13:56. > :14:00.view. I am in no doubt about that, and that is something we want to
:14:00. > :14:04.support broader. As far as his criticism goes, I think the problem
:14:04. > :14:08.for our party has been, even when we have had good policy ideas that
:14:08. > :14:11.the public have agreed with, because they have been such a
:14:11. > :14:14.barrier in their mind to voting for a party with a Conservative
:14:14. > :14:18.identity, they have not been prepared to listen to what we have
:14:18. > :14:22.got to say. Changing the party as I propose, setting up a new party is
:14:22. > :14:25.not a silver bullet, because we are still going to have to have the
:14:25. > :14:28.right policies and the right personalities and the right
:14:28. > :14:33.communication and the right message. What it will do for the first time
:14:33. > :14:36.in probably 20 years in Scotland is it will give as a foot in the dock,
:14:36. > :14:41.and people might start listening to what we have to say. Unfortunately,
:14:41. > :14:44.you know, they have not been doing that in recent days. Alex Salmond
:14:44. > :14:48.will lead the case for independence. Who will be the case for the union?
:14:48. > :14:52.I think that is still to be determined. There needs to be a
:14:52. > :14:57.figure of popular appeal, perhaps out with the parties. I think there
:14:57. > :15:03.is a need to redirect the whole strategy. I think the strategy that
:15:03. > :15:08.was used in the past by some to try and almost impose a 1950s
:15:08. > :15:14.Britishness and Scotland failed. Gordon Brown's efforts? I think the
:15:14. > :15:17.strategy... I'll take that as a yes. The idea of threatening people
:15:17. > :15:21.economically, although there are big worries about it, it does not
:15:22. > :15:27.work. We need a positive strategy that actually articulate why
:15:27. > :15:30.Scotland is a stronger and better place inside the UK. Are you going
:15:30. > :15:38.to be the next leader of what may be called the Scottish
:15:38. > :15:42.All I can tell you is since I made my proposal public last weekend, I
:15:42. > :15:45.have had a tremendous and positive response from members of the party
:15:45. > :15:49.and perhaps more important, people who are not members of the party,
:15:49. > :15:52.people interested in coming and joining our new project. If members
:15:52. > :15:57.of the party have ambition for the future, they will support my
:15:57. > :16:00.leadership bid. We got the message. Keep us posted. Thank you. Anyone
:16:00. > :16:03.who's tried to find housing in the last couple of years, particularly
:16:03. > :16:10.in the south-east of England, won't be surprised to hear that we're in
:16:10. > :16:15.dire need of more homes. That most people kind of agree on. However
:16:15. > :16:18.deciding where to build is trickier. The Government is consulting on a
:16:18. > :16:21.new planning policy which it claims will make the system less
:16:21. > :16:26.bureaucratic, simpler and so on. But it's got a lot of people hot
:16:26. > :16:29.under the collar. Jo's got more. Yes, just before the election, the
:16:29. > :16:32.Conservatives promised a radical reboot, claiming that the planning
:16:32. > :16:39.system was broken and pledging to put local communities in the
:16:39. > :16:43.driving seat. The new coalition swept away leb's regional spatial
:16:43. > :16:50.stratjids, which the previous government used to determine house
:16:50. > :16:53.building targets. Over the summer, the ministers announced their new
:16:53. > :16:59.national policy framework, simplified from 1,000 pages to 52,
:16:59. > :17:04.with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Opposition
:17:04. > :17:10.soon mounted from the narblg trust, the RSPB and the Cambaign to
:17:10. > :17:15.Protect Rural England, who described the proposal and a -- as
:17:15. > :17:19.a threat tot countryside. Bob Neil said it was a smear campaign by
:17:20. > :17:24.left-wingers. George Osborne and Eric Pickles pledges to plough on,
:17:25. > :17:28.saying the current system is an arbitrary break on growth. Let's
:17:28. > :17:31.speak to Shaun Spiers from the Cambaign to Protect Rural England.
