:00:38. > :00:41.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:41. > :00:44.The polls made grim reading for the Prime Minister over his kedgeree
:00:44. > :00:48.this morning. One has Mr Cameron ten points behind his Labour
:00:48. > :00:51.counterpart. Maybe the PM should invite a few people round for
:00:51. > :00:54.Easter Sunday. And talking of Easter, Quentin
:00:54. > :00:59.Letts takes to recess like a duck to water with his A-Z of Parliament
:00:59. > :01:01.A framework for growth or carte blanche to develop the countryside?
:01:01. > :01:06.We'll be looking at the Government's new planning framework
:01:06. > :01:16.for England. And farewell clunk click every trip.
:01:16. > :01:22.Are we waving goodbye to public information films like this? Pick a
:01:22. > :01:25.simple topic and state the bleeding obvious about it.
:01:25. > :01:28.Indeed! All that in the next hour, and with
:01:28. > :01:31.us for the whole programme today we have an embarrassment of political
:01:31. > :01:34.riches. John Prescott is the former Deputy Prime Minister now hoping to
:01:34. > :01:36.become one of the first elected police commissioners. Norman Fowler
:01:36. > :01:39.is a former Tory cabinet minister and one-time chairman of the
:01:39. > :01:49.Conservative Party and Don Foster is a Liberal Democrat who speaks
:01:49. > :01:49.
:01:49. > :01:56.for the party on culture and the media. Can I say evening, all!
:01:56. > :02:01.yet! Let's start with what's being
:02:01. > :02:04.called - by this programme at least - the dosh for nosh affair. That
:02:04. > :02:07.was sparked by revelations that a Tory party fundraiser had offered
:02:07. > :02:10.access to the Prime Minister's dinner table in return for
:02:10. > :02:12.donations. It caused quite a fuss in the Commons yesterday.
:02:12. > :02:22.Speaker, what Peter Cruddas said was completely unacceptable and
:02:22. > :02:23.
:02:23. > :02:29.wrong. And much of what he said, much of what he said was simply not
:02:29. > :02:33.true, as he himself has since stated. My right honourable friend,
:02:33. > :02:40.the Prime Minister, has set out this morning that the Conservative
:02:40. > :02:43.Party will now go much further. I hope that all other parties, and
:02:43. > :02:52.since the Leader of the Opposition has taken the trouble to come to
:02:52. > :02:54.the House, I hope he will set out what his party will do. Will the
:02:54. > :02:58.Minister for the Cabinet Office accept it is completely inadequate,
:02:58. > :03:04.given the scale of these allegations, for an investigation
:03:04. > :03:09.into what happened to be conducted by the Conservative Party? A
:03:09. > :03:11.Conservative peer appointed by the Prime Minister. An inquiry into the
:03:11. > :03:20.Conservative Party by the Conservative Party for the
:03:21. > :03:23.Conservative Party. It is a whitewash and everyone knows it.
:03:23. > :03:27.Does the Cabinet Office Minister understand that when stories such
:03:27. > :03:33.as this emerge, it only confirms what we in Liverpool already know.
:03:33. > :03:37.The Tories are not interested in already -- ordinary people, they
:03:37. > :03:42.are only interested in making their rich friends even richer.
:03:42. > :03:46.there's a lot of synthetic nonsense about this. The party opposite has
:03:46. > :03:50.been snout in the trough far worse than we ever have and the Prime
:03:50. > :03:55.Minister is to be commended for his honesty and straightforwardness and
:03:55. > :04:00.his transparency in revealing all the people he has met. When will we
:04:00. > :04:03.learn from the crisis that engulfed this House three years ago? The
:04:03. > :04:07.response this to this situation is not simply to point fingers, but to
:04:07. > :04:11.address with a renewed urgency the need to deal with its source, which
:04:11. > :04:16.in this case is the continuing escalation of the political party
:04:16. > :04:19.funding arms race. Does the Minister agree with me that it
:04:19. > :04:24.stretches credulity to breaking point to argue that Peter Cruddas
:04:24. > :04:29.did not... He is the most senior fundraiser for the Conservative
:04:29. > :04:34.Party. He didn't understand the law relating to donations to political
:04:34. > :04:41.parties! For the honourable gentleman refers to him as the most
:04:41. > :04:43.senior. Not any more he isn't. Francis Maude feeling the heat a
:04:43. > :04:49.little. And our political correspondent,
:04:49. > :04:54.Carole Walker, is with us now. The electoral commission is being asked
:04:54. > :04:59.to investigate whether Peter Cruddas found ways around the rules
:04:59. > :05:03.on foreign donations. That's right. Jack Straw, the former Labour Home
:05:03. > :05:09.Secretary, has written to the electoral commission, asking them
:05:09. > :05:13.to look into this to find out whether Peter Cruddas and Sarah
:05:13. > :05:18.Sutton broke the law in apparently being ready to take donations from
:05:18. > :05:23.a foreign company. We know the Sunday Times reporters were posing
:05:23. > :05:28.as representatives of a Middle Eastern Investment Company, based
:05:28. > :05:34.offshore English in Stein, and furthermore, Sarah Sutton went on
:05:34. > :05:37.to stage -- say the party won't ask questions. What Jack Straw is
:05:37. > :05:40.saying the electoral commission whether there's been a criminal
:05:40. > :05:45.offence, whether Conservative Party has the right procedures in place.
:05:45. > :05:49.I have spoken to a Downing Street spokesman who says the Conservative
:05:49. > :05:53.Party does have very strict procedures and a professional team
:05:53. > :05:57.who make sure and check carefully to ensure that any donations are
:05:57. > :06:01.legitimate. It is not going to be easy to check this because no
:06:01. > :06:06.donation was actually made. Conservative sources are also
:06:06. > :06:09.pointing out that Sarah Southern, much as she was trying to bid up
:06:09. > :06:13.her connections within the Conservative Party, was in fact the
:06:13. > :06:17.junior aide who had never actually worked on the question of fund-
:06:17. > :06:23.raising. Whichever way the Conservatives cut it, it is
:06:23. > :06:27.embarrassing, isn't it? Up it is. Very difficult and embarrassing.
:06:28. > :06:31.David Cameron recognises that. Polls suggest it reinforces all the
:06:31. > :06:35.sorts of difficulties about the party's image they are trying to
:06:35. > :06:39.shake off, about being in the pockets of big business. They
:06:39. > :06:42.haven't had this by appearing to drag their feet initially, saying
:06:42. > :06:49.they could not publish the list of donors who had been to dinner been
:06:49. > :06:53.dining Street, then doing so. -- Downing Street. In the last few
:06:53. > :06:58.minutes, Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has said he is prepared to
:06:58. > :07:01.publish a list of who he has met. It is not clear what the detail of
:07:02. > :07:06.that is. He says this has left a stain on the character of the
:07:06. > :07:09.Government. Norman Fowler, let's pick up on that last point. It
:07:09. > :07:13.hasn't been handled well. They looked like they were dragging
:07:13. > :07:18.their feet, saying no to publishing the list and then doing that.
