:00:45. > :00:48.Afternoon. Welcome to The Daily Politics. David Cameron has just
:00:48. > :00:53.announced he will publish details of the tone fars who visited his
:00:53. > :00:59.Downing Street flat. The Prime Minister has promised an
:00:59. > :01:04.inquiry, following ex-Conservative treasurer, Peter Cruddas, offering
:01:04. > :01:08.access and influence to a Sunday Times reporter in return for a
:01:08. > :01:12.donation. Ed Miliband is demanding an independent inquiry. We will get
:01:12. > :01:17.reaction from both parties and ask what can be done to clean up the
:01:17. > :01:22.system. Do children now have too many rights? Teaching unions
:01:22. > :01:26.complain a significant number of children are worrying more about
:01:26. > :01:30.their rights and less about their responsibilities. We will speak to
:01:30. > :01:37.the children's commission and to the journalist Toby Young. Is it
:01:37. > :01:43.any wonder MPs are stressed? We will speak to a psychologist who
:01:43. > :01:47.says MPs should be regularly screened to test their menal health.
:01:47. > :01:51.With us today is the children's commission, Maggie Atkinson.
:01:51. > :01:55.Welcome to the show. David Cameron is desperate to show it is business
:01:55. > :02:00.as usual. The Prime Minister is announcing funding into dementia
:02:00. > :02:05.will be doubled to �66 million by 2015, to try and make the UK a
:02:05. > :02:08.world leader in the field. Now, as far as you are concerned, money is
:02:09. > :02:15.one thing, but do you think this is an issue which needs to be talked
:02:15. > :02:19.about a lot more as well? I do. I lost a grandma to Alzheimer's. I
:02:19. > :02:23.was an adult at the time, but can't help thinking had I been a child I
:02:23. > :02:28.would have needed the adults in my life, from school, through to my
:02:28. > :02:32.family to try and help me understand why my grandma didn't
:02:32. > :02:36.recognise me, for example. Or towards the end didn't recognise
:02:36. > :02:40.anybody in the family. Children need to be taken seriously. They
:02:40. > :02:46.have concerns. If you spend the time and patience to work with them,
:02:46. > :02:50.they will understand frightening changes in their life far better
:02:50. > :02:54.than if you try and keep it from them or don't explain. And it is
:02:54. > :02:56.something which does seem to be affecting more and more families
:02:56. > :03:01.because people are generally living longer. Apart from just talking
:03:01. > :03:04.about it, there is the serious issue of money and funding. David
:03:04. > :03:09.Cameron, the Prime Minister, has said it is a crisis they will look
:03:09. > :03:14.at. Has it come too late? They need more than �66 million to tackle
:03:14. > :03:18.such a big issue? I am not a practitioner in the field of ageing,
:03:18. > :03:23.so notions of numbers wouldn't be something that I'd have even half a
:03:23. > :03:27.hope of being able to answer. What I know is that I meet children and
:03:27. > :03:30.young people all over the country who are, for example living in
:03:30. > :03:34.households where grandma or granddad have come to live because
:03:34. > :03:38.they are incapable of looking after themselves. Families do save the
:03:38. > :03:41.state a great deal of money in being carers. Very often the
:03:41. > :03:46.grandchildren are as involved as are the sons and daughters of the
:03:46. > :03:51.people concerned. It's much less about money for me than it is about
:03:52. > :03:57.the home and dimension. Family is very important to children and
:03:57. > :04:02.young people, even when families are in difficulty. If you have the
:04:02. > :04:05.added difficulty that you have a younger person acting differently
:04:05. > :04:09.or losing their personality, then children are very concerned.
:04:09. > :04:13.There's only one real story in town today - the Conservative Party is
:04:13. > :04:19.reel from the revelations that their party treasurer, Peter
:04:19. > :04:23.Cruddas, offered private dinners with David Cameron in return for
:04:23. > :04:32.donations. Dinners for donors joined cash-for-honours and all the
:04:32. > :04:39.rest in the long history of party funding scandals. Post Budget it
:04:39. > :04:44.does not look good - following the 50p tax break it creates an
:04:44. > :04:49.impression there are a different set of rules for the well off. The
:04:49. > :04:54.Prime Minister has announced he will publish the list of dinner
:04:54. > :04:59.guests. There are calls for him to extend the inquiry into a full-
:04:59. > :05:06.blown independent inquiry. He will look at will to re-start political
:05:06. > :05:09.talks on how parties should be funded. It It is unlikely the
:05:09. > :05:14.Labour Party would be willing to compromise their links with the
:05:14. > :05:24.trade unions. This is a story that sets to run for quite some time.
:05:24. > :05:26.
:05:26. > :05:29.Downing Street the position is this, in the two years I have been Prime
:05:29. > :05:34.Minister there have been three occasions when donors have come to
:05:34. > :05:37.dinner in my flat. There was a post election dinner which included
:05:37. > :05:41.donors in Downing Street before the general election. We will publish
:05:41. > :05:44.full details of all of these today. None of these were fund-raising
:05:44. > :05:48.dinners. None of these were paid for by the taxpayer. I have known
:05:48. > :05:52.most of those atending for many years. Let me add that Peter
:05:52. > :06:00.Cruddas has never recommended anyone to come to dinner in my flat,
:06:00. > :06:03.nor has he been to dinner there myself. I publish details of
:06:03. > :06:07.external meetings - the first Prime Minister ever to do so. I publish
:06:07. > :06:12.all meeting I have with newspaper editors and proprietors. From now
:06:12. > :06:16.on the Conservative Party will publish details every quarter of
:06:16. > :06:21.any meals attended by any donors whether at Downing Street, Chequers
:06:21. > :06:26.or any official residence. That was the Prime Minister. Mr Add damns is
:06:26. > :06:31.a journalist who helped prompt the Sunday Times investigation. Well,
:06:31. > :06:34.he'll publish the list of who has attended in terms of donors. Are
:06:34. > :06:38.you satisfied? That is a good start. We have seen over the past 24 hours
:06:38. > :06:41.the position has been that that is private, it can remain secret. I am
:06:41. > :06:46.delighted that is happening. I don't think it gets to the end of
:06:46. > :06:50.the story, does it? I think what is concerning people, it is what
:06:50. > :06:55.concerns me, is that a substantial donation to the Conservative Party,
:06:55. > :06:59.buys you this kind of private, secret access to the Prime Minister
:06:59. > :07:02.and potential influence over policy. Peter Cruddas was clear that they
:07:03. > :07:07.will listen to policy suggestions from these wealthy donors.
:07:07. > :07:11.suggestion is that actually Peter Cruddas has been discred ited,
:07:11. > :07:14.hasn't he? He himself said it was bluseter. David Cameron has been
:07:14. > :07:19.very clear in what we heard there that the things that Peter Cruddas
:07:19. > :07:23.was promising do not happen. Well, that is why I reported this
:07:23. > :07:26.matter both to the police and this morning to the Electoral Commission
:07:26. > :07:30.because Peter Cruddas was referring to a system that seemed to me to be
:07:30. > :07:34.indem nick the way that the Conservative Party goes about
:07:34. > :07:38.raising funding. It happens in the Labour Party in a similar way. You
:07:38. > :07:41.are a Labour Party support. You know what happens there as well.
