:00:47. > :00:52.Welcome to the Daily Politics. Did the Home Secretary, Theresa May get
:00:52. > :00:56.her dates mixed up? Theresa May has been summoned to the Commons to
:00:56. > :00:58.answer questions about the confusion over the deportation of
:00:59. > :01:02.radical Muslim cleric, Abu Qatada. Had happened in the Commons, we are
:01:02. > :01:08.to bring you the latest. Reforms to the court are being
:01:08. > :01:11.discussed in Brighton today. As the British Government tries to push
:01:11. > :01:15.through what it claims are significant changes, but will it
:01:15. > :01:24.get its way? The Government narrowly avoids defeat in the
:01:24. > :01:31.Commons on plans to attack static caravans and today Joan Bakewell is
:01:31. > :01:36.here to tell us why the granny tax should be scrapped. The clock tower,
:01:36. > :01:42.to us, Big Ben, should it be renamed the Elizabeth Tower? All of
:01:42. > :01:44.that coming up. With us today, former Chief
:01:44. > :01:51.Secretary to the Treasury, David Laws.
:01:51. > :01:55.Now, we go to the breaking stories as we came on air, dramatic events
:01:55. > :02:00.in the Commons with the Home Office proving its reputation as a
:02:00. > :02:05.poisoned chalice for ministers. The case fr radical Muslim cleric, Abu
:02:05. > :02:11.Qatada, has proved a thorny issue for the Home Secretary and all of
:02:11. > :02:16.her Labour predecessors. This case goes all the way back to 2001.
:02:16. > :02:19.Theresa May was speaking in the House of Commons. Summoned there to
:02:20. > :02:25.answer an urgent question this morning, Yvette Cooper leading the
:02:25. > :02:29.attack for the Labour opposition. It looked like the saga was coming
:02:29. > :02:35.to an end, but now it unravels and it continues.
:02:35. > :02:38.So, the saga of deporting the radical Muslim cleric, Abu Qatada,
:02:38. > :02:42.goes on. The European Court of Human Rights blocked the
:02:42. > :02:50.deportation to Jordan in January, saying that whilst they were
:02:50. > :02:56.satisfied that the cleric would be treated well, that they could not
:02:56. > :03:01.see evidence of him not having tortured used against him in Jordan.
:03:01. > :03:06.Ministers believe that a deadline passed o on Monday night. On
:03:07. > :03:10.Tuesday, the Home Secretary, May May, told the Commons, she had
:03:10. > :03:14.received guarantees from Jordan that Abu Qatada would face a fair
:03:14. > :03:19.trial and he could be deported. Abu Qatada was arrested by the police
:03:19. > :03:23.and held in custody. On Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights
:03:23. > :03:29.said they had recieved a fresh appeal who, argued that the
:03:29. > :03:34.deadline was a day later. A panel of five judges are to decide if the
:03:35. > :03:41.case goes to the court's Grand Chamber, causing delay and the
:03:42. > :03:46.prospect of Abu Qatada being released in the meantime. The 47
:03:46. > :03:50.countries signed up to the court meeting in Brighton are to discuss
:03:50. > :03:54.reforms as to whether there should be fewer appeals. Sir Nicolas
:03:55. > :03:58.Bratza, however, warned of the times that no magic wand would
:03:58. > :04:05.emerge. The Home Secretary has been summoned to the Commons to answer
:04:05. > :04:09.an urgent question on the issue. This farce has serious consequences.
:04:09. > :04:13.Additional delays, a risk that Abu Qatada is out on bail and a risk he
:04:13. > :04:16.could sue the Government. So did the Home Office get assurances from
:04:16. > :04:20.the European Court of Human Rights that the deadline was Monday night?
:04:20. > :04:24.If so, will they publish them, if not, why not? Why did they not pick
:04:24. > :04:29.up the phone to sort it out? The Home Office was told by a
:04:30. > :04:33.journalist on Monday, nearly 24 hours before Abu Qatada was
:04:33. > :04:38.arrested, that the European Court officials were saying that the
:04:38. > :04:42.deadline was Tuesday. Did they do anything about it? I hope that she
:04:42. > :04:45.is right, but at best there is uncertainty and several lawyers
:04:45. > :04:54.saying that they agree with the European Court. So why take the
:04:54. > :04:57.risk? What was the harm in waiting until Wednesday? Why create a legal
:04:57. > :05:01.loophole for Abu Qatada's lawyers to create.
:05:01. > :05:06.We have been clear that the process of deporting Abu Qatada is likely
:05:06. > :05:15.to take many months. It should not come as a surprise to anybody that
:05:16. > :05:20.Abu Qatada has intended to apply delaying tactics.
:05:20. > :05:25.I repeat, that it should hardly come as a surprise to anybody...
:05:25. > :05:32.That Abu Qatada has chosen to use delaying tactics. Afterall, he has
:05:32. > :05:37.been doing this since 2001. Well, that is Theresa May coming
:05:37. > :05:41.under fire then from the opposition benches and Yvette Cooper. I am
:05:41. > :05:46.joined by Clive Coleman. Can you clear up for us, once and for all,
:05:46. > :05:50.has Theresa May and the Home Office got the date wrong? Well, I've been
:05:50. > :05:54.speaking to a number of lawyers this morning. They would say yes
:05:54. > :06:00.she has. If you look at the wording of
:06:00. > :06:05.article 47, when it says is that you start counting from the date
:06:05. > :06:09.that the judgment is given. Now that was give no-one the Abu Qatada
:06:09. > :06:14.case, the chamber judgment was given on the 17th of January. You
:06:14. > :06:18.then count forward three months. Now going on that basis. So you
:06:18. > :06:23.start from the next day, as it were if you start from the next day,
:06:23. > :06:27.then that takes you to the Tuesday night, the 17th.
:06:27. > :06:33.So on that basis, the Government has got it wrong. Now, there is
:06:33. > :06:36.some case law on this. In relation to time limits for, not for
:06:36. > :06:42.applications in the Abu Qatada-type situation, but for applications to
:06:42. > :06:46.the court, for the court to hear a case. It is a six-month time limit,
:06:46. > :06:50.but there are two cases that could not be clearer, but as I say, you
:06:50. > :06:56.start counting the next day and count forward for three months. So
:06:56. > :07:01.on the basis of the wording of Article 47 and on the basis of the
:07:01. > :07:04.case law, although on a different time limit, but a time limit in
:07:05. > :07:08.relation to getting in an application to the European Court
:07:08. > :07:13.of Human Rights, on that basis, the Government seems to have it wrong.