:17:31. > :17:36.The Government has tried to make clear that what's it's doing is
:17:36. > :17:41.giving local more power in terms of planning putting them in the
:17:41. > :17:47.driving seat. Is that wrong? It's not wrong in principle. What
:17:47. > :17:50.they've come up with is a document which has knighted all developers
:17:50. > :17:55.in favour of it. Every environmental group I've come
:17:55. > :17:58.across is deeply alarmed by what they're proposing. Far from putting
:17:58. > :18:01.local communities in the driving suit this is the state siding with
:18:01. > :18:04.developers. Do you accept the planning system had to be
:18:04. > :18:08.simplified and that in the current situation we're in, we have to do
:18:08. > :18:12.something to promote growth and let planning go through? We certainly
:18:12. > :18:17.agree that the system should be simplified in principle, theres no
:18:17. > :18:22.problem with shrinking down from 1,000 pages to 50 and so on.
:18:22. > :18:28.Clearly we need lots more houses. But the planning system was
:18:28. > :18:33.delivering 207,000 houses, a net increase of 207,000 houses, in 2008.
:18:33. > :18:37.The curve was rising. Then the housing slump happened. Same with
:18:37. > :18:43.growth, you know, strong economies in Europe have strong planning
:18:43. > :18:47.systems. What the Government is proposing is to move from a German
:18:47. > :18:52.or Scandinavian style planning system to a grok or Spanish style.
:18:52. > :18:55.It was on the curve upwards before the slump, now they're trying to
:18:55. > :18:59.regain the house building an the growth that had started beforehand.
:18:59. > :19:07.You can see why people would say this is any more byism, they don't
:19:07. > :19:10.want that sort of growth happening. CPRE has been outspoken in our
:19:10. > :19:14.support for more affordable rural housing. There's no evidence that
:19:14. > :19:17.it's the planning system that is holding back house building. The
:19:17. > :19:21.Government has cut its own social house prog Graeme for reasons we
:19:21. > :19:25.understand about controlling the deficit, and people aren't buying
:19:25. > :19:32.and the banks aren't lending. That's why houses aren't being
:19:32. > :19:35.built. Shaun Spiers, thank you. We're joined bit planning minister,
:19:35. > :19:39.Greg Clark. Welcome tot Daily Politics. The Government has said
:19:39. > :19:45.that local people will be in the driving seat with this new set of
:19:45. > :19:49.planning proposals, but it also says "That local authorities should
:19:49. > :19:53.approve all individual proposal wherever possible". If you read on,
:19:53. > :19:58.it says if there isn't a local plan, the local plan must be sovereign,
:19:58. > :20:02.if there isn't a local plan you should have a means of deciding.
:20:02. > :20:08.Any development that is prose -- proposed has to be sustainable. It
:20:08. > :20:13.can build on the green belt. It has time prove the design standards.
:20:13. > :20:17.the green belt will remain as sacrosanct after the chaifrpgz as
:20:17. > :20:22.it is now? It's strengthened. At the moment the regional strategies
:20:22. > :20:25.which we are getting rid of, impose reviews to delete or adjust some of
:20:25. > :20:29.these green belts. We're taking that threat away and giving a new
:20:29. > :20:32.protection that communities will have to designate green space that
:20:32. > :20:36.they value within towns and cities, so that they'll be able to protect
:20:36. > :20:41.them for the future. It's really important that the planning system
:20:41. > :20:46.should be unchanged in its commitment to protect the ordinary
:20:46. > :20:51.space that's we value. In your draft here, the words are all in
:20:51. > :20:54.favour of development, I mean it's planning, presumption in favour of
:20:54. > :20:59.development, you add the word sustainable, because every
:20:59. > :21:04.politician does these days. Local plans, you need to respond to rapid
:21:04. > :21:08.shifts in demand. You need to approve development proposal that
:21:08. > :21:12.accord with statutory plans. Grant permission where the plan is absent,
:21:12. > :21:17.silent or indeterminate. It weighs things in favour of development.
:21:17. > :21:21.don't think it does. It sets out the conditions that have to apply
:21:21. > :21:26.if you have that presumption. They say you can't damage the green belt.