:07:41. > :07:45.would condemn this if it was in the Labour Party or the Liberal
:07:45. > :07:48.Democrats. This is not the way that parties should raise funding. I
:07:48. > :07:51.agree with the Prime Minister on. That I want to get to the bottom of
:07:52. > :07:56.whether this is a late conversion or whether up to now he has thought
:07:56. > :08:02.this is the way to raise funds for the Conservative Party. I condemn
:08:02. > :08:07.it. As it happens, it was a Tory lobbist I sat next to at the
:08:07. > :08:10.conference. I could have sat next to a Labour lobbyist at the
:08:10. > :08:12.previous week's conference, the Labour Party conference. If I had
:08:12. > :08:17.heard this story I would have reacted the same way. This is not
:08:17. > :08:21.the way we should be doing politics. I am delighted we are exposing it.
:08:21. > :08:25.But, as a lobbyist you know that is how it works. That is how it works
:08:25. > :08:28.in the sense that party donors expect some sort of access to
:08:28. > :08:32.senior politicians, both the Labour and the Conservative Party have
:08:32. > :08:36.websites, where it is very clear and very transparent you can go on
:08:36. > :08:39.to those websites and they have either the 1,000 club for the
:08:39. > :08:43.Labour Party or these leaders' clubs for the Conservative Party.
:08:43. > :08:47.So, nothing is hidden in that broad sense. No. Come on - I think it is
:08:47. > :08:50.the scale of these allegations which is the point. I give money to
:08:50. > :08:53.the Labour Party. I have been invited to receptions by the Labour
:08:54. > :08:58.Party. Yes, that is proper within limits. What we are talking about
:08:58. > :09:02.here is the scale of revelations. The idea that a truly staggering
:09:02. > :09:06.donation - I will never donate �250,000 to the Labour Party, sadly
:09:06. > :09:12.for them, sadly for me that I don't have that money to give. But it's
:09:12. > :09:17.the scale of the donations and what that bought people is the issue,
:09:17. > :09:23.not the fact it happens. We don't know what has bought in that sense,
:09:23. > :09:26.do we? That is why the police should investigate. It is clear
:09:26. > :09:29.what Peter Cruddas was offering the Sunday Times. If it was bluseter,
:09:29. > :09:33.presumably that will come out now in the course of the inquiry and
:09:34. > :09:38.this can be laid to rest N the mean time there are serious questions to
:09:38. > :09:42.be answered. Well, listening to that is the Conservative MP,
:09:42. > :09:49.Damiean Fielding. Thank you for listening to us on the -- is Mark
:09:49. > :09:54.Field. Thank you for listening to us on the programme.
:09:54. > :09:58.Are you satisfied he will publish the list? Yes, I am satisfied. It
:09:58. > :10:04.is good to see David Cameron getting on the front foot on this
:10:04. > :10:08.issue. Quite slow? Quite rightly he looked through to see if he could
:10:08. > :10:12.produce these lists in double-quick time. I would be happy for a full
:10:12. > :10:16.list of everyone who goes through Downing Street on a quarterly basis
:10:16. > :10:21.to go through. When people don't understand this, there are dozens
:10:21. > :10:25.of people a day going into 10 or 11 Downing Street to see either the
:10:25. > :10:31.Prime Minister, the Chancellor or the Deputy Prime Minister to
:10:31. > :10:37.discuss these issues. You would be unhappy with the idea that people
:10:37. > :10:43.who make big donations, let's say in the region of �250,000 that did
:10:43. > :10:48.buy them a more exclusive dinner with the Prime Minister? I don't
:10:48. > :10:53.think it has brought them exclusivety at all. There has been
:10:53. > :10:57.a three-year campaign, meeting with many ministers over that time and
:10:57. > :11:02.coalition ministers. There's never been any sense of an exclusive
:11:02. > :11:06.arrangement there. That is part and parcel of how politics operates.
:11:06. > :11:10.What is essential now, and I am sure David Cameron will have this
:11:10. > :11:15.in mind, is to clear up this issue of party funding. A scandal of
:11:15. > :11:18.three years ago in relation to MPs' expenses led to the creation of an
:11:18. > :11:23.independent regulator. I think we probably will need now to go down
:11:23. > :11:28.this path. There will, therefore, I think be ceilings on donations. We
:11:28. > :11:32.may well, I am afraid and I don't say this with great joy be heading
:11:32. > :11:35.towards a situation where there will be state funding. How damaging
:11:35. > :11:38.is this affair for the Conservatives? It is not great.
:11:38. > :11:43.Obviously these are bad headlines for anyone in Government for this
:11:43. > :11:48.sort of story. Clearly coming on the back of the Budget, the concern
:11:48. > :11:53.is that the party is regarded by many people, wrongly in my view,
:11:53. > :11:57.and unfairly, but it is regarded by many on the side of the rich. I
:11:57. > :12:01.support the idea of reducing the top rate of tax which is very
:12:01. > :12:05.damaging for entrepreneurs and damaging as a message. Can you see
:12:05. > :12:11.the link being made here? In the Sun they say it looks as if
:12:11. > :12:15.millions has been taken off high earners as a result of cosy
:12:15. > :12:22.political lunches? One can see how it could be disunderstood. This
:12:22. > :12:26.goes beyond 2010. We had the cash for peerages under the Blair era.
:12:26. > :12:30.It has been in the Labour Party's interest to delay and drag this
:12:30. > :12:36.process of dragging party funding because they are dependant on the
:12:36. > :12:40.trade unions who literally give them every �9 of �10 they get.
:12:41. > :12:45.don't believe the claim made by Peter Cruddas in that film, that
:12:46. > :12:48.actually those donors can buy access, which one might argue is
:12:48. > :12:51.self-evident, but it buys influence? I don't think that is
:12:51. > :12:57.right. I think the word, as I say, you look at the number of people
:12:57. > :13:02.going for the doors of Downing Street every week who are trying to
:13:02. > :13:06.influence ministers about legislation or about the mood of
:13:06. > :13:09.party policy, Government policy, that makes me think that this thing
:13:09. > :13:13.you can overstate that. As I say, there are many, many people who go
:13:13. > :13:17.to Downing Street, who are trying to make their case, that applies to
:13:17. > :13:27.donors as well as countless industry representatives. Thank you.
:13:27. > :13:29.
:13:29. > :13:33.Joining me in the studio now is is Michael Dugher. Pleased, like
:13:33. > :13:37.everyone else that list is going to be published? That is what you
:13:37. > :13:42.wanted? I think is Government has within complacent today about what
:13:42. > :13:46.are extremely serious allegations. Why are they being complacent? We
:13:46. > :13:50.have heard not only are they going to and already do publish lists of
:13:50. > :13:55.meetings that the Prime Minister and senior ministers are out on. He
:13:55. > :13:58.will publish the list op donors who have attended private dinners in
:13:58. > :14:02.the Number Ten and number 11 private flat? What Peter Cruddas
:14:02. > :14:06.was saying at the weekend in the Sunday Times, he was saying if you
:14:06. > :14:10.give up to �250,000 to the Conservative Party, if you are not
:14:10. > :14:14.happy with policy, they will feed your views into the policy
:14:14. > :14:18.committee of Number Ten. We know there is not a policy committee.