:07:14. > :07:18.If that is the case, if it is shown to be the case, what is the
:07:18. > :07:22.likelihood of Abu Qatada released on bail while the legal process
:07:22. > :07:26.takes its course? I was in court to hear the bail hearing. What the
:07:27. > :07:32.judge was clear about, was that he said that he was to remand Abu
:07:32. > :07:36.Qatada in custody, as there seemed to be a fast-track, a potential for
:07:36. > :07:43.a really fast-track way of getting this all done and dusted. By this
:07:43. > :07:49.is under deportation through the UK courts. Now if Abu Qatada's
:07:49. > :07:53.application is successful, if he is successful in getting a full Grand
:07:54. > :07:57.Chamber hearing. That would be in front of 17 judges of the European
:07:57. > :08:03.Court of Human Rights. Then that could drag on. The judge was clear,
:08:03. > :08:07.if within a couple of weeks it looks like it will drag on, that he
:08:07. > :08:11.comes back to the court, that he will then consider the issue of
:08:11. > :08:14.bail. When he was previously looking at the case, when a long
:08:14. > :08:19.period was stretching ahead, he granted bail.
:08:19. > :08:23.Thank you very much. Andrew? This is going to develop as
:08:23. > :08:27.the day goes on. The Home Secretary is still answering questions in the
:08:27. > :08:31.Commons. That could be a long session it is all beginning to
:08:31. > :08:37.unravel. Let's see if we can pick where we are going. This is a
:08:37. > :08:41.complicated legal case. If the studio I am joined by Diana Johnson.
:08:41. > :08:46.In the Oxford studio, there is Michael Pinto-Duschinsky. He
:08:46. > :08:48.recently resigned by the body set up by the coalition to examine our
:08:49. > :08:52.relationship with the European Court of Human Rights and of course
:08:52. > :08:58.David Laws is with us. David Laws, if Theresa May got the dates wrong
:08:58. > :09:02.if she was out by a crucial 24 hours, is her job on the line?
:09:02. > :09:06.is frustrating, but the first thing we need to find out is whether or
:09:06. > :09:11.not the ECH, whether our approach is right or the Home Office. We
:09:11. > :09:19.also do not know, frankly, in terms of advice that the Home Office gave
:09:19. > :09:23.to the Home Secretary, whether it was informed by the ECHR. Was it a
:09:23. > :09:27.consequence of the mistake made there. So until there is clarity it
:09:27. > :09:33.is difficult to be sure, but I think when this came out it came
:09:33. > :09:38.out in your report, that it is inconceivable, that this individual,
:09:38. > :09:41.seeking to prolong and delay this for years and years, would not have
:09:41. > :09:50.appealed any way. Although I find this, I am sure that the Home
:09:50. > :09:55.Secretary finds it frustrating, and -- but I'm not sure we would have
:09:55. > :10:01.gone through this type of a pale process.
:10:01. > :10:05.She, May May, may have been guided by Home Office opinion on this, but
:10:05. > :10:10.not by Strasbourg itself, so, I say again, if she has the crucial dates
:10:10. > :10:16.wrong, that opens the British Government, or opens Abu Qatada to
:10:16. > :10:22.being released on bail again, opens legal action by him against the
:10:22. > :10:27.British Government and could delay matters yet further, it her job on
:10:27. > :10:31.the line? No, I don't think it is. She has done a great job of getting
:10:31. > :10:34.us where we are now. Secondly, I think it unlikely that the even if
:10:34. > :10:39.there has been an error, that the Home Secretary herself is
:10:39. > :10:45.responsible. I suspect she has had clear advice, either from officials
:10:45. > :10:49.or possibly from her officials because of the advice given by the
:10:49. > :10:53.ECHR. A third point is that I am not sure that this is material to
:10:53. > :10:56.the fact that there would have been an appeal. So I think that her
:10:56. > :11:00.position is clear, but the Government and the Home Secretary
:11:00. > :11:06.will be furious about this and we have to get to the bottom of this.
:11:06. > :11:12.Let me come to Diana Johnson. In your view has the Home Secretary
:11:12. > :11:16.got the date right or wrong? Well, we have to look at what the ECHR
:11:16. > :11:21.says when they meet, but it does seem there is confusion over the
:11:21. > :11:26.date it seems that there, or it would have beenwiseer to wait to
:11:26. > :11:31.ensure if there was a risk if there was an additional day to lodge
:11:31. > :11:35.appeal, that was allowed to pass and then the action was taken. By
:11:35. > :11:40.doing what the Home Secretary has done, she has opened herself up to
:11:40. > :11:45.a claim of wrongful arrest, first of all, and possibly compensation
:11:45. > :11:51.claims and also, when the Home Secretary, when I heard her
:11:51. > :11:57.statement before I left the house, was one issue was that the hearing
:11:57. > :12:02.on Tuesday afternoon, that they, Abu Qatada, appealed later on that
:12:02. > :12:06.evening it seems to me should should have waited until the next
:12:06. > :12:09.day. Do you mean if she was advised,
:12:09. > :12:13.that she was entitled to press ahead, she would have been
:12:13. > :12:19.irresponsible to have left it, then she could have discovered an appeal
:12:19. > :12:21.comes in after that. It depends on how much credence you
:12:21. > :12:25.give to the record of that department.
:12:25. > :12:30.If you are a Home Office Minister you question everything that comes
:12:30. > :12:34.before you. You ask if you are sure. If you are the Home Secretary, on a
:12:34. > :12:36.case such of this with the national importance you definitely ask that
:12:36. > :12:41.question. Let's bring in Michael Pinto-
:12:41. > :12:46.Duschinsky. He is waiting in Oxford. I want to broaden this out to what
:12:46. > :12:51.is going out in Brighton, also with the wider reforms that are meant to
:12:51. > :12:58.be afoot there, but can you bring clarity to the issue of when the
:12:58. > :13:03.clock starts to tick for the time limit within which someone can make
:13:03. > :13:09.an appeal against a Strasbourg judgment? Well, I certainly can't.
:13:10. > :13:18.I am pleased these days that I am not a lawyer, but I do think it is
:13:18. > :13:23.a bit much for Mrs Johnson to attack Theresa May because for
:13:23. > :13:29.years and years every Home Secretary has had to rely on
:13:29. > :13:33.officials for different judgments. You will recall that Charles Clarke
:13:34. > :13:38.had to resign as there were hundreds of prisoners, foreign
:13:38. > :13:41.prisoners who should have been deported when their sentences in
:13:41. > :13:45.jail came up and they were not to be found.
:13:45. > :13:51.I think that many of them have not been found still. So I think that
:13:51. > :13:57.one needs a bit of realism and humility about what goes on in the
:13:57. > :14:01.job of a Home Secretary and indeed if Mrs Johnson ever becomes a Home
:14:01. > :14:07.Secretary, herself, then she will find factly -- exactly the same
:14:07. > :14:12.thing. There is an underlying problem of getting the Home Office
:14:12. > :14:14.working better as a department and that is a long-standing and
:14:15. > :14:18.important problem, but I do not think that this is something that
:14:18. > :14:23.could be blamed in this case on Theresa May.
