:00:42. > :00:48.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. More confusion over
:00:48. > :00:50.the attempts to extradite radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada. What did
:00:50. > :00:54.officials from the European Court of Human Rights tell the Home
:00:54. > :01:00.Office? We have the latest. Lord Young Ladies, make way for
:01:00. > :01:05.mainly elected senators. -- Lords and ladies. That his recommendation
:01:05. > :01:10.of a cross-party group, meant to find a consensus, but it has kicked
:01:10. > :01:15.off an almighty row. They are two arrogant posh boys who
:01:15. > :01:22.show no remorse, contrition and no passion to understand the rest of
:01:22. > :01:27.us. Who could that Conservative MP possibly be talking about? Why is
:01:27. > :01:30.class so divisive in politics? Every dog needs to be microchipped,
:01:30. > :01:36.but will this clamp down on dangerous dogs be any more
:01:36. > :01:40.successful than the last? All that in the next hour, and with
:01:40. > :01:45.us for the programme is the leader of the House of Lords, Lord
:01:45. > :01:49.Strathclyde. Welcome. This afternoon there is more confusion
:01:49. > :01:52.about the Home Office's handling of the attempt to extradite Muslim
:01:53. > :01:57.cleric Abu Qatada. He was arrested on Tuesday last week because the
:01:57. > :02:02.Home Office believed the deadline to appeal against a ruling from the
:02:02. > :02:04.European Court of Human Rights had passed on Monday night. Abu
:02:04. > :02:12.Qatada's lawyers subsequently lodged an appeal with the court
:02:12. > :02:18.that they believed to be the Tuesday night deadline. Robin Brant
:02:18. > :02:22.joins us now. Can you clear up for us, according to the Prime Minister,
:02:22. > :02:27.that there were assurances to MPs that the deadline was Monday night?
:02:27. > :02:29.Is that what he said? What is clear this afternoon is that the Prime
:02:29. > :02:33.Minister's version of the advice sought by the Government and then
:02:33. > :02:38.given by the court is at odds with the Home Office. The Home Office
:02:38. > :02:48.has now not been able to can curb some of the statements made by the
:02:48. > :02:49.
:02:49. > :02:53.Prime Minister this morning. -- can. He said twice that assurances were
:02:53. > :02:57.received on this specific date, Monday night. This is exactly how
:02:57. > :03:01.the conversation unfolded on the Today programme this morning.
:03:01. > :03:04.Home Office is working on the basis of the deadline being Monday night.
:03:04. > :03:09.I am answering you. That was something that they had checked
:03:09. > :03:14.with the court. The other question is did they ask the court. When the
:03:14. > :03:18.deadline was, and the answer to that is yes. And did they tell you?
:03:18. > :03:23.I discussed this issue with the Home Secretary and she set out the
:03:23. > :03:27.position. Absolutely. So what did they tell you in answer to that
:03:27. > :03:32.question? The case was this, that the Home Office believed, and
:03:32. > :03:35.checked during the process, that the date expired. We know what the
:03:35. > :03:41.Home Office believed but the question is what the Court told the
:03:41. > :03:45.Home Office. You say that Theresa May asked that question, so what
:03:45. > :03:50.were they told? They were told throughout that the deadline
:03:50. > :03:57.expired on the Monday night. There are two key parts do that exchange.
:03:57. > :04:04.The Prime Minister pushed on what home Office officials asked and
:04:04. > :04:09.what they got back in return. When asked if they asked about the
:04:09. > :04:13.specifics, he said yes, absolutely, and then moved on quickly. I put
:04:13. > :04:17.that to the Home Office and a classic spokesperson line came back
:04:17. > :04:21.to me. They were unable to agree with both those statements. I was
:04:21. > :04:25.told that if the Prime Minister says it, then it must be correct.
:04:25. > :04:30.But the Home Office cannot agree with those statements made by the
:04:30. > :04:34.Prime Minister. The confusion surrounding Abu Qatada continues.