:14:18. > :14:22.There is a policy unit. Government today, because they hold
:14:22. > :14:28.the information already, could publish meetings that members of
:14:28. > :14:33.David Cameron's policy meeting have had with senior donors in Number
:14:33. > :14:39.Ten. They could publish it now. That would go some way... That has
:14:39. > :14:45.himself said it was bluseter when he boosted, to some eke tent, about
:14:45. > :14:49.the.... So we have to take Mr Cruddas's word for that? No we are
:14:49. > :14:54.taking Francis Maude and others who have said it was bluseter. He has
:14:54. > :14:58.been discred ited, he has also -- discredited. He has also resigned.
:14:58. > :15:03.A lot were saying it was nonsense, including Francis Maude. What we
:15:03. > :15:06.need is an independent inquiry. It is just intolerable the idea that
:15:06. > :15:16.the Conservative Party can investigate itself on this. You
:15:16. > :15:19.
:15:19. > :15:24.know, if they have nothing to hide, What influence to the trade union
:15:24. > :15:29.leaders have in terms of the Labour Party? Actually, our biggest source
:15:29. > :15:34.of funding comes from our members. Last time you interviewed me, I was
:15:34. > :15:39.having to defend Ed Miliband, who was having a public disagreement
:15:39. > :15:44.with the general secretary of the Unite union. Yes, but let's have a
:15:44. > :15:47.look at the influence of the unions, they are represented on the
:15:47. > :15:53.National Executive, which has always been the case, but there
:15:53. > :15:56.have also been accusations that they try and influence the
:15:56. > :16:01.candidates to be chosen to represent Labour in parliament, is
:16:01. > :16:06.that true? I don't think so. We have an historic link with working
:16:06. > :16:09.people, that keeps Labour's feet on the ground, that we have that
:16:09. > :16:14.relationship with ordinary people. And look at the money that we are
:16:14. > :16:19.talking about, most trade unions do not affiliate to the Labour Party,
:16:19. > :16:23.but for those that do, it is individuals giving �3 a year.
:16:23. > :16:27.you're saying the unions have no influence a tall on Labour Party
:16:27. > :16:31.policy? I'm saying it is not the influence that the Conservatives
:16:31. > :16:36.like to believe they have. We have a relationship with working people
:16:36. > :16:42.which goes back 100 years. That is to our strength. Those links are
:16:42. > :16:49.something which are very good for politics. If you're proud of that
:16:49. > :16:53.relationship, as you say, why doesn't Ed Miliband publish any
:16:53. > :17:00.dinners or meetings that he has with Len McCluskey, for example, or
:17:00. > :17:03.Dave Prentice? I'm sure Ed Miliband would be more than happy to publish
:17:03. > :17:07.his meetings with the representatives of working people
:17:07. > :17:14.in this country. He has got no problem with transparency. Will we
:17:14. > :17:18.have, in the same way, since you're in opposition now, but these are
:17:18. > :17:22.the sort of things which Labour talk about when they were in power,
:17:22. > :17:27.complete transparency, those meetings, those conversations and
:17:27. > :17:32.those dinners with big union backers? The truth is, most of them
:17:32. > :17:36.are publicly known anyway, not least because the trade unions tend
:17:36. > :17:40.to talk through the media immediately thereafter --
:17:40. > :17:43.immediately after they have had a meeting. But there were serious
:17:43. > :17:47.allegations this weekend, and I don't think it is good enough for
:17:47. > :17:52.David Cameron to say that we are not having an independent inquiry.
:17:52. > :17:55.The idea that you can do a News International, if I can put it that
:17:55. > :18:00.way, remember the phone hacking scandal, and they said, leave it
:18:00. > :18:05.with us, we will have an internal investigation, it is not good
:18:05. > :18:10.enough, we have got to have an independent inquiry. If we look at
:18:10. > :18:14.donors and donations, even during Tony Blair's time as Prime Minister,
:18:14. > :18:19.we had the cash-for-honours investigation, but Lord Levy has
:18:19. > :18:24.today admitted that Tony Blair had private dinners with party donors.
:18:24. > :18:31.It has happened under every single government. A Yes, and I think
:18:31. > :18:35.think that politicians... That was wrong, was it? What is wrong is not
:18:35. > :18:41.that you are accessible to people. It is good that you talk to people
:18:41. > :18:47.at the coalface, but what is wrong is that people can buy special
:18:47. > :18:51.access and special favours and buy influence on government policy. I
:18:51. > :18:55.think that speaks to the conduct and character of David Cameron's
:18:55. > :19:02.government and is really serious. But it was Tony Blair's government,
:19:02. > :19:08.too. There is no suggestion that at any stage Ed Miliband has been
:19:08. > :19:12.going around charging donor's �250,000 to influence policy.
:19:12. > :19:18.you do encourage donors to give money, and they then get access to
:19:18. > :19:22.receptions, for example. In our club, people pay 80,000 -- people
:19:22. > :19:26.pay �80 a month, whatever it is. But there is a very important
:19:26. > :19:31.distinction, there is no suggestion at all in Ed Miliband's Labour
:19:31. > :19:37.Party that we are going around, that Ed Miliband's treasurer is
:19:37. > :19:42.going around selling excess to the leader of our party, and flogging
:19:42. > :19:50.influence on our policies, it just doesn't happen. What have you got
:19:50. > :19:52.to say to that, Michael Fallon? trade unions were directly
:19:52. > :19:57.controlling the last Labour government, directly influencing
:19:57. > :20:03.policy. You had the Unite union actually choosing the next Labour
:20:03. > :20:09.leader. They provide 80% of Labour Party funding. Our donations are
:20:09. > :20:14.spread right across the board. This is a party which is run by the
:20:14. > :20:20.trade unions. But big donations go to dinner with the Prime Minister.
:20:20. > :20:25.They do not. They do, because the Prime Minister is going to publish
:20:25. > :20:30.a list of these dinners at the flat. There have been three occasions in
:20:30. > :20:32.the last two years where he has had supper up in his own flat, where,
:20:32. > :20:37.amongst the friends invited for supper, there will have been some
:20:37. > :20:40.people who had earlier made donations to the Conservative Party.