:14:23. > :14:27.Let me ask you the broader issue, you know that the justice ministers
:14:27. > :14:31.from across the members of the European Council are meeting in
:14:31. > :14:36.Brighton. The British have a reform agenda. They have been pushing hard
:14:36. > :14:42.in the six months in the chair. They hope to get the 47 to sign up
:14:42. > :14:46.to it in Brighton this week, will they succeed in your view, fanned
:14:46. > :14:48.so, will the reforms make a difference? I am sure that they
:14:48. > :14:54.will succeed in getting a document signed up.
:14:54. > :14:57.There has been a lot of very good work, I may say, on this for all
:14:58. > :15:03.sides. But I don't think that it is going
:15:03. > :15:10.to resolve the underlying issue, which is where does the buck stop?
:15:10. > :15:13.Who has the final authority on deciding cases that come under the
:15:13. > :15:20.European Convention on Human Rights? And the document says
:15:20. > :15:24.clearly, that final authority rests with Strasbourg. So whatever
:15:24. > :15:31.cosmetic concessions are made, will really not mean very much.
:15:31. > :15:34.So, David Laws, whatever is decided in Brighton, my sung that the
:15:34. > :15:38.Government's proposals have been watered down, that nothing will
:15:38. > :15:43.change in Brighton to stop someone like Abu Qatada Maying the system
:15:43. > :15:50.like a fiddle since 2001 and the European Court coming up with a
:15:50. > :15:53.number of rulings that stop us from deporting him? Firstly, Michael is
:15:53. > :15:56.gloomy about the outcomes it is possible.
:15:56. > :16:00.Supposing so, let's be optimistic, the British Government gets
:16:00. > :16:10.everything that it wants, all 47 sign up to this, what difference
:16:10. > :16:17.
:16:17. > :16:21.In his case I am not sure you would. There needs to be an understanding
:16:21. > :16:24.in ECHR by the type of people who were appointed to it, people with
:16:24. > :16:29.more experience rather than academics, about the sensitivities
:16:29. > :16:32.there are in countries in Europe that international law means not
:16:32. > :16:36.only protecting the rights of people like this individual but
:16:36. > :16:40.also the right of everybody else to be defended against people of his
:16:40. > :16:47.alleged nature. The only other alternative to making these types
:16:47. > :16:51.of change would be for us to pack up, leave ECHR, and give an open
:16:51. > :16:55.invitation to the countries we do know do not respect law in their
:16:56. > :16:59.own states, like Russia and Turkey, to leave as well. Although this
:16:59. > :17:05.case is damn frustrating and I feel as angry that this has gone on as
:17:05. > :17:09.anybody else, or the European Court of Human Rights is doing is trying
:17:09. > :17:15.to ask the UK to ensure that there are protections to make sure this
:17:15. > :17:20.man is not tortured when he goes to Jordan. Is that unreasonable to
:17:20. > :17:24.ask? I do not think it is but we won these processes to work quickly
:17:24. > :17:27.in the future. Many British people may think it is unreasonable. Our
:17:27. > :17:33.own Supreme Court, with some of the best qualified judges in the
:17:33. > :17:37.democratic world, has ruled this man should be sent back. So
:17:37. > :17:42.couldn't a reform take place where by the European Court says if this
:17:42. > :17:48.has been heard by a properly constituted, fully qualified courts
:17:48. > :17:51.of Human Rights, using the convention as its set of yardsticks,
:17:51. > :17:55.why doesn't need to go to Strasbourg? That is one of the
:17:55. > :17:58.issues that could be looked at in the conference in terms of if in
:17:58. > :18:04.the domestic courts they have had regard to the case of the European
:18:04. > :18:07.Court, they could say you have dealt with that so that is one of
:18:07. > :18:11.the suggestions. The problem with the Brighton conference is the
:18:11. > :18:15.proposals on the agenda are watered down. I am not sure what will come
:18:15. > :18:20.out of that conference but we would like to see reform, of course. We
:18:20. > :18:30.don't want to see this again. could avoid the number of cases
:18:30. > :18:34.
:18:34. > :18:42.What would you like to see be done that would stop a case like Abu
:18:42. > :18:47.Qatada or dominating our judicial process and no politics since 2001?
:18:47. > :18:57.I think any individual case like Abu Qatada has to be considered
:18:57. > :19:00.very carefully. I do not criticise the Strasbourg judges on this, I
:19:00. > :19:07.think they have been very careful and have come to what seemed to me
:19:07. > :19:13.to be good judgment. So I don't want anybody to be tortured, or any
:19:13. > :19:20.risk of torture. The problem comes with much broader policy decisions
:19:20. > :19:23.such as should prisoners in general have the right to vote? And on
:19:23. > :19:29.those are essentially political decisions, they should be taken by
:19:29. > :19:35.our House of Commons, not by judges in Strasbourg. So I think we ought
:19:35. > :19:41.to move to a system where the House of Commons has, in exceptional
:19:41. > :19:47.cases, it right to override the Strasbourg court on matters that
:19:47. > :19:57.deal essentially with political interpretations. Thank you for
:19:57. > :20:00.joining us from Oxford. And to you. Ken Clarke said today that allowing
:20:00. > :20:10.Parliament to overrule a Strasbourg ruling would take us back to Tudor
:20:10. > :20:11.
:20:11. > :20:14.times. Was that a rather crushing remark? Was Theresa May let down by
:20:14. > :20:19.civil servants at the Home Office over the deadline? Some
:20:19. > :20:22.Conservative MPs claimed she was an even before the current funerary
:20:22. > :20:27.there was growing discontent on the back benches that the pair of civil
:20:27. > :20:30.servant in the government. A frustration articulated in Prime
:20:30. > :20:34.Minister's Questions yesterday. recently asked the Prime Minister
:20:34. > :20:38.to what extent he believed the Whitehall machine, the Sir Humphrey
:20:38. > :20:42.factor, was frustrating reform stop he assured us it was not. According
:20:42. > :20:46.to the Financial Times in Malaysia last week the PM said as Prime
:20:46. > :20:55.Minister I can take you yes, Minister is true-to-life. Can the
:20:55. > :20:59.Prime Minister tell us what has happened to change his mind? There
:20:59. > :21:08.are few occasions where I think the Honourable Gentleman does need a
:21:08. > :21:12.bit of a sense of humour. Douglas Carswell, can we get a reaction
:21:13. > :21:17.about what has happened with Abu Qatada? Do you think Theresa May
:21:17. > :21:22.has been let down by civil servants? Within 24 hours of me
:21:22. > :21:24.making my comment, the Carry On Sir Humphrey episode in the latest
:21:24. > :21:29.shenanigans rather demonstrates part of the problem. If Sir
:21:29. > :21:32.Humphrey cannot even get the legal paperwork in on time and read a
:21:32. > :21:36.Callender properly what chance is there of Sir Humphrey being able to
:21:36. > :21:40.dig us out of this human rights mess? Again and again we find
:21:40. > :21:44.reforming administration that came to office with a coalition
:21:44. > :21:49.agreement that was meant to mean real change has been thwarted by
:21:49. > :21:56.the institutional inertia of the Whitehall mandarins. Are you not
:21:56. > :22:00.blaming too much civil servants? It is clear you think the officials
:22:00. > :22:05.made the mistake, we have been discussing whether Theresa May
:22:05. > :22:08.should have checked on such a big issue, although close to her on the
:22:08. > :22:16.political basis, that they had the dates right? I am not exonerating
:22:16. > :22:20.ministers. I think this is damning criticism of the ministers, I am
:22:21. > :22:24.not exonerating them. I do not want to comment too much on the Abu
:22:24. > :22:26.Qatada case but again and again and again in flagship Whitehall
:22:26. > :22:33.departments we see promises ministers made to bring about
:22:33. > :22:37.fundamental change and they are not delivering on it. An example - the
:22:37. > :22:40.government came to office promising to cut the deficit. It is not only
:22:40. > :22:46.spending more money in five years and borrowing more than Gordon
:22:46. > :22:50.Brown did in 13, it is not only going -- even going to meet
:22:51. > :22:56.Alistair Darling's target. It suggests to me Sir Humphrey is
:22:56. > :23:03.running the show and he never wants to cut his budget. You have a
:23:03. > :23:08.chance to respond to that. annual deficit 25% smaller when the
:23:08. > :23:11.government -- than the figure we inherited from Alistair Darling.