:04:34. > :04:39.If they cannot agree with what the Prime Minister says, in other words
:04:39. > :04:42.they cannot tell you what they were told by there European Court, does
:04:42. > :04:46.that mean that the Prime Minister was wrong and he had not been
:04:46. > :04:50.briefed properly? Does it mean the Home Office is in a mess about what
:04:50. > :04:54.it was told and it is trying to cover it up? Look back to Theresa
:04:54. > :04:59.May and her statement on Thursday. She was asked the same question
:04:59. > :05:03.repeatedly by Labour MPs, what was asked and what was given back? She
:05:03. > :05:06.asserted that the evening of the 16th was the deadline. She said
:05:06. > :05:10.they had consulted the court repeatedly and were working from
:05:10. > :05:15.that basis. That is something that David Cameron and Teresa may have
:05:15. > :05:21.spoken about, working from that basis. -- Theresa May. The Prime
:05:22. > :05:24.Minister may have got into a bit of a mess this morning. Tomorrow, I
:05:24. > :05:27.understand that Yvette Cooper and the Labour Party will be pushing
:05:27. > :05:31.the Home Secretary to produce the evidence, which apparently the
:05:31. > :05:36.Prime Minister says is there, about those assurances from the court.
:05:36. > :05:40.This is not going away. Lord Strathclyde, fairly detailed
:05:40. > :05:43.conversations about these deadlines are being had. But just listening
:05:43. > :05:53.to that again, it do you think the Home Office has clocked up? I don't
:05:53. > :05:56.think so. I don't think the Home Secretary would have made a
:05:56. > :06:01.statement without being absolutely clear that the advice that she was
:06:01. > :06:05.receiving from other departments was absolutely correct. And she
:06:05. > :06:08.told Parliament that as far as they were concerned, the deadline was
:06:08. > :06:14.Monday night. And that is right that it should be Monday night,
:06:14. > :06:18.three months from the original date. So the Government was correct and
:06:18. > :06:22.has confirmed again that it was correct, and Monday night was the
:06:22. > :06:25.date that they believed. And you are convinced that that was what
:06:25. > :06:29.the Court told Home Office officials, who rang them to check
:06:29. > :06:33.that? If that is the case, why can't the Home Office agree with
:06:33. > :06:36.what the Prime Minister said? by sitting here and imagining that
:06:36. > :06:41.the Home Secretary picked up the telephone and asked if it was the
:06:41. > :06:47.date. I don't think it works like that. No, but an official would
:06:47. > :06:49.have asked. So they say it was all it was then? There will have been a
:06:49. > :06:53.process, a process of discussion between the Home Office, lawyers
:06:53. > :06:57.and the court. They will have it that the President, decided on the
:06:58. > :07:04.Monday night, and they will have decided on the Monday night on a
:07:04. > :07:08.clear basis. -- they will have lurked at the precedent. Over the
:07:08. > :07:11.next few weeks we will have to see what comes out of the court case.
:07:11. > :07:15.We are very convinced that the decision that the Home Secretary
:07:15. > :07:20.made on the Monday night was correct. And based on the advice
:07:20. > :07:22.coming from the European Court of Human Rights? On that basis, Abu
:07:22. > :07:26.Qatada's lawyers missed the deadline and that appeal will be
:07:26. > :07:30.thrown out. That is what you expect? It looks like that and that
:07:31. > :07:35.is what we expect. We don't think that Abu Qatada has any right to be
:07:35. > :07:39.in this country at all. That, we have heard that, and many people
:07:39. > :07:42.agree with you across the political spectrum. But it is whether or not
:07:42. > :07:51.he has the right to appeal and it is an important issue, this
:07:51. > :07:56.deadline. Theresa May appears before the Home Affairs Select
:07:56. > :08:00.Committee tomorrow, and if she cannot confirm what has happened,
:08:00. > :08:03.it will she be under pressure with a job? Not at all. She did not make
:08:04. > :08:08.this decision lightly. She did not make a parliamentary statement
:08:08. > :08:11.without being clear about the advice that she received. I am sure
:08:11. > :08:14.she would not have made that statement unless she was totally
:08:14. > :08:18.confident that what she was saying was correct. Would it not have been
:08:18. > :08:25.better to wait one day? They would only have waited the day if there
:08:25. > :08:29.was any doubt and she was clear and so they made that decision.