:07:18. > :07:26.it was a very swift moving thing. Was its swift enough? It was pretty
:07:26. > :07:30.swift! They said no to start with. Everyone was caught by surprise.
:07:30. > :07:35.Peter Cruddas's comments were crass and inexcusable. The only thing I
:07:35. > :07:41.would say is we can concentrate just on this one issue. What we
:07:41. > :07:44.should be doing is concentrating on party funding generally. That is
:07:44. > :07:50.what the Conservative leadership would like everybody today. It can
:07:50. > :07:54.be used as a smokescreen. What I'm saying is if you want an
:07:54. > :07:59.independent inquiry, let's have written to all party funding and
:07:59. > :08:03.let's move, I think, and I have what you this in my book, political
:08:03. > :08:09.suicide, four years ago, we should move to some sort of state funding.
:08:09. > :08:12.Unless you have some form of that, and it will not be popular, and I
:08:12. > :08:17.hear your intake of breath, but if you go on like this, you'll have
:08:17. > :08:22.scandals every couple of years. We have had scandal after scandal in
:08:22. > :08:29.the first part of this century, cash for honours, debts, the whole
:08:29. > :08:34.lot. Can I just go back to the issue at hand, which is about the
:08:34. > :08:37.impression it leaves on voters, particularly after the Budget. Do
:08:37. > :08:42.you fear that every time there's a policy announcement now in the next
:08:42. > :08:46.few months, or a U-turn, let's say it is on airport capacity, or the
:08:46. > :08:49.relaxation of the planning laws, everybody will point the finger and
:08:49. > :08:54.say it is because of the Prime Minister and senior Tories wining
:08:54. > :08:58.and dining with rich donors who have had an influence. I don't
:08:58. > :09:02.think that is the reality. Whether people think that is another matter.
:09:02. > :09:07.Who has had most access over the last 30 years to prime ministers?
:09:07. > :09:12.It is not rich donors, it was Rupert Murdoch and the Murdoch
:09:12. > :09:16.press. And some of the other media proprietors. They have not been
:09:17. > :09:20.talking about theoretical politics. Is there any point in having an
:09:20. > :09:28.independent inquiry into this particular episode? Wouldn't it be
:09:28. > :09:31.better to broaden it out? Let's look at this issue... The Tories
:09:31. > :09:35.were also dashed always funded by rich people. The Labour Party
:09:35. > :09:43.largely came through the trade unions and therefore those
:09:43. > :09:47.influence... And then the Lib Dems... It has gone from 15 million
:09:47. > :09:49.to 30 million, the cost of an election. You can't raise that by
:09:49. > :09:54.subscriptions so you get into the business of where the money comes
:09:54. > :09:58.from. I've always been an advocate of state financing. People talk
:09:58. > :10:03.about it as if somehow we don't do it. We already do it to about 35
:10:03. > :10:11.million. Do the public or more of it? They don't know we do it now
:10:11. > :10:14.and we do it to finance political parties... That is about 20 million.
:10:14. > :10:19.We send information to the public about candidates, that is about 35
:10:20. > :10:22.million, although the Tories are about to abolish it for the
:10:22. > :10:26.election of police commissioners. The perception is there are
:10:26. > :10:29.interested bodies in the community that influence political parties
:10:29. > :10:33.that get the legislative framework they want. What they don't like it
:10:33. > :10:36.if you buy it in this direct way or the Prime Minister gives a dinner
:10:36. > :10:41.in that way or trade unions use their influence in that way. Let's
:10:41. > :10:45.go back to looking at the proper way of funding finances. Kelly
:10:45. > :10:50.recommends going a certain way along that, I would go further, but
:10:50. > :10:55.it is already with state fining -- financing. Does it matter as much
:10:55. > :11:00.as you say about one -- where some of the money comes from? Whether it
:11:00. > :11:04.is the unions or rich business sponsors or whoever. Isn't it about
:11:04. > :11:08.transparency? If it was more up front, people would not worry so
:11:09. > :11:16.much. Trade union funds are pretty transparent already. You are
:11:16. > :11:18.required by law to do that. It is transparency. When Mr Murdoch, who
:11:18. > :11:23.had at the register influence behind the scenes, we now found out
:11:23. > :11:27.when he went for BSkyB, he went to Chequers and the Prime Minister
:11:27. > :11:30.denied he ever met him. That is the kind of transparency we need to
:11:30. > :11:34.bring into the open. It is the public's perception that politics
:11:35. > :11:38.is paid for. We need to have it much more accountable and much more
:11:38. > :11:42.transparent. Both political parties need get a better balance about
:11:42. > :11:45.this or we will suffer. Do you think Nick Clegg will have any
:11:45. > :11:49.chance of getting a consensus? It is all very well everyone saying
:11:49. > :11:53.that's what we need, but the agreement on the detail about cats
:11:53. > :11:58.on donations and how they should be made, for instance from individual
:11:58. > :12:01.members or unions, that has always been difficult. It will be
:12:01. > :12:04.particularly difficult when we have the current climate when most
:12:04. > :12:08.people accept now is not the right time to be asking the public to pay
:12:08. > :12:12.extra money to fund political parties. But I think it is
:12:12. > :12:16.important. One bit of the investigation I really think we do
:12:17. > :12:20.have to have independently is in to that issue of the potential of
:12:20. > :12:25.overseas donations, which is illegal and if routes around it
:12:25. > :12:29.have been found, we need to block those. The crucial bit, John is
:12:29. > :12:33.right, it is transparency. We have already heard from the Prime
:12:33. > :12:36.Minister that he will be transparent. We now hear from Ed
:12:36. > :12:41.Miliband that they will be transparent about trade union
:12:41. > :12:49.leaders. The day Ed Miliband became the leader of the Labour Party, one
:12:49. > :12:52.trade union immediately donated �770,000. A massive donation. The
:12:53. > :12:57.influence of the trade unions... They could not do that without the
:12:57. > :13:01.membership agreeing. I don't want to get into this, but please, their
:13:01. > :13:06.money is much more open. It is decided by them members. The
:13:06. > :13:09.perception in people's minds that those donations are directed to
:13:09. > :13:13.particular legislative favours, of course we want to reduce
:13:13. > :13:16.unemployment, the Government have got in a situation where they are
:13:16. > :13:19.increasing it. There are direct views about that and there will
:13:19. > :13:24.always be so, but you need to make sure it is not connected to obvious
:13:24. > :13:28.money payments. The issue of perceptions and the damage it might
:13:28. > :13:32.have done, that the Conservatives of the party of the rich, that is
:13:32. > :13:36.going to be difficult to explain at this precise moment, isn't it?
:13:36. > :13:41.of these scandals are difficult to explain. Just as they have been in
:13:41. > :13:46.the past. David Cameron has worked so hard at detoxifying the
:13:46. > :13:51.Conservatives. He must be absolutely furious about this. The
:13:51. > :13:54.way in which this man explained what party funding was about I
:13:54. > :13:58.think is totally ridiculous and totally inexcusable. But I do think
:13:58. > :14:02.you have to come back to this point that you can't have it both ways.