:23:11. > :23:15.But the government will have to borrow more over the course of the
:23:15. > :23:18.parliament. The borrowing projections are the end of last
:23:18. > :23:21.year, they were revised upwards from initial ones because the
:23:21. > :23:26.European economy is softer and therefore our growth outlook is
:23:26. > :23:30.different. We cannot blame civil servants for that. It is also
:23:30. > :23:33.blaming ministers. If you look at what they can be held to account
:23:33. > :23:37.for including ministers, in other words, how much we are spending in
:23:37. > :23:42.the public sector, the public sector has met all the targets the
:23:42. > :23:47.government met for cuts in public spending over the last two years.
:23:47. > :23:53.The Bonfire of the quangos seems to have gone out. I am told by a
:23:53. > :23:57.special adviser in the Treasury in the 1990s as civil servants would
:23:57. > :23:59.perennially suggest a caravan Tax, granny tax and these things had
:24:00. > :24:04.been slipped through because ministers are being run by the
:24:04. > :24:11.departments, not dead -- not running their departments. So what
:24:11. > :24:15.is the solution? There is our land mines the staff would have
:24:15. > :24:18.predicted, are you saying more political appointments? Let's not
:24:18. > :24:26.replicate the mistakes of Tony Blair. That sounds like what you
:24:26. > :24:31.want though. I would like ministers to be able to appoint a chief of
:24:31. > :24:35.staff. If they could do that, they could get a grip in a way they have
:24:35. > :24:40.not always been able to. I would like to see select committee
:24:41. > :24:45.chairman being held to account -- holding to account the Sir
:24:45. > :24:52.Humphreys. I would like them to appeal for their money and their
:24:52. > :24:57.budget before they get it. You have been accused of being a right wing
:24:57. > :25:01.agitator, unhelpful to the Prime Minister, what do you say to that?
:25:01. > :25:06.I do nothing you can dismiss me as a typical right window. I want
:25:06. > :25:08.radical change in this country and one of the reasons I was excited
:25:08. > :25:13.about the coalition was because I believed it was a historic
:25:13. > :25:17.opportunity to merge traditional free-market Toryism with a
:25:17. > :25:20.political radicalism we find that the Lib Dems. But if you look at
:25:20. > :25:26.what the government is doing in health, education, the welfare
:25:26. > :25:30.system, there is no evidence that civil servants have held up plans.
:25:30. > :25:36.We have been criticised for the speed of reform in health and
:25:36. > :25:40.education and welfare. The idea this has been blocked is not true.
:25:40. > :25:44.In education and welfare and policing, we are seeing genuine
:25:44. > :25:49.reforms. But in so many other departments we're not getting the
:25:49. > :25:58.change we need. I have to stop you there. Have you got a sense of
:25:58. > :26:01.humour? I hope so. I think I do. Lovely. Thank you. Now, the first
:26:01. > :26:04.of our series of interviews with the seven candidates who hope to
:26:04. > :26:08.fill Boris Johnson's shoes as London Mayor, one of them is Boris
:26:08. > :26:13.Johnson, in fact. In a moment I will be speaking to the Green Party
:26:13. > :26:16.candidate for the job, Jenny Jones. She is hoping to make a
:26:16. > :26:19.breakthrough in London with policies including She'd also like
:26:19. > :26:29.to see a 20mph speed limit across much of the capital and she wants
:26:29. > :26:33.
:26:33. > :26:36.to close London City airport to cut But her manifesto goes beyond
:26:36. > :26:46.natural green issues and includes pledges to try to introduce a
:26:46. > :26:48.
:26:48. > :26:51.higher minimum wage and to create 150,000 apprentices. The party
:26:51. > :26:58.supports weekly bin collections but would like to see London sending
:26:58. > :27:03.nothing to landfil by 2030. When will all probably be gone. -- we
:27:03. > :27:06.will. The Greens have made some notable advances in recent years,
:27:06. > :27:16.including their first MP, and Jones has set her sights on overtaking
:27:16. > :27:16.
:27:17. > :27:26.the Lib Dems to come third on May 3. You have been overtaken by you kick
:27:27. > :27:36.
:27:36. > :27:41.on the pulse. What went wrong? What is your best poll recently?
:27:41. > :27:45.Previous polls have put us on 4% and the Lib Dems on 6%. We think we
:27:45. > :27:53.can do better. Green votes tend to come out late, I have no idea why,
:27:53. > :27:58.they just don't register early. one Green voters to give their
:27:58. > :28:07.second preferences to Ken Livingstone. If you feel like that
:28:07. > :28:11.why wouldn't you just give Ken your first vote? Because we do not think
:28:12. > :28:16.he is the best candidate, we think that is a green who can take London
:28:16. > :28:23.forward in a sustainable way. were his former deputy. He
:28:23. > :28:32.described your endorsement. As a key building block to a victory. --
:28:32. > :28:39.endorsement point. Miracles happen. When, I've never seen one. Read our
:28:39. > :28:45.manifesto if you have not already. I have even written your name in it.
:28:45. > :28:52.You signed it for me? What about me? Sorry, I did not know you were
:28:52. > :29:02.here. I appreciate that. But why are you so enthusiastic about Ken?
:29:02. > :29:06.We have had this row about his tax returns after talking about rich
:29:06. > :29:09.people and he always moans about the privatisation of the NHS and we
:29:09. > :29:15.discover this morning he uses private health care. Why are you
:29:15. > :29:20.keen for him to win? I am not going to justified Ken Livingstone.