:21:26. > :21:30.You must promote higher standards of design and can't damage town
:21:30. > :21:34.centres. There's a whole list of problems that could present
:21:34. > :21:38.themselves for which the planning system, as it always has done, is
:21:38. > :21:43.there to stop happening. We all agree that we need a simpler
:21:43. > :21:47.planning system. If you have 1300 pages, only the specialists then
:21:47. > :21:52.can get a handle on it. We're trying to, by getting rid of the
:21:52. > :21:56.imposition, give power to local people, but to do that you need it
:21:56. > :21:59.make it intelligible to people. Have you urged property developers
:21:59. > :22:03.to lobby the Prime Minister on this? I've said to anyone who
:22:03. > :22:07.speaks to me that they should make their views known. This is a debate.
:22:07. > :22:09.It's good that we're having a debate. If you had 1300 pages of
:22:09. > :22:12.planning policy, it's very difficult for people to have a
:22:12. > :22:17.debate. You've urged the British Property Federation to lobbery.
:22:17. > :22:24.Prime Minister on this? No I haven't. Can I quote the theme from
:22:24. > :22:26.their policy officer, Greg Clark and his officials are deeply
:22:26. > :22:31.concerned that the level of opposition provoked, worried that
:22:31. > :22:35.Number Ten might be spooked by this mobilisation of Middle England and
:22:35. > :22:40.do a U-turn like forestry. I've never had any concern about that.
:22:40. > :22:43.Why did she write that? I don't know. The whole Government has said
:22:43. > :22:48.in its manifesto and before that it's really important that we start
:22:48. > :22:52.to unlock the planning system, to be able to build the homes we need.
:22:52. > :22:56.If you have a situation in which the first-time buyer, without
:22:56. > :22:59.parental support is now in their late 30s, we're taking from the
:22:59. > :23:03.next generation the opportunities that my generation and your
:23:03. > :23:07.generation had to own a home in which to bring up a family. We
:23:07. > :23:10.agree, Shaun Spiers and I had a conversation a few days ago, we
:23:10. > :23:14.agree the system needs to be simplified. I think it's important
:23:14. > :23:18.that we reassert that the fundamental purpose of the planning
:23:18. > :23:21.system to balance growth with the protection for our natural and
:23:21. > :23:28.historic environment is not going to change. That is there in black
:23:28. > :23:32.and white. Can you see why people are nervous when someone like John
:23:32. > :23:35.Rhodes says "It's not meant to be the opportunity for communities to
:23:35. > :23:40.resist development. It's meant to be part of a strategy which
:23:40. > :23:44.encourages greater development." So much for localism. Our analysis is
:23:44. > :23:50.if you impose on people from above, this raises their hackles and
:23:50. > :23:54.people, quite rightly, impose the imposition of hundreds of identicut
:23:54. > :23:58.homes in which they have no say. If you trust local people to assess
:23:58. > :24:02.what they need, design the homes in collaboration with the local
:24:02. > :24:06.community, I I you can get tot situation we all want to see in
:24:06. > :24:13.which communities are providing homes for the future but doing so
:24:13. > :24:16.in a way that enhances the local environment. When I used to travel
:24:17. > :24:20.around Scotland, planning was a huge issue. Businesses felt they
:24:20. > :24:23.couldn't get the proper planning permissions. You did something
:24:23. > :24:27.about that. Interestingly we did it pretty much with all-party
:24:27. > :24:31.agreement. Within the last six months or so as mine time as First
:24:31. > :24:36.Minister in 2007, we passed new laws, then the Nationalist
:24:36. > :24:39.government then enacted them and pursued the regulations, broadly
:24:39. > :24:42.with all-party support. The main objective was to speed up decision
:24:42. > :24:46.making, not just to deal with some of the issues around how many
:24:46. > :24:49.regulations there were, but actually how efficient were the
:24:49. > :24:53.local planning departments. My experience, one of the biggest
:24:53. > :24:58.problems for everybody, both local people and businesses, is the
:24:58. > :25:01.bureaucracy and lack of speed when making decisions. If we get the
:25:01. > :25:05.overall framework right, I think the Government is not necessarily
:25:05. > :25:09.way off the mark here, then that's one thing. Actually making the
:25:09. > :25:14.whole system more efficient seems to be absolutely key. And if you
:25:14. > :25:19.get your new planning proposals and development is agreed under these
:25:19. > :25:24.new proposals, we will not see the hypocritical spectacle of Cabinet
:25:24. > :25:29.ministers opposing development in their own constituencys. It's
:25:29. > :25:34.always reasonable to oppose bad verplt. I covered that. If you go
:25:34. > :25:37.through all this, if they oppose development in their own backyard.