:14:02. > :14:07.If you're not going to go on state funding, parties have to raise
:14:07. > :14:12.money somehow. One final question. Normally the party chairman goes
:14:12. > :14:16.out betting for the party. We haven't seen her at all. -- batting.
:14:16. > :14:21.Would you have expected to see her on the airwaves defending the
:14:21. > :14:28.party's image? Baidoa ne ho. We have Francis Maude doing it. In
:14:28. > :14:31.terms of government, Francis is more senior. We have all been a
:14:31. > :14:35.round this track. I had a very hairy debate in the House of
:14:35. > :14:39.Commons on party funding when I was party chairman. I don't think it
:14:39. > :14:42.matters who is doing the defending, it is a hopeless job. Borg Francis
:14:42. > :14:48.was getting it in the neck yesterday, I was getting it in the
:14:48. > :14:51.neck when I did it. For do you believe the Prime Minister sat down
:14:51. > :14:55.with all these people and did not think about the money coming from
:14:55. > :15:02.them? Or when we sat down with trade unions, you would not think
:15:02. > :15:06.about financing for the general election. Number Ten, and even
:15:06. > :15:12.Dorney Wood suggested... I was asked questions constantly, who was
:15:12. > :15:20.staying at Dorney Wood? Just ordinary working people. Dave used
:15:20. > :15:23.all of these facilities to raise Of the 11th of it was a bleak
:15:23. > :15:28.picture for any Tories open in the papers today, as three different
:15:28. > :15:32.polls put the party firmly behind Labour. The Sun/YouGov poll saw the
:15:32. > :15:37.Conservatives trailing Labour by seven points. A poll for the Times
:15:37. > :15:41.saw a smaller four point lead for Labour, but this was a three point
:15:41. > :15:46.drop for the Tories since February. And the Independent/ComRes poll
:15:46. > :15:54.showed the biggest hit for the party. They make grim reading. Does
:15:54. > :16:01.it say the Budget was a disaster? It probably does have some
:16:01. > :16:06.reflection on the Budget. It has been amazing, in a way. The
:16:06. > :16:10.government have done a number of things in terms of public spending.
:16:10. > :16:14.They have cut public spending in a range of areas. They have had had
:16:14. > :16:18.the Health Bill and the welfare bill, then the Budget. It has been
:16:18. > :16:22.amazing that they have been level pegging. They have stayed
:16:22. > :16:27.relatively static through announcements on public spending,
:16:27. > :16:33.even through the controversy of the Health Bill and on welfare. It is
:16:33. > :16:37.only post Budget that there has been this sudden dip. So if you
:16:37. > :16:40.take the 50 pence top rate of tax or the fact that in the end,
:16:40. > :16:45.presentation early, it did not work? These things are cumulative.
:16:45. > :16:50.You cannot put your finger on one thing and say that was the issue
:16:50. > :16:54.that did it. This is the end of a period in which we have been doing
:16:54. > :16:58.really unpopular things. The amazing thing is that we have not
:16:58. > :17:02.fallen behind before. Then you agree with what was called the
:17:02. > :17:06.granny tax and taking away the top rate of tax? I would not
:17:06. > :17:14.necessarily have done it as Chancellor, but there is a sensible
:17:14. > :17:20.case to be made for doing it. wouldn't you have done those
:17:20. > :17:27.things? For the reasons you are stating. The public relations
:17:27. > :17:33.contrast between "helping the rich" at one end, and having an impact
:17:33. > :17:39.upon the relatively not well off at the other in terms of pensions,
:17:39. > :17:43.there is an obvious contrast which will be exploited. You are in the
:17:43. > :17:47.coalition as well, but that a presentation of saying, we are
:17:47. > :17:54.taking these people out of the lower band of tax, but we will drop
:17:54. > :17:57.the top rate of tax, to. You are in the same boat. It did not work. We
:17:57. > :18:00.will talk later about the abolition of the Central Office of
:18:00. > :18:04.Information on the question of whether we should not have been
:18:04. > :18:10.using them vigorously for this. If you have a Budget that takes 2
:18:11. > :18:15.million people out of paying tax and gives a huge tax rebate of over
:18:16. > :18:20.�500 per year to 24 million people, gives the largest ever pension rise,
:18:20. > :18:24.you would have thought we could have had good publicity from it. In
:18:24. > :18:28.the event, the granny tax, which did not seem to be properly planned
:18:28. > :18:35.for in terms of explaining the message... Did you agree with it?
:18:35. > :18:40.If you look at the figures, there is a net �1.4 billion. Overall, the
:18:40. > :18:44.money for pensioners is going up. No pensioner loses anything in
:18:44. > :18:49.terms of cash, and the majority are getting a huge rise. It is a good
:18:49. > :18:54.policy, but the marketing of it was appalling. We lost out because of
:18:54. > :18:58.that. Both parties did. Looking at the polls, Labour is finally doing
:18:58. > :19:03.well. One could say it has been a long time coming after Norman
:19:03. > :19:08.Fowler listed all the other issues like health and welfare. But Ed
:19:08. > :19:12.Miliband is still doing badly in terms of his own ratings. There are
:19:12. > :19:19.different perceptions of how leaders and governments are doing.
:19:19. > :19:25.That is one perception. But this was supposed to be a Budget to
:19:25. > :19:29.increase growth, and it was about not spending more, but we are
:19:29. > :19:35.spending more. So they failed on their own analysis of the Budget.
:19:35. > :19:42.When you put that together with the idea of the granny tax, we had the
:19:42. > :19:46.10p situation. You could rationally point to that 10p, but the
:19:46. > :19:50.pensioners under public did not see it that way. It is the same with
:19:50. > :19:57.the granny tax. But we put up the tax to 50 pence, and they reduced
:19:57. > :20:01.it. So the millionaire's did well. The perception in the public's mind
:20:01. > :20:08.is that the Tories do well with the rich, but those dependent on public
:20:08. > :20:13.service fail. It is interesting and then that Labour has not been doing
:20:13. > :20:17.as well as they might have done before that. When the announcements
:20:17. > :20:23.on public spending cuts came through on public sector pay
:20:23. > :20:26.freezes and the Health Bill, there was no surge then for Labour. So it
:20:26. > :20:31.is only as a result of this presentation of the Budget, not as
:20:32. > :20:36.a result of what Labour have been saying. But if you look at Cameron
:20:36. > :20:46.when he first came in, things were bad for him. Give time for this to
:20:46. > :20:46.
:20:46. > :20:54.develop. We are only 18 months in. Nobody doubts he did well in that
:20:54. > :20:58.bear-pit of the House of Commons. He has got it right. He has got the
:20:58. > :21:05.message right and the tone right. You have to have a bit of an
:21:05. > :21:09.aggressive style. That has come together. But it is a long one. He
:21:09. > :21:14.has now established himself as speaking for the nation. He
:21:14. > :21:18.reflects what the nation feels. What does Ed Miliband need to do
:21:18. > :21:23.about the unions, and about Len McCluskey and threats for him for
:21:23. > :21:30.all sorts of direct action like strikes? Does you have to distance
:21:30. > :21:35.himself from the unions? That is the way you see politics. If you
:21:35. > :21:40.look at what is happening with the lorry strike for the moment, why
:21:40. > :21:44.did that come about? Because the Tories brought in balloting. In
:21:44. > :21:49.industrial relations now, every member knows that if you support
:21:49. > :21:54.the Union, you support a ballot for a strike. Let's wait and see if
:21:54. > :21:59.that happens. It is a tactic. Then you guys come along and say, why
:21:59. > :22:05.shouldn't the leader be attacking that? But should he be supporting
:22:05. > :22:11.the strikes? A well, it hasn't got into a strike yet, for God's sake.