:29:20. > :29:25.You're telling people to vote for him. I am suggesting is deport the
:29:25. > :29:28.Greens to make an impact, there are three ways to do it... You can vote
:29:28. > :29:32.for me as Meyer because that's a signal at everybody about the
:29:32. > :29:39.support we have, you can vote for assembly members having his strong
:29:39. > :29:49.green pack of -- assembly members, having a strong pack of Green
:29:49. > :29:54.members is a good way. And thirdly, if it has to be, go for Ken, we
:29:54. > :30:00.can't work with Boris. What about the congestion charge? Far too many
:30:00. > :30:07.people are paying it. How much would you put it up? We would put
:30:07. > :30:14.the standard congestion charge up to �15. And for gas-guzzlers we
:30:14. > :30:24.would make it �40. �40 a day?! With government ministers have to pay
:30:24. > :30:25.
:30:25. > :30:30.that? Hopefully. But they would be Boris Johnson says that the
:30:30. > :30:37.transport plans have an honesty. I think that is his idea of irony.
:30:37. > :30:43.You want every new London home to have space to grow food, whether it
:30:43. > :30:48.is a garden, balcony, would a window box do? It probably would.
:30:48. > :30:51.And just to say, we have been joined by viewers in Scotland,
:30:51. > :30:57.they've been watching First Minister's Questions live from
:30:57. > :31:04.Holyrood. Now we are in London be, we with interviewing the Green
:31:04. > :31:08.Party candidate, Jenny yons. You were explaining, you would be
:31:08. > :31:15.satisfied if we had a window box? There is a need in lots of people
:31:15. > :31:20.to grow things. There is a shortage of allotments?
:31:20. > :31:25.Absolutely. We should close city airport and do something useful
:31:25. > :31:31.with it. That is not going to happen? Why not? It is a key link
:31:31. > :31:38.for the City of London for short- hall flights to Amsterdam,
:31:38. > :31:42.Copenhagen, Stoke home... We should start to understand that short-hall
:31:42. > :31:47.flights have to be overtaken by rail travel N other parts of Europe,
:31:47. > :31:53.they are expanding the intake from around the railways.
:31:53. > :31:59.That is because Charles De Gaulle has already built six runways, they
:31:59. > :32:03.have done their expansion! We live with a finite amount of resources.
:32:03. > :32:08.If there is growth in one area, there is recession in another. We
:32:08. > :32:14.are greedy. We must learn how to adapt and to survive.
:32:14. > :32:20.I would think it is tough, which is why some think you are not only
:32:20. > :32:25.unlikely to win, but you could lose seats in the assembly, but it is
:32:25. > :32:30.tough on the economic climate and these campaigning issues? Well, if
:32:30. > :32:34.I can tell you about one policy. Insulating homes. If we do 1
:32:34. > :32:40.million in the next four years we lower people's energy bills, that
:32:40. > :32:43.is good for them. We reduce the car emissions. We reduce the need for
:32:43. > :32:49.energy companies to invest in more energy, you know, infrastructure.
:32:49. > :32:53.That is why we have the Green Deal. If only it went far enough. It does
:32:53. > :32:57.and it will be. You can have a win, win, win
:32:57. > :33:00.situation on the environment and on the economy! Thank you very much,
:33:00. > :33:04.Jenny Jones, I will see you on Sunday.
:33:04. > :33:09.The debate is going out on BBC One on Sunday night after the news at
:33:10. > :33:14.10.25pm, when we have four of the main London mayoral candidates in
:33:14. > :33:18.the debating area plus others on video tape. Now, a full list of the
:33:18. > :33:27.candidates is on your screen now it is available on the BBC News
:33:27. > :33:32.website. Now, the Government is involved in
:33:32. > :33:37.a serious of rebellions, the most serious was the plan to impose VAT
:33:37. > :33:45.on static caravans used for holidays. The Government's majority
:33:45. > :33:50.was reduced to 25 on the issue. Clearly Margaret Beckett was doing
:33:50. > :33:54.the whipping. The Government also won on the so-called pasty tax, but
:33:54. > :34:03.with a considerable rebellion from coalition MPs. Let's give you a
:34:03. > :34:08.flavour of the debate. We have a Cornish coalition moving
:34:08. > :34:13.forward to try and protect the Cornish pasty. The paroles from the
:34:13. > :34:20.Government, I fear, are unfair. They are unworkable, they will be
:34:20. > :34:24.bad for the economy of Cornwall. The current rules mean that many do
:34:24. > :34:29.not know whether they are charged vat sat on hot food as the
:34:29. > :34:32.treatment depends on the shrier's purpose in heating the food.
:34:32. > :34:40.-- supplier. The new rules ensure a level
:34:40. > :34:45.playing food and we are removaling the sent tivity element.
:34:45. > :34:51.proposal on VAT on static caravans will have a serious effect on all
:34:51. > :34:55.of East Yorkshire and Hull, include ing the situation where it could
:34:55. > :35:02.dramatically cut employment in the area. At a time when we are trying
:35:02. > :35:07.to encourage growth and balance the books, this will not help to do
:35:07. > :35:11.either in the situation it will reverse both.
:35:11. > :35:17.It will destroy a purely British success story in the manufacturing
:35:17. > :35:22.industry. 95% of the caravans are made in the UK. We want a proper
:35:22. > :35:26.informed debate and consultation. I have heard the arguments about
:35:26. > :35:30.extending the consultation period. That is a reasonable thing to do.
:35:30. > :35:35.Rather than closing the consultation period on the 4th of
:35:35. > :35:42.May. We are to extend it now to the 18th 6 May.
:35:42. > :35:50.We want people to respond to these consultations, but it is right to
:35:50. > :35:54.address these anomalies. Today, the debate moves back to the
:35:55. > :36:04.region of the so-called granny tax. It is certainly the description
:36:05. > :36:12.
:36:12. > :36:22.that we are using in the media. This is the plan to remove certain
:36:22. > :36:27.areas of help for the elderly. Age UK says, "It is all relatively
:36:27. > :36:37.small beer." Small amounts of money matter a great deal to older people
:36:37. > :36:42.
:36:42. > :36:47.who have not got very much. Small amounts are being cut. So, this is
:36:47. > :36:55.not the poorest. It does not affect the richest. They did not get this
:36:55. > :37:00.tax relief? It affects those if they have their state pension which
:37:00. > :37:04.is about �5,000, plus a private pension of �6,000. They would
:37:04. > :37:10.therefore have a total income of �12,000. Not rich, you have to
:37:10. > :37:17.admit. That is not rich. That is middle? Well... I mean
:37:17. > :37:25.among the pensioners? These are the people, they are Tory voters.