:08:29. > :08:33.Now on to Lords reform. A joint committee of peers and MPs have
:08:33. > :08:38.published a long awaited report on a draft bill for the reform of the
:08:38. > :08:41.House of Lords. The joint committee has called for an 80% elected upper
:08:41. > :08:45.house where members serve non- renewable 15 year terms. They would
:08:45. > :08:49.get paid a salary, rather than the existing attendance allowances.
:08:49. > :08:53.Some members of the committee have issued a separate dissenting report.
:08:53. > :08:56.They say that the Government has ducked the key issue of what powers
:08:56. > :09:01.the newly elected chamber would have. There is one recommendation
:09:01. > :09:04.from the main report that will prove controversial, to put any
:09:04. > :09:07.Lords reform proposals to a referendum. The Prime Minister said
:09:07. > :09:15.he did not see a compelling case for a referendum but did not rule
:09:15. > :09:18.one out. In contrast, Nick Clegg said this on Sunday Politics: Why
:09:18. > :09:21.should we spend a great deal of money, millions of pounds of
:09:21. > :09:24.taxpayers' money, asking the British people a question that most
:09:24. > :09:30.people frankly don't worry about and on which there is consensus
:09:30. > :09:33.between three main parties? Literally, all three main parties,
:09:33. > :09:37.Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, having a commitment
:09:37. > :09:41.to Lords reform. To sub-contract to the British people an issue that
:09:41. > :09:47.the politicians at Westminster just cannot deal with, I think that is
:09:47. > :09:50.asking a lot of the British people when last year we did have a
:09:50. > :09:54.referendum but that was when there was stark difference of opinion
:09:54. > :10:04.between the political parties. Joining me now is Nadine de Haar,
:10:04. > :10:05.
:10:05. > :10:07.thank you for coming on the programme. -- Nadhim Zahawi. All of
:10:07. > :10:11.the political parties agreed that there should be reformed to the
:10:11. > :10:19.House of Lords. Let's take a step back and look at what the parties
:10:19. > :10:22.have said. In our manifesto said we would look towards a consensus. The
:10:22. > :10:26.Prime Minister has said they would prefer consensus. You can see from
:10:26. > :10:30.the evidence that there is no consensus, either in the House or
:10:30. > :10:35.in the country. There is consensus for reform, isn't there? Absolutely
:10:35. > :10:39.right. I am all for reform and not abolition. Let me just explain that
:10:39. > :10:43.for a second. What worries me is the primacy of the Commons. The
:10:43. > :10:47.reason it worries me is because the public have a very clear
:10:47. > :10:52.understanding at the moment that each party puts forward a manifesto,
:10:52. > :10:54.and then you vote for MPs into the Commons, and allow them to
:10:55. > :10:59.legislate and deliver their manifesto. The idea of setting up a
:10:59. > :11:05.second chamber that is elected, full of politicians, diluting that
:11:05. > :11:08.primacy, taking that away, creating possible gridlock between the two
:11:08. > :11:12.chambers, if you take the example of dealing with the economy, the
:11:12. > :11:15.Chancellor would not have been able to convince the markets that he
:11:15. > :11:18.could deliver an emergency budget if there was any doubt whatsoever
:11:18. > :11:22.that a second chamber could get in the wave and stop him delivering
:11:22. > :11:26.that in the first place. So that issue was not dealt within this
:11:26. > :11:30.committee. It goes to the heart of the problem. I think we all need to
:11:31. > :11:33.step back and take the Prime Minister's recommendation on board,
:11:33. > :11:37.that the three parties must work together to get a consensus in
:11:37. > :11:41.place before we go forward. So you could argue that nothing is going
:11:41. > :11:50.to happen. Are you saying that he would prefer to stick with the
:11:50. > :11:58.status quo of an unelected House? 800 Lords and ladies, or so, he
:11:58. > :12:03.will carry on doing what they are doing, unaccountably? I am not.