:20:41. > :20:45.You're going to get that information published, and from now
:20:45. > :20:49.on, you're going to find out about everybody who has come for meals at
:20:49. > :20:54.official residences. Which everybody seems to welcome, but why
:20:54. > :20:57.the change? Yesterday it was private, people who attended Number
:20:57. > :21:02.Ten in that capacity, they were not going to be published, so what has
:21:02. > :21:07.changed? We are always looking for more transparency. This is the
:21:07. > :21:11.first government which has ever published details like these. We
:21:11. > :21:17.have had enormous public interest in the last 24 hours in the idea,
:21:17. > :21:23.which is wrong, but Peter Cruddas was boasting about getting access
:21:23. > :21:26.to number 10, and we need to show that this was not right. How did
:21:26. > :21:30.those donors get to that Dinnet unless it was because they had
:21:30. > :21:38.donated those large sums of money? The Prime Minister has people up
:21:38. > :21:44.into his own private apartment, I'm sure you do the same thing. They
:21:44. > :21:47.have not paid me �250,000. He has people in his private apartments,
:21:47. > :21:54.and amongst those people, occasionally, there will have been
:21:54. > :21:59.donors. Those names are going to be published now. Will records have
:21:59. > :22:05.been kept of those meetings? I hope so, and the work is now being done
:22:05. > :22:11.to establish who was there. what was said? Summer we are going
:22:11. > :22:15.to get a tape recording, but the two points which Peter Cruddas was
:22:15. > :22:18.boasting about were both wrong - when you do not get special access
:22:18. > :22:22.to Downing Street, and you're not able to dictate policy.
:22:22. > :22:29.Understandably, you're not going to have notes taken from a private
:22:29. > :22:34.dinner, but it is the impression that it leaves, now that we have
:22:34. > :22:43.heard this tape from Peter Crowe does, that donors were having
:22:43. > :22:48.dinner with the Prime Minister -- Peter Cruddas -- so how can we know
:22:48. > :22:53.that these people were not having any influence at all? Making
:22:53. > :22:57.donations to the party does not buy you any influence over the policy.
:22:57. > :23:06.What is the point of making a donation, then? Because you were
:23:06. > :23:09.shared the policies of the party. It is the commitment to free
:23:09. > :23:13.enterprise, supporting business and advancing jobs in this country. You
:23:13. > :23:20.share those values, it is not because you have any influence over
:23:20. > :23:24.policy. You look at the website, and it has the leader's Club, if
:23:24. > :23:29.you pay �50,000, I think, like any party, but does that have to stop
:23:29. > :23:33.now? Are we getting to the stage when only that kind of thing will
:23:33. > :23:37.satisfy voters, but you should not be appealing to donors in that
:23:37. > :23:42.sense? I think all political parties offer that kind of access
:23:42. > :23:46.to their leaders and prominent members of the Cabinet or Shadow
:23:46. > :23:51.Cabinet, that one of the ways political parties attract donations.
:23:51. > :23:55.The Labour Party has always done that, we do that, you might get to
:23:55. > :23:59.meet senior ministers and so on. The difference here is that we need
:23:59. > :24:04.to make it absolutely clear that that should not happen in Downing
:24:04. > :24:12.Street itself, and it should not lead to any direct influence over a
:24:12. > :24:20.particular policy. Let's ask our guest of the day, are you convinced
:24:20. > :24:24.by what Michael Fallon has been saying? I'm not a politician, so I
:24:24. > :24:28.cannot say who influences whom. What I will talk to about is what
:24:28. > :24:35.young people expect of their leaders, of broader adult society
:24:35. > :24:40.as a whole. Your viewers may remember that the United Kingdom
:24:40. > :24:43.Youth Parliament meets once a year in a meeting chaired by Mr Speaker.
:24:43. > :24:47.The youth parliament is more diverse in many ways than the main
:24:47. > :24:53.parliament in either House. What our young people have, and I meet
:24:53. > :24:57.young people all over the country, in poor and rich circumstances, who
:24:57. > :25:03.have high morals and high ideals, and want to live in a society like
:25:03. > :25:06.that. They expect a society where their own transparency, you know
:25:06. > :25:10.how transparent young people are, they do not lie, they tell you
:25:11. > :25:17.their stories, they are very keen to live in a society where, if they
:25:17. > :25:22.vote, it counts, and however political parties are funded in the
:25:22. > :25:27.future, and I really do not care about that, I am completely neutral
:25:27. > :25:31.and bound to be so by law, I meet young people with a huge range of
:25:31. > :25:41.political ideas, but they want to be able to aspire to be MPs
:25:41. > :25:46.
:25:47. > :25:51.The youth of today have been a cause of concern for ever, really.
:25:51. > :25:54.Each generation seems to think the kids they come across are more
:25:55. > :25:59.badly behaved and less respectful than they were, perhaps
:25:59. > :26:05.conveniently forgetting their own youthful high jinks. It has the
:26:05. > :26:10.balance of power swung too much towards pupils and away from
:26:11. > :26:16.parents and teachers? We went to find out. We will do one lesson of
:26:16. > :26:20.revision, period three, and then period four, we will do the test.
:26:20. > :26:25.Scenes from a British classroom, teacher in control, well-behaved
:26:25. > :26:30.kids. If only it was like this all the time. If you believe what you
:26:30. > :26:34.see in some papers, corridors like these are ruled by little kids who
:26:34. > :26:38.the teachers cannot touch because they know their rights. There is
:26:39. > :26:43.some evidence to suggest that that might be partly true, but really,
:26:43. > :26:48.are the young people of today worse than those of yesterday, or is it
:26:48. > :26:51.us? Things are more challenging and difficult for teachers, routinely,
:26:51. > :26:56.with children and young people. I do not want to put young children
:26:56. > :27:00.down, but there are unfortunately a significant minority who think they
:27:00. > :27:06.have all the rights, but not the responsibilities. Is there any
:27:06. > :27:14.empirical evidence that children are actually ruling the most? The
:27:14. > :27:19.number of permanent exclusions has actually halved since 1997. But the
:27:19. > :27:24.number of serious assaults on teachers reached a five-year high
:27:24. > :27:27.in 2010, with 44 needing to be rushed to hospital. A survey for
:27:27. > :27:31.teachers in the same year found that 92% thought behaviour had
:27:31. > :27:35.become worse or much worse over the course of their careers. But is
:27:35. > :27:43.that evidence of a culture where children are untouchable because
:27:43. > :27:51.the pendulum of rights has swung too far in their favour? I think
:27:51. > :27:54.this is a myth. What it has done, if anything, is it has changed the
:27:55. > :28:00.way in which adults deal with children. In the end it is the
:28:00. > :28:05.adults who bring children up, it is the teachers who manage children,
:28:05. > :28:10.and it is their expectations, not those of the children. So, do
:28:10. > :28:14.discipline and respect start at home? If they have got no
:28:14. > :28:20.experience at home of doing things they do not want to do, of parents
:28:20. > :28:24.setting appropriate boundaries, then they do not to stand -- they
:28:24. > :28:28.do not understand that it needs to happen in school. My teachers tell
:28:28. > :28:30.me that it is not just working- class children, it is many middle-
:28:30. > :28:35.class children who do not understand those boundaries,
:28:35. > :28:40.because they have been over- indulged. But does there have to be
:28:40. > :28:45.a constant struggle? We need to present a really clear, simple,
:28:45. > :28:51.positive direction will signal in the language that we use.