:25:37. > :25:40.The decision will be made bit local Council. That's how it should have
:25:40. > :25:42.been over the last few years. shall watch with interest. Greg
:25:42. > :25:46.Clark, thank you for coming in today.
:25:46. > :25:49.It's a tough time to be an MP. Yesterday the Boundary Commission
:25:49. > :25:55.proposed a shake up of Britain's electoral map, the plan is to cut
:25:55. > :25:58.the number of MPs, equalise the Parliamentary constituencies and
:25:58. > :26:02.end Labour's built-in advantage. So far we've had the plans for England
:26:02. > :26:07.and Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales come later. They seem to have
:26:07. > :26:09.worried MPs of all parties. Who is facing the biggest upset? From the
:26:09. > :26:14.Conservatives, Ken Clarke and Iain Duncan Smith face the most
:26:14. > :26:18.disruption. For the Liberal Democrats, senior figures including
:26:18. > :26:23.Chris Huhne and Vince Cable will have to win redrawn seats. Labour
:26:23. > :26:26.faces the biggest upheaval with Ed Balls and Andy Burnham looking
:26:26. > :26:33.vulnerable. I'm joined from central lobby by two new MPs expecting a
:26:33. > :26:37.big change in their parts of the country, Andrew Percy from the
:26:37. > :26:41.Conservatives and Alison McGovern for Labour. Thanks for joining us
:26:41. > :26:45.on the programme. How likely is it that you could lose, you'll lose
:26:45. > :26:49.your constituency and you'll have to fight for your seat? My seat
:26:49. > :26:53.will be divided up three ways on the first maps. In the past when
:26:53. > :26:57.they've done boundary reviews do change. I've been in a situation
:26:57. > :27:00.where my constituency goes three ways. It could leave me looking for
:27:00. > :27:03.one of those three or without a seat. You could be looking for a
:27:03. > :27:11.new job? Very well. If you know of anything going, let me know.
:27:11. > :27:15.will! I suppose one thooz ask, why did you support the proposal in the
:27:15. > :27:20.first place snfrplt I did and I didn't. The principle is right of
:27:20. > :27:24.reducing down the number of MPs. We do have a very heavily numbered
:27:24. > :27:28.legislature in this country. We have big variation. The principle
:27:28. > :27:31.is right. You can argue whether or not we should have put the Boundary
:27:31. > :27:37.Commission in quite it strait jacket we have. It is about
:27:37. > :27:39.fairness isn't it, it's about having more similar sized
:27:39. > :27:43.constituencies with votes having more equal weighting. You can't
:27:43. > :27:48.disagree, can you? The problem with this billuals set from the very
:27:48. > :27:52.start, as Andrew was saying, with the strait jacket on the Boundary
:27:52. > :27:55.Commission in terms of numbers. No regard is being taken of
:27:55. > :28:00.communities in my constituency now who are going to be faced with
:28:00. > :28:04.being represented by an MP with a huge constituency, place that's
:28:04. > :28:10.take 90 minutes to drive to. So it's really some of the options
:28:10. > :28:13.that has been thrown up yesterday are unsustainable in terms of the
:28:13. > :28:18.tradition with the constituency link. That's why people are as
:28:18. > :28:22.cross as they are about it. Briefly, across the country people would
:28:22. > :28:25.think 50 fewer seats is a good thing. It costs less. Interestingly,
:28:25. > :28:28.we have got lots more members of the House of Lords, there's a
:28:28. > :28:31.disparity with what's going on in Parliament. I think the thing that
:28:32. > :28:35.people are really cross about is the inability of the Boundary
:28:35. > :28:40.Commission to take care of local community links. That's what the
:28:40. > :28:43.debate will be about. I have to stop you there. Thank you both.
:28:43. > :28:47.That's it for today. Special thanks to Jack McConnell for being our