:22:11. > :22:16.I have just told you. If I went in negotiating, I would want the
:22:16. > :22:19.members to back what I was saying. Now they do it by ballot. You are
:22:19. > :22:25.required by law brought in by the Conservatives to ask your members
:22:25. > :22:29.whether they support it. The charges to be then that they did
:22:29. > :22:35.not have membership support. Now they have, let's see. The Lib Dems
:22:35. > :22:38.are stuck on 11%. Will they ever do better while they are in coalition
:22:38. > :22:41.with the Conservatives? Increasingly, the message is
:22:41. > :22:46.getting out about the real influence the Liberal Democrats are
:22:46. > :22:51.having. The Labour Party have been given this instruction to say it is
:22:51. > :22:54.a Tory-led Government. The truth is that there is evidence of the
:22:54. > :23:02.impact the Liberal Democrats are having in government, working in
:23:02. > :23:11.coalition. What about the Health Bill? There have been huge,
:23:11. > :23:14.significant changes. You want to get rid of the House of Lords.
:23:15. > :23:23.if you take the Budget, one of the most significant things was that
:23:23. > :23:27.move towards a �10,000 tax threshold. Do you think you will
:23:27. > :23:31.see an increase in the polls as a result of that? Over time. Would
:23:31. > :23:35.you like to see more distance between yourselves? We are in a
:23:35. > :23:39.coalition. People have to understand that for the sake of the
:23:39. > :23:43.economy, two opposing political parties have come together in a
:23:43. > :23:50.coalition where we are rebel to get a number of our policies into
:23:50. > :23:54.practice. But so have the Tory party. You are taking a snapshot at
:23:54. > :23:57.a particular time. We now have three years to run of this
:23:57. > :24:01.Parliament. So although the opinion polls are interesting, they are
:24:02. > :24:04.hardly conclusive. Now, it is a difficult and
:24:04. > :24:09.controversial subject, and something Parliament has not
:24:09. > :24:13.debated properly for 40 years. But this afternoon, MPs will confront
:24:13. > :24:17.the question of assisted suicide. Giles has been on the green with
:24:17. > :24:21.two MPs with two different views. Sometimes MPs debate things because
:24:21. > :24:24.they are going to change the law. On assisted dying, they are not
:24:24. > :24:28.debated because they are going to change the law. They have not
:24:28. > :24:35.debated it for 40 years, but now they are debating the guidelines
:24:35. > :24:40.set up by the Director of Public Prosecutions in February 2010. This
:24:40. > :24:46.was your suggestion. What has changed that we need to discuss
:24:46. > :24:50.this now? Nothing has morally changed. But I think society will
:24:50. > :24:53.benefit if the set of guidelines which provide for a fair and
:24:53. > :24:57.compassionate way of dealing with cases where you assist someone in
:24:57. > :25:02.ending their life, if those guidelines have parliamentary
:25:02. > :25:08.support. It will make them stronger and more effective. I also want
:25:08. > :25:12.colleagues to understand the issue more. I believe they are now
:25:12. > :25:15.getting their head round it to, which is for the public good.
:25:15. > :25:19.against the law anyway, so it will still be against the law unless
:25:19. > :25:24.there is legislation passed. And this debate will not change that,
:25:24. > :25:29.so presumably you are reassured? Absolutely, but it is important to
:25:30. > :25:33.debate this issue. It has not been debated for 47 years, and it is of
:25:33. > :25:37.strong interest to many people. People are interested in the end of
:25:37. > :25:42.life and beginning of life issues. What is wrong with somebody who is
:25:43. > :25:46.sentient and terminally ill saying, I want to die? I have complete
:25:46. > :25:51.compassion with that and understand that position. But unfortunately,
:25:51. > :25:58.the law has to cater for everybody. And not everybody's Next of Kin is
:25:58. > :26:02.a relative. Often, it is the state. It will be a PCT or a care home or
:26:02. > :26:06.a nursing home. There are people all over the country at the moment
:26:06. > :26:13.who feel protected by the law, and that has to stay. We have to cater
:26:13. > :26:16.for the greater number of people, not a minority. About 20 or so
:26:16. > :26:20.people a year have travelled abroad for assisted suicide. The
:26:20. > :26:26.campaigners are hoping that number will go up once the guidelines were
:26:26. > :26:32.introduced. It hasn't. You can't make a law which caters for the few
:26:32. > :26:35.and not the majority. There is a risk, isn't there, that bit by bit,
:26:35. > :26:40.it becomes more acceptable and then we are not necessarily talking
:26:40. > :26:46.about those cases where people have a lot of sympathy? Well, these
:26:46. > :26:49.guidelines have been in place for the last two years. And the
:26:49. > :26:53.Director of Public Prosecution's approach to this was in place a
:26:53. > :26:58.long time before them. But people will derive comfort about their
:26:58. > :27:05.options from this. You do not like the idea of this? No, I don't like
:27:05. > :27:12.it because I think the greater number of vulnerable people... ICA
:27:12. > :27:17.point one day, as you say, it is about the slow erosion, ICA point
:27:17. > :27:22.one day where a doctor will one day feel a patient is costing �12,000 a
:27:22. > :27:26.week to the NHS to block a bed, and they may suggest to that patient
:27:26. > :27:32.that maybe they would like to have their end assisted. That is
:27:32. > :27:39.somewhere we don't want to go. I know that is an extreme point.
:27:39. > :27:45.in that example, that would expressly be a factor covered by
:27:45. > :27:50.prosecution. The debate will run. It is one of those interesting
:27:51. > :27:53.debates. No doubt our viewers have their views, too.
:27:53. > :27:59.Now, banker bashing is such a popular sport these days that it
:27:59. > :28:04.should probably be included in the 2012 Olympics. But 150 years ago,
:28:04. > :28:10.things were a bit different. George Peabody, American tycoon and
:28:10. > :28:16.banker. From 1837, number and philanthropist. 150 years ago this
:28:16. > :28:19.week, he donated �150,000, a lot more in today's money, to tackle
:28:19. > :28:24.the effects of poverty in the capital, especially the lack of
:28:24. > :28:28.housing. As a result, this block of flats was built in Spitalfields in
:28:28. > :28:31.the city. On his death, Peabody left more money to the cause and
:28:31. > :28:35.his distinctive estates sprung up all over the place as the slums
:28:35. > :28:40.were cleared and the poor were rehoused, some are enjoying unheard
:28:40. > :28:44.of mod cons like bathrooms. Some of the estates were destroyed during
:28:44. > :28:48.the Second World War, but many have survived. Today there are 20,000
:28:48. > :28:53.people -- Peabody properties. Some are bought and sold on the open
:28:53. > :28:56.market, but the majority form part of local authorities'' stock if
:28:56. > :29:00.social housing. And the organisation continues the mission
:29:00. > :29:05.of its founder by running community programmes for residents. It has
:29:05. > :29:09.pledged to build 900 more low-cost homes in the next three years.