:28:51. > :28:54.Frequently, we ask way to many questions both as parents and
:28:55. > :28:58.teachers, giving youngsters the opportunity to get into what could
:28:58. > :29:03.become a conflict. If we had not asked the question, there would not
:29:03. > :29:09.have been a conflict in the first place. All of this matters, because
:29:09. > :29:16.getting the balance between responsibilities and rights is
:29:16. > :29:19.after all one of life's great lessons. We are joined by Toby
:29:19. > :29:24.Young, who has set up a free school in west London. The general
:29:24. > :29:29.impression is that children are not as respectful these days - do you
:29:29. > :29:35.agree with that stereotype? evidence is mixed. I would frame it
:29:35. > :29:38.slightly differently. Rather than rights versus responsibilities, I
:29:38. > :29:44.would say it is the old-fashioned British culture of stoicism, the
:29:44. > :29:48.bulldog spirit, keeping a stiff upper lip in the face of adversity,
:29:48. > :29:52.versus a kind of therapeutic, touchy-feely culture, in which the
:29:52. > :29:56.priority is on fostering a cells of self-esteem among children. That
:29:56. > :30:01.has led to a general lowering of expectations, typified by the last
:30:01. > :30:04.government making modern foreign languages optional at GCSE. If you
:30:04. > :30:08.look at the performance of Britain's schoolchildren in the
:30:08. > :30:12.international league tables, measuring comparative performance,
:30:12. > :30:19.you will see that British schoolchildren have plummeted, when
:30:19. > :30:27.it comes to science, for instance, from seventh to 25th in the
:30:27. > :30:32.developed world, and from eighth to 28th when it comes to maths. You're
:30:32. > :30:36.saying this is because of this change in culture? Absolutely. If
:30:36. > :30:40.you look at the countries which are doing really well, at the top of
:30:40. > :30:45.the league tables, countries like South Korea, Hong Kong, China,
:30:45. > :30:49.Taiwan, those clearly are not countries in which the emphasis is
:30:49. > :30:53.on children's rights and boosting their self-esteem. Respect has to
:30:53. > :31:03.be earned, it cannot be given to them on a plate. Do you agree with
:31:03. > :31:10.
:31:10. > :31:15.that, that state schools have I go in and out of them all the
:31:15. > :31:19.time. I would say no. The drop out rate in South Korea is the highest
:31:19. > :31:24.among the world. Let's not believe there aren't cliff edges in those
:31:24. > :31:28.countries as well. If you look at the UN conviction of the right on
:31:28. > :31:33.the human rights, there are three Rs here. There are rights, John
:31:34. > :31:37.Major signed it in 1991. We are bound by it. It comes with other
:31:37. > :31:43.two Rs - climate of respect and mutual responsibility to make sure
:31:43. > :31:49.if I have rights then so do you and so do you. We are mutually
:31:49. > :31:55.responsible. I go in and out of aspirational schools, academies,
:31:55. > :32:00.maintained LEA schools, Catholic and other faith schools where that
:32:00. > :32:07.culture is there. The children know the boundaries. You do need
:32:07. > :32:12.authorities, you do need boundaries. You need respect in every classroom.
:32:12. > :32:15.Teachers deserve the right to teach. Children who leave school with no
:32:15. > :32:20.self-esteem and no ability to be entrepreneurial or lead, you are
:32:20. > :32:26.doing them a disservice as well. It has to start when they are children.
:32:26. > :32:34.Hapbt that children's ex-- what about that children's expectations
:32:34. > :32:38.are not there? Children are praised for doing anything? The children
:32:38. > :32:41.who really suffer from this culture are children from deprived
:32:41. > :32:46.backgrounds, where they are not pushed at home, in the way that
:32:46. > :32:51.middle class children are. If you look at schools, I visited many
:32:51. > :32:57.myself. I recently visited a school in Hackney - one of the most
:32:57. > :33:02.deprived boroughs in the UK, somewhere like 50% of the children
:33:02. > :33:11.have free school meals. The children are sent home if they come
:33:11. > :33:14.to school wearing the wrong colour shoes. That is not liked by
:33:14. > :33:21.progressers. If you look at the number of children who went to
:33:21. > :33:27.Cambridge at Mossborne, ten children went to Cambridge. Every
:33:27. > :33:31.child in the sixth form went to university. I I have also been
:33:31. > :33:36.there. The children will confirm it is a caring environment and the
:33:36. > :33:39.results are because of the human self-esteem. They teach them in
:33:39. > :33:45.special places with some of the best staff in the school. There are
:33:45. > :33:52.two sides to Mossborne. It is a disciplined school, but also a very
:33:52. > :33:58.caring school. Let's look at the discipline - let's look at uniform,
:33:58. > :34:02.homework handed in that is sloppy, even if the content is good. Are
:34:02. > :34:06.these things that would inch standards up? If children feel they
:34:06. > :34:10.cannot get away with getting to school five minutes late, it does
:34:10. > :34:16.matter. And they cannot come into school without their homework,
:34:16. > :34:21.because it does matter? Of course it does matter. In desperately
:34:21. > :34:26.scattered and drifting rural places I don't meet that complacentsy.
:34:26. > :34:31.am glad you acknowledge the discipline in schools. In the past
:34:31. > :34:36.you have advocated prosecuting mums who smack their children. No I
:34:36. > :34:39.haven't. Are you saying they should be allowed to smack? There are
:34:39. > :34:46.circumstances where it is reasonable to discipline your
:34:46. > :34:49.children if they are misbehaving. Your issues of school uniform may
:34:49. > :34:54.not seem important but actually does seem to make a difference. It
:34:54. > :35:04.is how far you take it though. is pointless having a uniform in a
:35:04. > :35:08.school if you don't enforce it. Too often up and down the country their
:35:08. > :35:12.ties are down to their nave vels, their shoes are not polished.
:35:12. > :35:19.It may sound old fashioned, but we can see where it is enforced the
:35:19. > :35:27.children do better, particularly from deprived backgrounds. What
:35:27. > :35:32.about how students treat teachers. Some teachers say they feel -- if
:35:32. > :35:37.someone is disrupting a class they are removed from that class. If
:35:37. > :35:41.they disrupt sha class consistently they should be ejected from that
:35:41. > :35:46.school? That is the sort of system that is in place. Children are
:35:46. > :35:52.removed. It is difficult to do. Children are taking away from the
:35:52. > :35:55.30 children they are otherwise disrupting. They are taught in
:35:55. > :35:59.special units. Children can be taught in small groups and held to
:35:59. > :36:07.being on time, doing the homework, getting right support, asking the
:36:07. > :36:12.right questions to get them through their exams. The exclusions issue -
:36:12. > :36:17.if exclusions are done properly and above board and in a proper, formal,
:36:17. > :36:24.corresponding with home fashion. Are they? They mostly are. There
:36:24. > :36:31.are schools who have admitted to us that there is also, every now and
:36:31. > :36:35.again, a casual exclusion, go home for a few days and sort yourself
:36:35. > :36:41.out. We need to do more work on that. The Government is keen also
:36:41. > :36:45.to crack down on illegal exclusions. I would hesitate to defend a
:36:45. > :36:48.practise which is illegal, but I think from the point of view of the
:36:48. > :36:52.head teachers in the schools to try and ensure that proper learning
:36:52. > :36:56.takes place in the classrooms, sometimes to go through a formal
:36:56. > :37:00.exclusion procedure, in which there is an appeal and appeals panel
:37:00. > :37:08.which can reinstate the child and if they exclude them they have to
:37:08. > :37:13.take a child from a neighbouring school - sometimes they don't want
:37:13. > :37:21.that on their record. It is against the law.