:37:25. > :37:30.Not all of them. They tend to be people who have
:37:30. > :37:36.worked hard, have been putting things aside for pensions, they are
:37:37. > :37:41.good, hard-working people, who have earned a pension and are suddenly
:37:41. > :37:46.penalised by small beer to fund millionaires who have suddenly been
:37:46. > :37:50.given a tax rebate of �40,000. You say that, but that is the
:37:50. > :38:00.debating point. The real thing it has to stpund taking people on very
:38:00. > :38:07.low incomes out of tax all together. That is the real cost.
:38:07. > :38:12.But the fact is that many have a tax rebate of �40,000.
:38:12. > :38:17.They don't. It is true that higher earners benefit, but being a
:38:17. > :38:27.millionaire is a measure of wealth. Being a millionaire does not mean
:38:27. > :38:33.
:38:33. > :38:39.you earn �1 million a year. However, that is a large amount, a
:38:39. > :38:43.large some of money that is benefiting the rich. The people who
:38:43. > :38:48.are small beer, losing small beer, it is a small amount that matters
:38:48. > :38:53.to them. The rising cost of fuel, the rise in travel, the rise in the
:38:53. > :38:57.cost of food. All of these are really hitting old people hard.
:38:57. > :39:02.But what they have not been hit by and some would say, those in the
:39:02. > :39:06.middle, they have been shielded, relatively so from austerity, as
:39:06. > :39:11.they get the winter fuel payments, they are not means tested. The
:39:11. > :39:16.state pension is going up by �5. Bus passes are still free. Travel
:39:16. > :39:20.is free. First of all, �140 a week is not
:39:20. > :39:24.great wealth. So let's not say that they are sitting pretty.
:39:24. > :39:29.No, I'm not saying that, but they have been shielded from austerity?
:39:29. > :39:34.Well, they are being shielded from inflation.
:39:34. > :39:38.The �5 rise is in order to let the pensioner keep up with inflation.
:39:38. > :39:42.Old people are hit by inflation, they are hit by VAT.
:39:42. > :39:47.They spend their money because they have nothing else to spare it is a
:39:47. > :39:50.very good case. You have made a correct point. I
:39:50. > :39:55.come now to David Laws. We understand you had to finances, you
:39:55. > :40:00.are committed to the idea of taking people out of tax. Especially those
:40:00. > :40:04.at the lower end. We know it cost as lot of money to do so, but why
:40:04. > :40:08.would you get some of this money from the sort of pensioners that
:40:08. > :40:13.Joan Bakewell is talking about, they are on modest incomes. They
:40:13. > :40:18.are not rich, as she says. They have worked hard all of their lives.
:40:18. > :40:22.They are enjoying a modest affluence with the emphasis on the
:40:22. > :40:26.word modest, rather than affluence. Why take the money from them?
:40:26. > :40:30.accept this is something that we would rather not be doing, but what
:40:30. > :40:35.we are trying to do in in order to deliver austerity and get the
:40:35. > :40:39.budget on balance, is to ensure that those on the lowest incomes
:40:39. > :40:45.make a contribution. It has been said that so far the pensioners
:40:45. > :40:49.have been the one group we have not asked to make a contribution to
:40:49. > :40:52.dealing with the austerity. Many may say and you should not.
:40:52. > :40:57.That these people have give an lifetime of service to this country.
:40:57. > :41:01.They have worked hard. They have paid their taxes. They have ended
:41:01. > :41:06.up with pensions that are probably worth a lot less than they thought.
:41:06. > :41:10.Annuities have been hammered. Private pension schemes are no
:41:10. > :41:15.longer what they are. There are incredibly tough times
:41:15. > :41:20.for the public finances. We took the decision to go for the full
:41:20. > :41:24.uprating the state pension. But that is to keep apay -- apace
:41:24. > :41:28.with inflation. It is, but let's have a look for
:41:28. > :41:31.those people in employment what is happening. They are not getting
:41:31. > :41:33.inflation increase. They are getting significant cuts in the
:41:33. > :41:37.last few years of their real earnings.
:41:37. > :41:43.But that is not the comparison to make. What about the people earning
:41:43. > :41:47.more than �1 million who, are being treated out of all proportion
:41:47. > :41:52.generously? What about their contribution? Let me come back on
:41:52. > :41:57.that. Firstly for pensioners who are affluent or going to be so,
:41:57. > :42:01.were raising something like �3.5 billion by restricting the pension
:42:01. > :42:06.tax relief that goes to the highest people in the country. You were
:42:06. > :42:11.wrong in the Budget to say that the money was funding the tax cut for
:42:11. > :42:15.wealthy people. We have funded that five times over with other tax
:42:16. > :42:20.increases on wealthy people. In a world of dodgy statistics, you
:42:20. > :42:26.know that is in the premiere division of dodgy statistics.
:42:26. > :42:32.I tell you why. You are saying that the cut from 50 to 45 pence will
:42:32. > :42:34.cost the Treasury �100 million. That is the best estimate that the
:42:34. > :42:40.Government has got to make that decision.
:42:40. > :42:45.I don't know anyone who believes it. I don't want to get technical, but
:42:45. > :42:53.the indicator you have picked is the most generous to show you don't
:42:53. > :42:58.lose money? The Office for Budget Responsibility, he looked at this.
:42:58. > :43:04.He put out a report. He said that the revenue estimate is as likely
:43:04. > :43:10.to be in the opposite direction. Let me ask you the broader question.
:43:10. > :43:15.The day after the bulgt, you described George Osbourne as, "A
:43:15. > :43:22.grand strategist." Four weeks on, if that is what a grand strategist
:43:22. > :43:27.looks like, what does a useless strategist look like? Well, you
:43:27. > :43:33.return Gordon Brown, his Budgets would get great reception, then
:43:33. > :43:40.they unravelled over time. I think when we look back on the Budget, in
:43:40. > :43:44.three, six, nine months or a year's time, will see that the Chancellor
:43:44. > :43:48.has taken really important correct economic decisions to give us a
:43:48. > :43:51.competitive tax regime to take people on low incomes out of tax.
:43:51. > :43:55.The big decisions were the right ones.
:43:55. > :43:59.What was the last Budget? You can include all of Gordon Brown's in
:43:59. > :44:04.this. What was the last Budget, unravelling four weeks after it was
:44:04. > :44:08.unveiled? One of Gordon Brown's when he got the 10 pence tax rate.
:44:08. > :44:17.There was a riot over that, but let's get this into perspective.
:44:17. > :44:21.That is across the piste, the pasty piste! -- piste! We have looked at
:44:21. > :44:25.the decisions that the Chancellor has taken and realised that this is
:44:25. > :44:29.a good Budget, that has sent the message that Britain is open once
:44:29. > :44:35.again for business. The nonsense about pasties, charitable donations
:44:35. > :44:37.and all of the other bits and pieces we are voting on... Please,
:44:37. > :44:41.everyone over 65 condemns the Budget.