:29:09. > :29:13.Where do and now by the chief executive of the Peabody Trust,
:29:13. > :29:18.Stephen Howlett. How did we get into a situation where there is
:29:18. > :29:23.such a shortage of affordable housing? There just is not enough
:29:23. > :29:30.housing being provided. Right across the country, particularly in
:29:30. > :29:36.central London, we need a lot more housing that is affordable to
:29:36. > :29:41.people on low incomes. We have seen rising prices of land and a
:29:41. > :29:49.shortage of supply as well as a cutback in government funding,
:29:49. > :29:52.increased rents and cuts in the benefits system. You have
:29:52. > :29:58.identified the problem that there is not enough housing, but is the
:29:58. > :30:03.answer more homes to buy or Mo homes to rent? It is both. Across
:30:03. > :30:07.the sectors, right from low-cost rented housing to intermediate
:30:07. > :30:17.whence to home-ownership, all those are needed. We need a diverse
:30:17. > :30:17.
:30:17. > :30:21.approach. There are a lot of people who cannot afford the market rate,
:30:21. > :30:29.in London particularly, and who don't qualify for the low-cost
:30:29. > :30:32.You were in charge of housing at one time, it is to regret that
:30:33. > :30:38.there is now such a shortage of housing. Successive governments did
:30:38. > :30:46.not do enough to build enough affordable housing. Far more than
:30:46. > :30:51.being built now. The real issue is about financing local housing. Mr
:30:51. > :30:56.Peabody... It was 30% privately- owned. That is reversed now. People
:30:57. > :31:01.want to own houses, but you have to provide the social housing. The
:31:01. > :31:08.right to buy took 1.8 million houses out and cost us billions in
:31:08. > :31:12.giving subsidies. By tried to stop that. We want people to buy houses.
:31:13. > :31:17.I introduced a �60,000 house which met the Government kept the land
:31:17. > :31:22.and you had the price of the House. But the market has. House prices
:31:22. > :31:25.far greater than inflation. It is about profit and governments have
:31:25. > :31:31.to play a role in social housing. He did not build enough council
:31:31. > :31:35.houses. We didn't. I spent something like �40 billion making
:31:35. > :31:39.the 2 million houses into better houses that were not invested in
:31:39. > :31:45.when they were selling them off. I then gave a priority to develop and
:31:45. > :31:50.modernise the existing houses. You have to build more council houses
:31:50. > :31:54.and I have to carry my share of the blame for that. The legacy of
:31:54. > :31:59.right-to-buy, the number of council housing was eroded over time. Do
:31:59. > :32:04.you think that has left us with this problem? It hasn't left us
:32:04. > :32:09.with the problem we have today. Right-to-buy was the right policy.
:32:09. > :32:13.It was a policy which was supported in the end by the Labour Party. You
:32:13. > :32:17.only have to it... We did not get rid of the legislation. You only
:32:18. > :32:21.have to go to some of the old council estates as I knew in
:32:21. > :32:24.Nottingham, for example, and you see the vast improvement in the
:32:24. > :32:29.housing stock and the fact that people actually wanted to buy their
:32:29. > :32:36.own home. Where we failed is actually in replacing that which we
:32:36. > :32:40.sold. That has been a power failure. For a variety of reasons, not least
:32:40. > :32:45.planning and a green field sites... For we will get on to that. Is the
:32:45. > :32:50.answer in the private sector? part of the answer, but Lord
:32:50. > :32:52.Prescott is right, we need more low-cost rented housing been
:32:52. > :32:57.provided through housing associations and local authorities.
:32:57. > :33:01.What we are seeing at the moment is a cut by about half in the public
:33:01. > :33:05.investment in housing. We need a broad range of solutions. Public
:33:05. > :33:11.land, we are prepared to put money into making that housing available.
:33:11. > :33:16.And shared equity. I think it fundamentally comes down to supply.
:33:16. > :33:20.That would take the pressure off prices. If we build more houses,
:33:20. > :33:25.regard leak of what they are originally intended as, it will
:33:25. > :33:29.reduce the rents. In the south-west at the moment, the average house
:33:29. > :33:34.price is 14 times the average salary. There's no way the majority
:33:34. > :33:39.of people can buy houses in those prices. If you increase supply, you
:33:39. > :33:44.reduce cost. The one thing we are not talking enough about is
:33:44. > :33:50.bringing back into use of empty properties. How many? In the south-
:33:50. > :33:53.west, the area I know best, there are as many empty properties as
:33:53. > :33:57.there are homeless households. You can begin to solve the problem by
:33:57. > :34:01.bringing them back. The one thing I'd love to see the Government do
:34:01. > :34:09.is reduce VAT on the renovation of properties because that would help
:34:09. > :34:13.stimulate... They are largely above shops. I brought in legislation
:34:13. > :34:16.that you could take them back in the public ownership, do them up
:34:17. > :34:21.and return them to the owner because they knew then had to do
:34:21. > :34:25.something about modernisation. The real problem is the price. If I
:34:25. > :34:30.wanted to put a teacher near a school in an affluent area, the
:34:30. > :34:35.teacher on their wage could not pay it. I was going to Gordon Brown and
:34:35. > :34:39.saying I want �78,000 subsidy to allow this teacher to be able to
:34:39. > :34:44.provide teaching services at a school. Of the Lib Dems worried
:34:44. > :34:47.about that sort of situation being replicated as a result as -- of
:34:47. > :34:51.parts of the welfare bill where people will be prised out of rents
:34:51. > :34:55.in the centre of London? One of the things there is clear evidence of
:34:55. > :35:00.his at the moment if you have Landlord's able to get a large
:35:00. > :35:07.amount of money through housing benefit, they can put the rent Supp.
:35:07. > :35:11.If you catch it, you begin to see the rents go down. John was the
:35:11. > :35:15.first person, and he has to have credit for this, it introduced the
:35:15. > :35:19.concept of shared equity properties where people could partly owned...
:35:19. > :35:23.The that has been taken on. John started it for key workers and that
:35:23. > :35:25.is the sort of programme we need to do more of. Thank you.