:37:21. > :37:25.End of. I will thank you both at this point. With just two day left
:37:25. > :37:31.before Easter recess, let's see what is still to come before MPs
:37:31. > :37:36.jet off - questions on cash for access are likely to dominate the
:37:36. > :37:41.next couple of days. Meanwhile, with incredible timing Nick Clegg
:37:41. > :37:45.has managed to get away from Westminster and the scandal. He is
:37:45. > :37:50.spending today and tomorrow in South Korea, meeting businesses and
:37:50. > :37:55.politicians. The Government is expected to reveal more details
:37:55. > :38:00.about its controversial changes to planning rules. There are fears
:38:00. > :38:04.from some groups it could amount to a carte blanche for developers.
:38:04. > :38:08.Joining me now is Anne McElvoy and Nick Watt. Anne McElvoy, first of
:38:08. > :38:13.all, has he done enough, David Cameron, by announcing he'll
:38:13. > :38:17.publish details of the dinners held with private donors at Number Ten?
:38:17. > :38:20.It gets him off the initial hook, which looked very bad for him and
:38:20. > :38:25.the Conservative Party that many of the things that it said in
:38:25. > :38:28.opposition about cleaning up politics and cleaning up the whole
:38:28. > :38:32.donor question were looking thread bear. It didn't take long for them
:38:32. > :38:36.to change their minds. If there is such thing as giving credit where
:38:36. > :38:41.it is due, that is where I would give it. When I saw their initial
:38:41. > :38:46.resistance I was surprised and I wondered how long that line would
:38:46. > :38:49.last. David Cameron is prepared to take the hit on showing who he has
:38:49. > :38:56.dinner with, as long as it shows he is trying to get back into the
:38:56. > :38:59.driving seat on openness. Surprise, surprise, big done nations to
:38:59. > :39:04.political parties, you get access to the Prime Minister and you get
:39:04. > :39:07.to chat to him, so tell me something I don't know? I can just
:39:07. > :39:11.about hear you, but there is a very loud helicopter. I will shout it
:39:11. > :39:15.again. I am saying, surprise, surprise, donors to political
:39:15. > :39:23.parties give lots of money, they get access to senior ministers and
:39:23. > :39:28.the Prime Minister ee tell me something I don't know! -- They
:39:28. > :39:33.would like you to think that you can 236 give �100,000 and it will
:39:33. > :39:37.not have an effect on David Cameron. Peter Cruddas blue it oup, give us
:39:37. > :39:41.�250,000, you'll be in if Premier League and get to influence policy.
:39:41. > :39:43.He is not meant to say that. There is a gentleman's agreement. You
:39:44. > :39:47.might get to meet the Prime Minister over dinner, of course it
:39:47. > :39:50.will have no impact on what he does. That is the offence that Peter
:39:50. > :39:54.Cruddas has committed. What will be interesting from this, I agree with
:39:54. > :39:58.Ann, that obviously the Prime Minister is dealing the immediate
:39:58. > :40:02.crisis with greater transparency, but the deeper crisis is how are
:40:02. > :40:08.they going to deal with this point that clearly you do get access, you
:40:08. > :40:13.do get influence with ministers if you pay all this money. What
:40:13. > :40:18.influence can you get? We don't know what influence, in that sense
:40:18. > :40:23.is brought to bear. The timing is unfortunate for the Conservatives
:40:23. > :40:29.because it comes after the Budget and their big policy announcements,
:40:29. > :40:35.particularly on the top rate of tax. Does it have a direct influence?
:40:35. > :40:38.You don't have a direct link. This was raised when Labour went through
:40:38. > :40:43.its own cash for honours issue. People will suspect there is a link.
:40:43. > :40:49.It is unlikely that anyone turns up and says, here Prime Minister, can
:40:49. > :40:52.we sign this list off over the desert? It does not work that way.
:40:52. > :40:57.If you pay a lot to the Conservative Party and get access
:40:57. > :41:01.at high level it does not look like you sit around discussing the
:41:01. > :41:05.spring sunshine. Although it is hard to say what you got out of it,
:41:05. > :41:09.what you got was the ear of the Prime Minister to put your case
:41:09. > :41:14.across. Peter Cruddas used the phrase "bosh, there you are." They
:41:14. > :41:18.look from one party to another and think this never gets better. That
:41:18. > :41:24.is what David Cameron has to challenge. He cannot be seen to be
:41:24. > :41:31.in the company ofty cons. It is interesting that -- of tycoons.
:41:31. > :41:38.It is interesting that which must be forthcoming eis this the revenge
:41:38. > :41:44.of the media mogul? It was a Sunday Times story. Good nor the Sunday
:41:44. > :41:46.Times - a really important -- good for the Sunday Times. A really
:41:47. > :41:51.important story. Rupert Murdoch thought David Cameron was a light
:41:51. > :41:57.weight. He is furious at the Leveson Inquiry and that it has
:41:57. > :42:02.been set up. Len, looking at the public -- then, looking at the
:42:03. > :42:08.public response, will people be - they are bothered obviously by any
:42:08. > :42:14.sense of donations in political parties - but will they see it
:42:14. > :42:19.different from previous scandals? It is another brick out of the wall.
:42:19. > :42:24.It is the old animal farm thing, you look from man to pig and pig to
:42:24. > :42:30.man and wonder which is which. We've had this coalition for a
:42:30. > :42:32.relatively short amount of time. I bet Nick Clegg is pleased to be
:42:33. > :42:36.off to South Korea today. It is a short time to get into the
:42:36. > :42:41.situation where people are saying, you are exactly the same as the old
:42:41. > :42:46.lot who had been in office for too long. I think that is where David
:42:46. > :42:50.Cameron will feel he has allowed a silly situation to arise. Of course
:42:50. > :42:54.he cannot entirely be blamed for the stupidity of Mr Cruddas in
:42:54. > :42:58.making the kind of promises he was making. It was clearly an open door.
:42:58. > :43:03.Trouble was going to march through it. What about hostage to fortune
:43:03. > :43:08.in terms of the opposition and Ed Miliband? Is it rich for the Labour
:43:08. > :43:13.Party to be pushing this issue too far, Nick? Well, of course Ed
:43:13. > :43:15.Miliband thinks this is an absolute gift for him. He is planning he
:43:15. > :43:19.will reply to the Francis Maude statement, to put the pressure on
:43:19. > :43:21.the Prime Minister. Yes, of course the Labour Party has its own
:43:21. > :43:26.problems. The Prime Minister, in his statement today was saying I
:43:26. > :43:30.think we should be moving in the direction of the �50,000 cap,
:43:30. > :43:39.individual cap on donations. Well, we all know what that is about.