:44:41. > :44:45.Of course they don't like it, but the Government is having to do
:44:45. > :44:49.tough things and everybody in society, everybody single group has
:44:49. > :44:53.to contribute to this. You have to come back and see us.
:44:53. > :45:00.This could be unravelling in two months' time it could be the
:45:00. > :45:03.Olympics of unravelling! Stop being gloomy about this, Andrew.
:45:03. > :45:08.Joan Bakewell, thank you very much. Now, the Government's troubles have
:45:08. > :45:17.done nothing to improve the Liberal Democrats ratings. In some polls
:45:17. > :45:22.they are behind UKIP. So how bad can it be for them? As demonstrated
:45:22. > :45:27.by the website, the Lib Dem who is point, Lib Dems love pointing. They
:45:27. > :45:35.also love local governments that involves lots of pointing, but does
:45:35. > :45:39.local government love them? Right now across the UK they have about
:45:39. > :45:45.3,147 councillors and outright control of 13 local authorities,
:45:45. > :45:50.but last year, they lost 748 councillors and control of nine
:45:50. > :45:54.councils. See that they hope will not be repeated this year in Essex.
:45:54. > :45:58.Like this place was for the Normans, kolchest ser a bit of a Lib Dem
:45:58. > :46:02.stronghold. They are the largest party on the local council. They
:46:02. > :46:08.have a firm grip on the Westminster parliamentary seat. If they fail
:46:08. > :46:18.here it is bad news. Benjamin Ramm says that bad is a good way of
:46:18. > :46:19.
:46:19. > :46:23.describing the mood among the Those activist are committed,
:46:23. > :46:30.resilient, but it is different when you're in coalition with a party
:46:30. > :46:34.night the Conservatives who, in so many social and economic issues
:46:34. > :46:41.that the Lib Dems have put themselves against while
:46:41. > :46:44.campaigning. The Lib Dems are not putting up full slate in municipal
:46:45. > :46:48.elections, this is problematic for the party. It is in part caused by
:46:48. > :46:53.the fact there are not the activists pushing for greater
:46:53. > :46:57.representation. On a cold Tuesday evening in February it is hard to
:46:57. > :47:00.motivate yourself to go out with a yellow rosette. The Poles are
:47:00. > :47:07.depressing, too. Some have the party on, or close to single
:47:07. > :47:10.figures, another put them on level pegging with UKIP. It is not clear
:47:10. > :47:14.how that will translate on the ground in places like Colchester.
:47:14. > :47:21.Although it is a coalition I feel the Tories are the stronger part of
:47:21. > :47:30.it. What they have been doing lately has not gone down well. I
:47:30. > :47:37.feel some of that disillusionment might rub off towards the Lib Dems.
:47:37. > :47:43.They go along with the Conservatives in lots of issues. So
:47:43. > :47:46.people don't trust them, I don't think. Well that feed down to
:47:46. > :47:50.politics at the council level? think so. The it is why you will
:47:50. > :47:55.see Lib-Dems constantly pointing out popular policies based a are
:47:55. > :48:03.there idea. Like the rise in the income tax threshold. It is an
:48:03. > :48:09.effort to avoid another set of glum results in the local elections.
:48:09. > :48:14.Well, David Laws is still with me... Let's pick up on another point
:48:14. > :48:16.there where they say they are not fielding a full slate so. In some
:48:17. > :48:23.areas we are targeting our resources which is something all
:48:23. > :48:26.parties do. It is unusual for a party not have a full slate of
:48:26. > :48:30.candidates, particularly for the Liberal Democrats. In the last
:48:30. > :48:35.Parliament and probably in these elections there are many places the
:48:35. > :48:39.Conservatives do not necessarily have a full slate. The Labour Party
:48:39. > :48:43.in the last Parliament often did not contest seats. In my area,
:48:43. > :48:48.Somerset, I would say sometimes three quarters of seats do not have
:48:48. > :48:52.a Labour candidate in them. Last year the Lib Dems had what Nick
:48:52. > :48:58.Clegg described as a very bad election. The polls have not
:48:58. > :49:04.changed much since then. So what are your expectations? It will
:49:04. > :49:07.inevitably be tough. Worse than last year? I am not going to make
:49:07. > :49:11.forecasts on this programme for a number of weeks out. There are
:49:11. > :49:16.signs things are looking better than last year but it is too early
:49:16. > :49:24.to make definitive judgments. We all knew when we went into a
:49:24. > :49:28.coalition government that things would be difficult, that poll
:49:28. > :49:32.ratings would go down and inevitably that filters through to
:49:32. > :49:36.local elections even though those should really be about local issues.
:49:36. > :49:41.But that is the problem. You're not getting any message through locally
:49:41. > :49:44.are either. Last year the Lib Dems lost every seat contested in
:49:44. > :49:49.Manchester, the best performance was the Cotswolds, does that mean
:49:49. > :49:55.Lib-Dems are going to end up being a party of the rural south? I don't
:49:55. > :50:00.think so. If you look that -- back at many by-elections since the
:50:00. > :50:05.election last year they have had a different pattern. In Somerset we
:50:05. > :50:08.gain seats of the Somerset -- the Conservative Party. In the North it
:50:08. > :50:12.has been more difficult because Labour has traditionally had a
:50:12. > :50:16.greater strength there. They were very unpopular at the end of the
:50:16. > :50:20.last government, they are up in the opinion polls significantly since
:50:20. > :50:24.the last election. Of course that will be difficult for people at a
:50:24. > :50:28.local level. My frustration is that in many of those areas we have had
:50:28. > :50:33.a Lib Dem councillors do a great job after years of complacent
:50:33. > :50:37.Labour administration and I think people need to make sure they vote
:50:37. > :50:44.in local elections on local issues in order to get the right decisions
:50:44. > :50:52.locally. But if they don't and if they punish the party like they did
:50:52. > :50:55.last year, what will happen? All happened to the party if locally
:50:56. > :51:04.York-based is diminished ever further, that is what the party was
:51:04. > :51:08.about. We will continue to fight locally and on a local record, or
:51:08. > :51:13.to highlight problems in particular areas. At a national level we have
:51:13. > :51:16.always known what we were doing was difficult, was the right thing, but
:51:16. > :51:23.that would we were -- but that we would be judged over a five-year
:51:23. > :51:30.period. We will be judged and are happy to be at a national level in
:51:30. > :51:38.The National polls over five years. If we do live on the economy on the
:51:38. > :51:43.four pledges then my hopes and expectations for 2015 in the
:51:43. > :51:50.general election are not at a 10% opinion rating that was seen to
:51:50. > :51:54.date. Are you happy going into that election taking a �10 billion slice
:51:54. > :52:00.to the welfare budget? We are happy to going on spending plans will be
:52:00. > :52:03.agreed by the coalition as a whole. But there was a Budget announcement.