:35:25. > :35:29.Now, the Government's long-awaited planning reforms are about to be
:35:29. > :35:32.announced in Parliament. They are reworked from the draft National
:35:32. > :35:35.Planning Policy framework which was published last summer. Many
:35:35. > :35:38.countryside groups were angry at the proposals, so let's have a look
:35:38. > :35:41.at what we can expect. Ministers want to simplify more than 1,000
:35:41. > :35:45.pages of planning regulations by pages of planning regulations by
:35:45. > :35:47.cutting them to around 50 pages. Whitehall sources have said it's an
:35:47. > :35:53."unashamedly pro-growth document", designed to speed up planning
:35:53. > :35:55.decisions. So at the heart of the framework is a "presumption in
:35:55. > :35:58.favour of sustainable development", which ministers say will boost
:35:58. > :36:03.growth, but that doesn't harm communities, the environment or the
:36:03. > :36:07.countryside. This phrase is thought to be in the new document, despite
:36:07. > :36:09.criticism from countryside campaigners. They fear it will mean
:36:09. > :36:13.developments are automatically approved unless there's a specific
:36:13. > :36:17.local objection. They also wanted clarification on what a
:36:17. > :36:19."sustainable development" is. Whitehall sources have told the BBC
:36:19. > :36:24.that the "necessary safeguards will be there", and ministers are said
:36:24. > :36:32.to be confident that enough assurances are in place. David
:36:32. > :36:38.Thompson is on College Green and Greg Clarke, the planning minister,
:36:38. > :36:42.is outlining this document to parliament as we speak. This isn't
:36:42. > :36:45.the Government's first stab at this. This document has been through a
:36:45. > :36:48.number of revisions in an attempt to get the balance between
:36:48. > :36:58.protecting the countryside and giving the green light to growth. I
:36:58. > :36:58.
:36:58. > :37:02.am joined by two protagonists in that debate. Adam, it seems as if a
:37:02. > :37:06.number of safeguards have been put back into the document. By you
:37:06. > :37:12.reassure the countryside will be protected? When the draft framework
:37:12. > :37:17.was published in July we were concerned it would development --
:37:17. > :37:23.deliver a development at all costs scenario. Serious revisions need to
:37:23. > :37:26.be made to the document when it is published in its final form today.
:37:26. > :37:30.There has been speculation that some changes will be made,
:37:30. > :37:36.particularly on the issue of open countryside, protecting the wider
:37:36. > :37:44.countryside. It was not in the draft, but it is back in the final
:37:44. > :37:48.framework. Also, very important that ground filled first is back in
:37:48. > :37:58.the document. Local councils need to be given time to book plans in
:37:58. > :37:58.
:37:58. > :38:04.place. A lot to come out in the wash. What sh this space. Liz, the
:38:04. > :38:09.Government says this will be unashamedly pro-growth. That means
:38:09. > :38:12.more houses will be built on green land. This is a filly or beats --
:38:12. > :38:18.fill your boots charter. necessarily. People need somewhere
:38:18. > :38:22.to live. There's no problem with having a planning system that
:38:22. > :38:26.provides for growth, good growth, good development, a development
:38:26. > :38:31.that works. Of course you shouldn't have unmitigated development all
:38:31. > :38:36.over the place. You have to have a system of control, but you need to
:38:36. > :38:42.make it an efficient system to plan for the growth where we need it.
:38:42. > :38:49.The old system was 1,000 pages. Surely, whatever your concerns
:38:49. > :38:53.about the new regime, it has to be better than the old one. We had no
:38:53. > :38:56.problem with clarifying for planning guidance, bringing it down
:38:56. > :39:03.into a shorter document, but things seem to have been missed along the
:39:03. > :39:06.way by the Government. We are in favour of the right kind of
:39:06. > :39:09.development in the right places. We know there's a shortage of
:39:09. > :39:13.affordable housing in rural areas. We were concerned the framework as
:39:13. > :39:17.it was drafted would not deliver the right sort of housing in the
:39:17. > :39:22.right places, it would end up being green field development, executive
:39:22. > :39:26.homes, where developers would make my youth -- most profit. This
:39:26. > :39:29.document is designed to remove some of that complexities. I'm willing
:39:29. > :39:32.to bet it won't remove the controversy!
:39:33. > :39:37.You might be right. Let's pick up on some of those
:39:38. > :39:42.issues. John Prescott, looking at this issue of building on
:39:42. > :39:47.brownfield sites, that was in the original document. When they got
:39:47. > :39:51.rid of 1,000 pages, it wasn't complexities, it was the controls
:39:51. > :39:55.to stop the developing industries going to greenfield site. They've
:39:55. > :40:01.already made the applications. think they will still go to those
:40:01. > :40:07.sites? I said the requirement, you have to look for brownfield sites
:40:07. > :40:09.in the cities. Now they are saying it is up for growth. Growth must
:40:09. > :40:16.have the importance of the sustainability. At do you agree
:40:16. > :40:21.with that? We increased the brownfield from 60% to 70% houses.
:40:21. > :40:24.We had more greenfield sites. This is about removing controls and
:40:24. > :40:28.giving the developers a chance to build in greenfield sites. Is that
:40:28. > :40:35.a good thing to promote growth? all for growth but you can build
:40:35. > :40:39.houses in the cities. In our time they began building in the cities
:40:39. > :40:43.and stop the building in suburbia. This is a developer's Charter, it
:40:43. > :40:47.is about money, not about growth. That must be worrying for you. How
:40:47. > :40:52.do you explain that your constituents? I would be deeply
:40:52. > :40:58.worried if John was right. We have not seen the paper. We have the
:40:58. > :41:02.original. A then we have the consultation. People were concerned
:41:02. > :41:05.about whether the protections were strong enough in terms of
:41:05. > :41:11.protecting the green belt and ensuring you have brownfield
:41:11. > :41:15.development first. I understand that is now there. The second big
:41:15. > :41:18.concern was the fact that many local authorities haven't got their
:41:18. > :41:22.local plans sorted out and therefore they would not be able to
:41:22. > :41:26.use those for local concerns. I understand is now going to be a
:41:26. > :41:29.year-long break so that local councils can get them right and
:41:29. > :41:33.that can give local people control over what happens. Do you agree
:41:33. > :41:39.with Simon Walker who has called opponents to these reforms and
:41:39. > :41:44.indies? It is all about I don't want it in my backyard. They will
:41:44. > :41:47.always be around. We have probably all been guilty of it ourselves.
:41:47. > :41:51.have just had a conversation about the need for more homes, we need
:41:51. > :41:54.more affordable homes, we need to make land available for that and
:41:54. > :41:59.the planning system at the moment does restrict the opportunity to do
:41:59. > :42:02.it. Can you get the balance right between sustainability on one hand
:42:02. > :42:08.and protecting the environment on the other? You are reassured?
:42:08. > :42:14.haven't seen the paper, but from what I understand, I think those
:42:14. > :42:18.controls are now very firmly in place. Is this the right time to be
:42:18. > :42:21.picking a fight with the core vote for the Conservative Party? There
:42:21. > :42:25.have been very strong campaigns against this. The National Trust,
:42:25. > :42:28.the Daily Telegraph are against this in principle. If we are going
:42:28. > :42:33.to concrete over the whole of the green belt, they have every
:42:33. > :42:38.justification. And also over the high-speed rail link. You have to
:42:38. > :42:44.make some decisions. I happen to agree with what John was saying
:42:44. > :42:48.about brownfield site. I represented for 30 years a
:42:48. > :42:54.constituency on the boundaries of Birmingham. What was quite clear is
:42:54. > :43:02.that people much preferred coming there and expanding into the green
:43:02. > :43:05.field rather than building in the very apparent and evident
:43:05. > :43:09.brownfield sites you had in Birmingham. From going back to
:43:09. > :43:12.Birmingham, it seems many of these Brownfield sites still exist for
:43:12. > :43:15.top there's still going to be a fear that if there's a presumption
:43:15. > :43:18.in favour of sustainable development, unless there's a
:43:19. > :43:24.specific objection, there will be a carte blanche for builders to go
:43:24. > :43:28.where they like because of the pressure for housing.