:43:39. > :43:43.That is ensuring Unite and other David Miliband yesterday on The
:43:43. > :43:48.Andrew Marr Show was coming one the suggestion that we should look
:43:48. > :43:51.closer at individual members of trade unions, they should know when
:43:51. > :43:55.they are ticking the levy box. They should make that choice. Maybe that
:43:55. > :43:59.would be a way around that �50,000 cap for the Labour Party. Thank you,
:43:59. > :44:04.both of you out there in the sunshine. We will talk about party
:44:04. > :44:07.funding later on. I do believe now we can join our political editor,
:44:07. > :44:11.Nick Robinson, who has been following this story closely. Has
:44:11. > :44:15.he done enough now, David Cameron, even though they refused to publish
:44:15. > :44:19.the list of the donors of private dinners yesterday, they have
:44:19. > :44:24.changed their minds? Well, they have published them now. Of course
:44:24. > :44:34.there'll be scrutiny now of exactly who those names are. Some are
:44:34. > :44:37.
:44:37. > :44:43.fairly familiar to me. Andrew Feldman. Others less familiar Ian
:44:43. > :44:48.and Christine Taylor. Henry and Dorothy Angus. They were
:44:48. > :44:52.not people who gave a donation one day after the Conservatives got
:44:52. > :44:55.into Downing Street and then arrived at his dinner table the
:44:55. > :44:59.next. But of course people will still ask, why on earth did he
:45:00. > :45:04.think it was appropriate to have dinners at all in his flat above
:45:04. > :45:07.Downing Street for people whose only qualification for being there
:45:07. > :45:11.was they were donors to the Conservative Party? The questions
:45:11. > :45:15.will go on about why more information cannot be revealed
:45:15. > :45:19.about previous dinners at previous locations, other locations, for
:45:19. > :45:22.example, Chequers. The Prime Minister's aids are saying there
:45:22. > :45:27.are practical difficulties in assembling that information about
:45:27. > :45:31.Chequers. They will do it in future but not about the past. The
:45:31. > :45:41.difficulty with transparency is once you start, people say, carry
:45:41. > :45:44.
:45:44. > :45:54.on going, please, we want more. Coming to you now, Caroline
:45:54. > :45:54.
:45:54. > :45:57.Dinenage, do you think there should be an exhaustive list? I think
:45:57. > :46:03.obviously transparency is really important. This is fundamentally
:46:03. > :46:07.very undermining for the hard- working activists at a local level.
:46:07. > :46:12.I was at a fish-and-chip lunch in my constituency on Saturday, where
:46:12. > :46:17.everybody paid �7.50 to be there. This is what grassroots fund-
:46:17. > :46:21.raising is about. Transparency is very important, but we have to draw
:46:21. > :46:26.a line, people are entitled to a private life, they are entitled to
:46:26. > :46:32.have personal friends. Once transparency starts, it is
:46:32. > :46:36.difficult to know where it will lend. On the doorstep, what are you
:46:36. > :46:42.going to say to people? It is difficult, and it is heartbreaking
:46:42. > :46:47.for those of us that work really hard at a local level, and do not
:46:47. > :46:53.have constituents who will ever be able to come to be a 8 kind of
:46:53. > :47:02.money to a party. -- able to contribute that kind of money to a
:47:02. > :47:06.party. But in actual fact, it appears that this guy was operating
:47:06. > :47:13.completely against party guidelines, so we ought to be looking into it
:47:14. > :47:20.and making sure it does not happen again. Were you shop, Jo Swinson,
:47:20. > :47:24.by the video with Peter Cruddas, and what he said? I think everybody
:47:24. > :47:34.would have been shocked by that, because that is not an appropriate
:47:34. > :47:38.
:47:38. > :47:41.way to go about fund-raising. to all political parties do it?
:47:41. > :47:48.think there is a difference between people who are supporters of a
:47:48. > :47:52.political party, whether that is by donating money or whatever, and
:47:52. > :47:56.obviously, at party conferences and so on, they will meet with senior
:47:56. > :48:02.people, between that and suggestions of buying influence
:48:02. > :48:06.over policy. I think that is a very, very serious suggestion, which is
:48:06. > :48:12.why the weekend was so damaging. That's why it is really important,
:48:12. > :48:14.this is not the first story like this that we have had. You could
:48:14. > :48:20.rewind this programme over the years and you would have had
:48:20. > :48:24.various of these events. The political class generally has not
:48:24. > :48:28.salted its act out, which is what we must do. Then why has there been
:48:28. > :48:36.no progress in terms of getting agreement on how parties are
:48:36. > :48:39.funded? I'm not sure, but this is on a different scale to anything we
:48:39. > :48:43.have seen in the past, this is about access to the Prime Minister
:48:43. > :48:51.and his wife in Number Ten Downing Street. Not only that, it is about
:48:51. > :48:55.influencing policy. We do not know that. That's what Peter Cruddas was
:48:55. > :48:59.saying he could arrange for �250,000, because that amount would
:48:59. > :49:04.put donors into the Premier League. So, this is actually on a different
:49:04. > :49:09.scale, which is why we say we need an independent inquiry. What would
:49:09. > :49:16.you do to make sure that Labour was above any kind of accusations of
:49:16. > :49:20.this nature? We have money from trade unions, but that is
:49:20. > :49:25.individual members, who choose to join a trade union, take the
:49:25. > :49:31.political levy box, but a few pounds a month into that Levy, it
:49:31. > :49:35.is not about individual millionaires paying �250,000 to see
:49:35. > :49:39.the Prime Minister and influence policy. Listen, viewers know that
:49:39. > :49:44.union leaders bring a lot of influence to bear on the Labour
:49:44. > :49:48.leadership, and one could argue particularly now, because they were
:49:48. > :49:53.seen as the ones who put Ed Miliband where he is. So, what
:49:53. > :49:57.could be done to reassure people that that link does not mean that
:49:57. > :50:01.union leaders have more influence that they showed? I don't think
:50:01. > :50:06.union leaders do, to be honest with you. They do not have influence
:50:06. > :50:11.over the policies, the candidate's? The Labour Party represents the
:50:11. > :50:16.interests of working people. I think we have seen in recent weeks
:50:16. > :50:20.and months that the Labour Party is not necessarily the friend of trade
:50:20. > :50:22.unions, some Mum Ed Miliband has been dancing to the tune of the
:50:22. > :50:28.trade union movement in recent months. The opposite could be
:50:28. > :50:31.argued. Is it not the problem for David Cameron that he argued so
:50:31. > :50:35.vociferously for transparency and now looks as if he has not
:50:35. > :50:39.practised what he preached, particularly as he said that the
:50:39. > :50:44.next crisis that was going to happen was the relationship between
:50:44. > :50:49.politicians and lobbyists? As you said, there is no evidence that
:50:49. > :50:54.this money that changed hands was directly leading to this. But they
:50:54. > :50:58.are going to be talking about policy, aren't they? Policy which
:50:58. > :51:02.will help businesses or entrepreneurs, or help people to be
:51:02. > :51:06.more tax-efficient... We are not talking about like a Bernie
:51:06. > :51:10.Eccleston giving �1 million for tobacco advertising, we're talking
:51:10. > :51:13.about somebody who wants access to the Prime Minister, and they may
:51:13. > :51:17.discuss anything, but the Prime Minister has various influences on
:51:17. > :51:21.what government policy will be. There's so many other things which
:51:21. > :51:24.will influence him, he will not just changed his mind on the basis
:51:24. > :51:28.of one person who has paid to be there. Are you worried that people
:51:28. > :51:33.might think twice before giving a large amount of money to the
:51:33. > :51:38.Conservative Party? We have to make it very clear that access to the
:51:38. > :51:44.Prime Minister is not going to buy you influence. What new can be
:51:44. > :51:48.done? I don't know, we just have to look at why this was... We have
:51:48. > :51:52.already got clear guidelines as to how people should behave, and we
:51:52. > :51:56.have to look at how people ever thought they could have done this.