:52:04. > :52:08.George Osborne did not say there would be a certain amount of
:52:08. > :52:13.welfare cuts, he said if the next spending review looked like this
:52:13. > :52:19.one, or if we protected particular areas, we would have to make bigger
:52:19. > :52:23.welfare cuts. You would be happy to go along with that, to say we have
:52:23. > :52:32.to make more cuts and it could mean something like �10 billion worth of
:52:33. > :52:38.cuts to the welfare budget? We are not picking out precisely where we
:52:38. > :52:41.need to make savings in public spending. We are saying last year
:52:41. > :52:45.Danny Alexander and George Osborne announced the new spending totals
:52:45. > :52:50.to take us be on the next election, we are committed to those of the
:52:50. > :52:55.government. When we have the next spending review we will set out how
:52:55. > :53:00.we deliver the plans. What happened to the policy of differentiation?
:53:00. > :53:04.We are in a coalition working well together but of course occasionally
:53:04. > :53:08.issues of differentiation come up where the Conservative Party will
:53:08. > :53:17.have a strong view on one area, where we will. Most of those get
:53:17. > :53:21.resolved behind the scenes. Would you agree with that briefing? The
:53:22. > :53:31.leaking the Lib Dems have been blamed for? Whether they are blamed
:53:31. > :53:35.on not, it does not mean we are responsible for the briefing. Both
:53:35. > :53:39.parties should be free to breed in a coalition but it is also
:53:40. > :53:42.important some of the legitimate debate and attempts to
:53:42. > :53:46.differentiate in particular policy areas should not lead to a chaotic
:53:46. > :53:51.process which gives the impression to people that the coalition cannot
:53:51. > :53:54.govern effectively together. I pick a competition of ideas in the
:53:54. > :53:58.coalition should be about how we deliver the proposals and policy
:53:58. > :54:04.ambitions we have already agreed on, in other words, they should be
:54:04. > :54:07.about how we go forward, not about different destinations. When do you
:54:07. > :54:12.expect to come back into the government? I have no idea whether
:54:12. > :54:15.or it will have other responsibilities. I am happy to be
:54:15. > :54:18.a backbench support of the government, I think the Prime
:54:18. > :54:22.Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are doing a good job, the coalition
:54:22. > :54:32.will deliver on its bold ambitions, it is not for me to speculate on
:54:32. > :54:36.
:54:36. > :54:39.other issues. We moved to the big Should Parliament's Clock Tower,
:54:39. > :54:43.which most of us would know as Big Ben, be renamed after the Queen to
:54:43. > :54:45.mark her Diamond Jubilee? That's what one Tory MP is calling for and
:54:45. > :54:48.Tobias Ellwood's campaign has received cross party support from
:54:48. > :54:54.MPs. But what's the feeling on the streets of Westminster? We've sent
:54:54. > :54:57.Susana Mendonsa out to see what people think. That is the Victoria
:54:58. > :55:02.Tower, the only tower at Westminster named after a monarch,
:55:02. > :55:05.Queen Victoria, for her yuk -- for her years of service. Some think
:55:05. > :55:09.Queen Elizabeth the second should receive the same on and they have
:55:09. > :55:14.their eyes on the Big Ben, or the clock tower as it is officially
:55:14. > :55:17.known. But should it become the Elizabeth Tower? It really ought to
:55:17. > :55:21.stay as Big Ben and they should name something else after the Queen.
:55:21. > :55:26.It is so well-known I don't think you can change it after all these
:55:26. > :55:30.years. It assure name is the clock tower. We all know it as Big Ben.
:55:30. > :55:36.It is iconic to London. You can't change it. It should not be renamed.
:55:36. > :55:40.It is Big Ben for a good reason. is not its real name. I know but it
:55:40. > :55:45.is the bell inside it. It is what it is known as. You can't remain
:55:45. > :55:51.something so famous. It is a lovely idea. Would you still call it Big
:55:51. > :55:55.Ben? Possibly but I think that our's name is for her, she has been
:55:55. > :55:59.a wonderful Queen. The clock tower is named after the bell but I don't
:55:59. > :56:06.mind them changing the name of the tower to celebrate the jubilee.
:56:06. > :56:10.Fantastic idea. Would you still call it Big Ben? Yes. If they
:56:10. > :56:14.renamed it what would you call it? I would not rename it. I would
:56:14. > :56:18.still call it Big Ben. They were asked us where is the Elizabeth
:56:18. > :56:23.Tower? We would say there and they would say but that's Big Ben. They
:56:23. > :56:33.would be an argument. A group of MPs want to it rename it the
:56:33. > :56:34.
:56:34. > :56:37.Elizabeth Tower. Stupid idea! joined now by Kate Hoey MP who is
:56:37. > :56:41.one of the signaturees of this early day motion to change the name
:56:41. > :56:44.of the Clock Tower. So people will just still call it Big Ben, when
:56:44. > :56:49.they? Of course because they don't call it the clock tower, or the St
:56:49. > :56:53.Stephen's Tower which some people think it is. This is about formally,
:56:53. > :56:56.constitutionally changing it to the Elizabeth Tower so it is opposite
:56:56. > :57:00.the Victoria Tower over the House of Lords because it is the diamond
:57:00. > :57:04.jubilee and it would be a celebration of the Queen's rain.
:57:04. > :57:09.But everyone would know it as Big Ben because Big Ben is the clock
:57:09. > :57:16.and we all call it that. Is it worth changing the name? It is no
:57:16. > :57:20.big deal. But it is a nice bit for the end of the programme and I
:57:20. > :57:25.think it would be a nice gesture. There is a lot of party support for
:57:25. > :57:31.it but the person who will decide it is Her Majesty the Queen. So you
:57:31. > :57:35.think it will happen? I don't know how these things happen. If
:57:35. > :57:38.somebody somewhere so is it is a good idea behind the scenes, it
:57:38. > :57:43.could happen, but there is big support for it. But it will still
:57:43. > :57:46.be Big Ben. What about people who say we have the Victoria Tower,
:57:46. > :57:49.parliamentary democracy, we should not have the unelected head of
:57:49. > :57:54.state, some might say, being part of the Houses of Parliament. Nobody
:57:54. > :58:04.said that on your programme. That is not an issue. We are royalist
:58:04. > :58:09.I have always been a great royalist. The idea of having an ex-prime
:58:09. > :58:16.minister like Tony Blair as President, or something like that,
:58:16. > :58:20.it is not sensible. There was a panel on 26th March saying we
:58:20. > :58:25.should rename St Stephen's Tower as the suffragette power, or Big Ben,
:58:25. > :58:34.as in Tony Benn. Did you support that? I did not. I don't know even
:58:34. > :58:42.put that up. Two Towers, 1 Victoria, one Elizabeth. Big Ben still there.
:58:42. > :58:47.What do you think? A nice bit of symmetry. That's it. Thanks to our
:58:47. > :58:51.guests. I am back tonight with Alan Johnson, the man with the shirt,