:43:28. > :43:32.Yes, and there will be some tough decisions, for example in some
:43:32. > :43:37.villages. At the moment you have a situation where people just can't
:43:37. > :43:42.get houses. You will probably have to expand. There's no point in
:43:42. > :43:45.trying to duck this. There are no easy solutions. One of the
:43:45. > :43:49.contradictions is the Government won localism and they say they will
:43:49. > :43:54.leave the decisions to local areas, but we know the groups that will
:43:54. > :43:58.come up in our constituency and they will have a ballot. Then it is
:43:58. > :44:02.supposed to be decided in the area. It will be coming to Mr Pickles,
:44:02. > :44:07.who will have to make the decision. When you talk about people looking
:44:07. > :44:12.at the Tories, Mr Pickles sat down with all of the developers and he
:44:12. > :44:22.is the man who said it was a personal mail. A conversation going
:44:22. > :44:28.on between money, developers and his government. Hang on. Grant
:44:28. > :44:34.Shapps campaigned against it. campaigns against everything.
:44:34. > :44:38.were not get away with this. The Labour government imposed housing
:44:38. > :44:44.targets on each local authority that in many cases were completely
:44:44. > :44:48.nonsensical. There was no ability to even Bill does houses and it
:44:48. > :44:52.would have required going into the green belt to do this. What this
:44:52. > :44:57.does his matches, I hope, the ability of getting on with being
:44:57. > :45:01.able to build a much needed houses on the one hand, and on the other,
:45:01. > :45:06.protecting the environment. If we get this balance right... Take the
:45:06. > :45:10.south-east. We wanted to increase houses in the south-east so
:45:10. > :45:13.youngsters could live with their families lived. We increased it by
:45:13. > :45:17.200,000. There were screams and shouts but we showed you could
:45:17. > :45:23.build it in the same density of housing with the same amount of
:45:23. > :45:28.land we had for 900,000. You can if you go on to brownfield which is
:45:28. > :45:32.what local councils will do. Final word and we are ending this. It is
:45:32. > :45:38.critically important that we pick up what Norman said. John believes
:45:38. > :45:41.it as well because he used to do it when he was in charge. We have to
:45:41. > :45:49.have an assumption that brownfields our way you have to do the first
:45:49. > :45:53.development before you go anywhere At the end of this month, it is
:45:53. > :45:56.bye-bye to COI, the Central Office of Information, which has been the
:45:56. > :46:00.government's in-house marketing agency for more than 60 years. They
:46:00. > :46:04.are constantly bombarding political journalists like me with press
:46:04. > :46:08.releases, but you will be more familiar with their public
:46:08. > :46:14.information films. How will the government cope with
:46:14. > :46:17.the closure of its marketing arm, the COI? We delved into the
:46:17. > :46:24.archives, and luckily found a public information film about
:46:24. > :46:31.making public information films. Learn how to make an informative
:46:31. > :46:35.film for the public, with the Daily Politics. Step 1 - pick a simple
:46:35. > :46:40.topic, and state the bleeding obvious. In the '40s, people needed
:46:40. > :46:46.to be told how to use such new- fangled inventions as hankies.
:46:46. > :46:53.a large put the pot, sprinkle with it, then hold the handkerchief to
:46:53. > :46:57.his face. Step two - to help Mr and Mrs public understand your message,
:46:57. > :47:00.why not hire a celebrity? Like Kevin Keegan, here simultaneously
:47:00. > :47:08.highlighting the dangers of roads and casting footballers as
:47:08. > :47:13.presenters. Sometimes, celebrities were created, like Charlie the cat
:47:13. > :47:18.and his weirdly voiced owner. Charlie says next time we go
:47:18. > :47:22.fishing, we should stay very close to Dad, where he can look after us.
:47:22. > :47:26.Step 3 - to make sure people listen to your public information film,
:47:26. > :47:31.why not consider making it exceedingly frightening? That was
:47:31. > :47:37.the approach used in these not at all scary films about surviving a
:47:38. > :47:42.total nuclear war. Nobody can tell where the safest place will be.
:47:42. > :47:45.Public information films will not disappear with the demise of the
:47:45. > :47:50.Central Office of Information. The government just hopes the whole
:47:50. > :47:55.process of advertising using public money becomes a bit cheaper.
:47:55. > :47:59.Hopefully, the film's stay just as cheesy.
:47:59. > :48:05.A trip down memory lane. Don Foster, did you have a favourite of any of
:48:05. > :48:12.those public information films? I always liked the clunk click one,
:48:12. > :48:17.particularly because you saw a motorway with hardly any cars on it.
:48:17. > :48:23.But if you had the demise of the Public Information Unit, does that
:48:23. > :48:28.mean that your correspondent just lost his job? No. I think he was
:48:28. > :48:36.multi-tasking. But he looked good. They did serve a purpose, though.
:48:36. > :48:43.To some extent, public information films have worked. In 1986, I ran
:48:43. > :48:51.the HIV-AIDS campaign. We had it falling tombstones and icebergs,
:48:51. > :48:57.and we really got it on to the TV screens. And the result of that was
:48:57. > :49:03.that by the end, 95% of the public said that they knew how HIV-AIDS
:49:03. > :49:08.was contracted. That was tremendous. That was not bum - back not done by
:49:08. > :49:14.the Central Office of Information. They contracted it. We had a
:49:14. > :49:19.brilliant man from one of the agencies. I do not think the demise
:49:19. > :49:23.of the COI will make much difference, as long as the people
:49:23. > :49:29.have the experience. But there is an issue of funding for public
:49:29. > :49:34.health campaigns in general. It was not just a chavvy. There were anti-
:49:34. > :49:42.smoking campaigns. These things have had an effect on changing
:49:42. > :49:48.attitudes. There is a role for them. As Norman said, you might have to
:49:48. > :49:55.get the best of advertising to do it, but it is expensive. If you
:49:55. > :49:58.look at the budgets of departments, they have spent millions on this.