:51:56. > :52:01.Would you like to see a cap on donations? I think that should be
:52:01. > :52:07.the way we should go, yes. Where do you think would be a good
:52:07. > :52:15.standpoint? I think �50,000 would be a good starting point. That will
:52:15. > :52:19.form the basis of the discussions. My understanding is that those
:52:19. > :52:22.talks will restart, the Deputy Prime Minister has made an approach
:52:22. > :52:26.to the different parties to kick- start this some weeks ago, because
:52:26. > :52:30.it is in the coalition agreement, we need to get the big money out of
:52:30. > :52:34.politics, which is why I think a cap is important. The committee has
:52:34. > :52:38.recommended one which is lower, about �10,000. Different parties
:52:38. > :52:45.will have different views. But I think moving ahead with a cross-
:52:45. > :52:49.party consensus to get this sorted out... I think we need it any
:52:49. > :52:55.independent inquiry, in truth. We welcome the Prime Minister's U-turn
:52:55. > :53:01.on this, but we need an independent inquiry. We saw this Tuesday the
:53:02. > :53:09.privatisation of the National Health Service. We did not see that.
:53:10. > :53:14.Let's talk about the talks on party funding. Let's stick to that. One
:53:14. > :53:21.of the stumbling blocks has been Labour's failure to agree on what
:53:21. > :53:26.the links should be financially between the unions and the party.
:53:26. > :53:30.There is this problem over opting in and opting out. Do you think now
:53:30. > :53:37.it is time that should people should have to opt in rather than
:53:37. > :53:41.opting out? I agree with what Ed Miliband has said, members of trade
:53:41. > :53:46.unions ought to be able to decide whether they want to opt into that
:53:46. > :53:51.political levy or not. You would advise the Labour leader to do
:53:51. > :53:54.that? I think I would, it is less damaging than capping donations. We
:53:54. > :53:59.rely on donations from all sorts of people, members of the Labour Party
:53:59. > :54:03.donate. They pay a membership, subscription fee. And I think that
:54:03. > :54:11.forms the biggest part of the money we received, to be honest, it is
:54:11. > :54:16.bigger than the trade unions. -- we receive. I think they are not
:54:16. > :54:20.mutually exclusive. We have to make progress on these talks, because I
:54:20. > :54:23.think they should be a cap on individual donations. If you start
:54:23. > :54:26.to do that, then all of the speculation about people buying
:54:26. > :54:31.influence becomes irrelevant, because we're not talking about the
:54:32. > :54:37.same kind of sums. So I think a cap on party funding, and I also think
:54:37. > :54:40.we need to look at the rules on party spending as well. For the
:54:40. > :54:45.Liberal Democrats, that's clear, because you do not have the same
:54:45. > :54:49.sort of money. We have a range of different donors, much of our money
:54:49. > :54:53.comes from the grass roots, all of those local fund-raising events,
:54:53. > :54:57.but I think that is a strength. We should be encouraging people, that
:54:57. > :55:05.if they support issues, donating to a political party is a legitimate
:55:05. > :55:09.way of doing that and being involved actively. Would you be
:55:09. > :55:13.happy to ask the taxpayer to give money, and have some kind of state
:55:13. > :55:17.funding, is that going to be palatable? This is the thing, I
:55:17. > :55:21.don't think it will be. This is the danger, that inevitably, there will
:55:21. > :55:25.be a conclusion that all parties should be state funded, but I don't
:55:25. > :55:29.think there will be an appetite for that. That would be completely
:55:29. > :55:34.unpalatable, for people to be expected to pay to fund political
:55:34. > :55:41.parties. People think they pay too much in taxes anyway, to be honest.
:55:41. > :55:45.To fund the BNP, for example, would be unpalatable follows people.
:55:45. > :55:48.think in the current climate, it will not happen. It works well in
:55:48. > :55:52.other countries, and of course, there is some state funding, for
:55:52. > :55:56.example, for the opposition, in terms of policy development, which
:55:56. > :56:03.is fair enough. But some am state funding will be the solution. But
:56:03. > :56:10.we need a system -- but I don't think state funding will be the
:56:10. > :56:15.solution -- where it is all more transparent. The fear of fuel
:56:15. > :56:19.shortages is with us again. There is a threat that a tanker drivers
:56:19. > :56:22.could be going on strike as early as next month. The Government has
:56:22. > :56:28.announced that army personnel will be trained to take over. Will this
:56:28. > :56:34.be enough to avoid a crisis? Well, what do you think? Labour really
:56:34. > :56:38.suffered the last time there was action like this. I'm not sure that
:56:38. > :56:41.it will. The Government needs to be making contingency plans, but they
:56:41. > :56:47.need to be encouraging the trade unions to get around the table and
:56:47. > :56:50.find a settlement, with the management. Last week we were
:56:50. > :56:54.speaking to small businesses, and the price of a litre of petrol has
:56:54. > :56:58.gone through �1.40 on Friday - do you think George Osborne should
:56:58. > :57:02.have done more to tackle the price of fuel? I would have liked to have
:57:02. > :57:05.seen more on this in the Budget, definitely. But this kind of move
:57:05. > :57:09.by the tanker drivers is so were responsible, we have got hard-
:57:09. > :57:15.working businesses up and down the country, trying to grow their way
:57:15. > :57:19.out of recession. To hang his over their heads I think is so
:57:19. > :57:23.irresponsible. Are you fearful about a possible crisis like this
:57:23. > :57:27.again? We all remember what it was like last time. It is right that
:57:27. > :57:30.the Government puts plans in place so that we do not end up in the
:57:30. > :57:35.same situation. It is so important to the economy that we keep things
:57:35. > :57:38.moving. Is it right for the military to be stepping in?
:57:38. > :57:44.Government needs to look at how emergency services can continue,
:57:44. > :57:48.and indeed, the economy does not grind to a halt. But that means
:57:48. > :57:57.having a negotiation which there's some kind of fruit, is that
:57:57. > :58:04.possible Blunkett -- is that possible? That has to be the
:58:04. > :58:10.reality. I do not know the detail, to be honest. It needs to be
:58:10. > :58:16.settled, I don't think anybody want to strike, but we should have the
:58:16. > :58:24.right to withdraw labour, if that is the only alternative. Even if it
:58:24. > :58:28.brings the country to a standstill ban ahead -- to a standstill?
:58:28. > :58:33.there is no alternative, then yes, absolutely, people have the right
:58:33. > :58:43.to withdraw label. But I want a conclusion to be seen on this one,
:58:43. > :58:44.