:49:59. > :50:03.But take climate change. People need to understand what is
:50:03. > :50:08.happening and what the effects are. When I was trying to get youngsters
:50:08. > :50:13.to get on to their parents and say, why do you fill the kettle of? Or
:50:13. > :50:17.why do you let the tap when all the time?, nobody will take that in the
:50:17. > :50:23.modern media. But you can use these public information films. There is
:50:23. > :50:29.a lot to be done. Now, money is being spent influencing other TV
:50:29. > :50:32.programmes. Everybody knows the agricultural correspondents on the
:50:32. > :50:37.Archers has influenced what happens in farming. Money is now being
:50:37. > :50:40.spent to influence a lot of other soaps. The problem with that is
:50:41. > :50:45.that when you have films like that, they are very transparent. You know
:50:45. > :50:52.it is the Government. It is more insidious if it is influencing a
:50:52. > :50:58.soap opera. In my view, in some areas you need much more direct
:50:58. > :51:03.advertising. I was chairman of a select committee. We looked at HIV-
:51:03. > :51:07.AIDS 25 years ago. We found that in terms of treatment, the government
:51:07. > :51:15.spent over three-quarters of a billion pounds on drugs and on
:51:15. > :51:23.direct advertising, they spent �2.9 million. That is totally out of
:51:23. > :51:29.kilter. I don't mind about the COI going, but I do think that things
:51:29. > :51:37.like public health can only be done in that way. Don was right when he
:51:37. > :51:40.said you can use the soaps. They have been effective, but now you
:51:40. > :51:47.can have your cornflakes on the table and have them in the
:51:47. > :51:56.programme. That is not influencing the public, that is just an advert.
:51:56. > :52:04.What would you do a public health broadcast on now? There are so many
:52:04. > :52:09.issues, but Norman is right - not party funding! - but there are
:52:09. > :52:16.issues about health. Not just on a chavvy, but all aspects of health.
:52:16. > :52:22.With the rising obesity crisis, and alcohol and drug problems and so on,
:52:22. > :52:26.improving public health as important. One should remember, it
:52:26. > :52:32.is not necessarily the case in health, but one should remember the
:52:32. > :52:39.limitations of what can -- what one can do. We tried it with seatbelts.
:52:39. > :52:46.But that did work. But when we passed the law, if the casualties
:52:46. > :52:54.went down. But you had softened the public up with that campaign.
:52:54. > :53:02.that took over 15 years. Drinking and driving. That really did change
:53:02. > :53:07.people's attitudes. It became a taboo. I nearly broke my back not
:53:07. > :53:10.wearing a seatbelt. What a great advert for that campaign.
:53:10. > :53:14.Now, there is an end of term skittishness in the air, and it is
:53:14. > :53:24.not just the hot weather that has brought it on. Here is Quentin
:53:24. > :53:24.
:53:24. > :53:27.Letts, with his to Z of Parliament. The letter R is for recess.
:53:28. > :53:31.Parliament does not sit all year round, and when MPs are not at
:53:31. > :53:41.Westminster, they are said to be in recess, and they can do other
:53:41. > :53:54.
:53:54. > :53:58.things. Jolly boating weather. Good morning, Kevin. Right. Off we go.
:53:58. > :54:03.They have several recesses a year. The longest is the summer, about
:54:03. > :54:07.seven weeks. Then they have another for the party conference season. In
:54:07. > :54:12.the party conferences, they used to go to the seaside for those. These
:54:12. > :54:16.days, it is more like town-centre such as Manchester and Birmingham.
:54:16. > :54:20.Christmas is next, about three weeks. Then you get a week in
:54:20. > :54:24.February for half term, a couple of weeks at Easter, baby ten days at
:54:24. > :54:30.the end of May and if you are lucky, a couple of days before the State
:54:30. > :54:35.Opening of Parliament. It is about 14 weeks in all. Parliament may
:54:35. > :54:39.hold, but MPs, as they never tire of telling us, go on working. There
:54:39. > :54:49.is all that constituency work to do, pressing the flesh. Do you think
:54:49. > :54:53.they possibly work too hard? I know the feeling. Traditionally, the
:54:53. > :54:58.Government gave little notice of when the house would be in recess.
:54:58. > :55:01.Information is power, C. The law- making process is uncertain, and
:55:02. > :55:05.also to let the opposition know far in advance and the house was
:55:05. > :55:10.breaking up gave them an advantage. But the government has become more
:55:10. > :55:14.reasonable now. It allows MPs to get those cheap deals on their
:55:15. > :55:18.package holidays. It is possible for Parliament to be recalled if
:55:18. > :55:23.ministers ask the Speaker to do that. This happens once every two
:55:23. > :55:26.years. It happened in 2011 after the summer riots, and when the
:55:26. > :55:31.Falkland Islands were invaded and after 9/11. One good thing about
:55:31. > :55:35.the house not sitting is that it stops those MPs passing too many
:55:35. > :55:39.laws. By the way, if you are in London and on holiday yourself and
:55:39. > :55:49.the MPs are in recess, you can still go in and have a look around
:55:49. > :55:50.
:55:50. > :55:55.Parliament. Mind you, the place might be a bit deserted.
:55:55. > :55:59.Quentin Letts, having fun. Yes, MPs break up for Easter today, but who
:55:59. > :56:08.has worked harder this session, MPs or the Lords? The Lords have worked
:56:08. > :56:16.extremely hard on things like health. Around the clock. What have
:56:16. > :56:24.MPs been doing? Yes, v Lords have been working harder. Most of the
:56:24. > :56:27.legislation has been with them, and it is now coming back to us. But
:56:27. > :56:32.these things go in cycles, depending on where the legislation
:56:32. > :56:38.starts. The other big difference is that the House of Lords has this
:56:38. > :56:44.wonderful thing. You can see it on the monitor. It says "adjourned at
:56:44. > :56:50.pleasure". Every evening, they have this break to just go off and be at
:56:50. > :56:54.pleasure. I have often wondered what that means. You have an
:56:54. > :56:59.intricate knowledge of the workings of the House of Lords. That is
:56:59. > :57:04.marvellous. It does not take place every day. The House of Lords has
:57:04. > :57:11.actually worked extraordinarily hard, particularly on the Health
:57:11. > :57:15.Bill, which everyone agrees. To say one thing about recess, when one
:57:15. > :57:21.was a minister, I remember being in a health dispute which had been
:57:21. > :57:25.going on for six months. And I decided I could take five days off.
:57:25. > :57:30.This hit the headlines - controversial holiday taken by
:57:30. > :57:35.minister. Ministers do work hard, and at some stage you have to
:57:35. > :57:39.decide whether you want exhausted ministers slumped over their best,
:57:39. > :57:45.making bad decisions, or whether you think every so often, it would
:57:45. > :57:51.not be a bad idea to take some days off. Are you proud of having bricks,
:57:51. > :57:58.or not? That is what the political system is. We used to come back in
:57:58. > :58:02.September. People do feel it is a long break. We do not get paid at
:58:02. > :58:05.through that break. Ours is a different system. Do you think the
:58:05. > :58:14.public are being unfair in saying you have these long holidays over
:58:14. > :58:19.the summer? They say the same about teachers. It is a judgment they
:58:19. > :58:26.make. This week, we have just announced that we will be off for
:58:26. > :58:33.another week, and we have not got time to discuss the Scottish bill.
:58:33. > :58:38.So let's cancel the recess. You have all got to stay. He would not
:58:38. > :58:43.agree, but we have very much the same view on Parliament. Have a
:58:43. > :58:48.good recess. The One O'clock News is starting on BBC One. The Daily