:12:03. > :12:06.Wheeler to what David Steel recommended. -- we should look to
:12:06. > :12:12.what David still recommended, cutting the size of it. It is too
:12:12. > :12:15.big. Taking away political patronage, and appoint an
:12:15. > :12:18.independent committee, that actually appoints to the House of
:12:18. > :12:22.Lords. You get rid of those that have committed crimes in the way
:12:23. > :12:27.that we do in the Commons, and you make sure that the terms are
:12:27. > :12:31.limited. Then you get rid of the hereditaries. We can do all of that
:12:31. > :12:34.right now without getting bogged down in whether we should have an
:12:34. > :12:40.elected second chamber and abolish the House of Lords. Should there be
:12:40. > :12:44.a referendum on this issue? Yes or no? I think if there is going to be
:12:44. > :12:47.a referendum, we should put it in with the general election so we
:12:47. > :12:51.does not cost too much. I will fight my corner in a referendum but
:12:51. > :13:00.I don't think the nation would thank us on this. We did some
:13:00. > :13:04.polling on this. Only 6% think this is a priority for the Government.
:13:04. > :13:09.Thank you very much. Lord Strathclyde is still with us. He
:13:09. > :13:15.wants to get rid of heredity is, doesn't he? They were got rid of 12
:13:15. > :13:20.years ago, at so no problem. I sit as a heredity, but I am only here
:13:20. > :13:22.because I was elected by my peers. I am being cheeky, thank you. Do
:13:22. > :13:26.you think this should be a legislative priority for the
:13:26. > :13:31.Government? This debate has been rumbling on for so long, some
:13:32. > :13:36.people say over 100 years. Over the last 10 years, when hereditary
:13:36. > :13:41.peers were kicked out, the Labour Party said we should look towards a
:13:41. > :13:45.more elected House. This is the endgame of that debate. The Prime
:13:45. > :13:48.Minister should be the first to be congratulated for being the first
:13:48. > :13:52.minister to come forward with a rational reform for the second
:13:52. > :13:56.chamber. But there is division across the board. We have
:13:56. > :13:59.alternative reforms. That is not new. There has always been division.
:13:59. > :14:02.In a way that was part of what the Prime Minister was saying this
:14:02. > :14:06.morning and the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday. There are
:14:06. > :14:10.divisions within the parties, rather than between the parties.
:14:10. > :14:14.Let's see if we can create a consensus over the Government bill,
:14:14. > :14:17.which we can now look at and right over the next few months, and
:14:17. > :14:20.presented to Parliament and then take the view. The House of Commons
:14:20. > :14:25.will need to take a view as to how they should proceed. Many people
:14:25. > :14:28.will say that the strength of the House of Lords is that it uses its
:14:28. > :14:32.expertise to hold the Government to account. Do you agree with that?
:14:32. > :14:37.Very much so. The House of Lords as a very good job. But it does it
:14:37. > :14:40.without having the authority of the people, without election. My
:14:40. > :14:44.argument is that in the 21st century, a house of Parliament
:14:45. > :14:49.should have the authority of the people. And if it did, it would
:14:50. > :14:55.behave more assertively, more aggressively. You are right to
:14:55. > :14:58.point that out. But that might create better Lords. But how will
:14:58. > :15:03.you protect that expertise that comes from people, from
:15:03. > :15:07.crossbenchers, and also from former Cabinet ministers and so on? How it
:15:07. > :15:11.would you protect that if elected plans go ahead? There is no reason
:15:11. > :15:14.why you cannot elect people with expertise and knowledge. There are
:15:14. > :15:18.plenty in the House of Commons. But you are right that you would lose
:15:18. > :15:21.something from House of Lords which is very special. People who would
:15:21. > :15:26.not naturally stand for election, which is why the Government wants
:15:26. > :15:31.to propose that 20% of the House should be reserved for those people.
:15:31. > :15:35.You would still be halving the number, quite significantly
:15:35. > :15:40.reducing the number. If that is its greatest strength, why get rid of
:15:40. > :15:43.it? We would still maintain that element, but I think the House of
:15:43. > :15:47.Lords would be strengthened by being directly elected. How?
:15:47. > :15:51.Because it would act on the authority of the people. Yes, that
:15:51. > :15:57.could ultimately lead to clashes between the houses, but debate is
:15:57. > :16:01.not a bad thing for improving law over time. But there is debate
:16:01. > :16:04.going on now. We have had a lot of debate and scrutiny from the House
:16:04. > :16:14.of Lords in its current form on important bits of legislation. The
:16:14. > :16:15.
:16:15. > :16:19.welfare bill, the health bill. Why One of the difficult issues for
:16:19. > :16:24.reform in the House of Lords is doing the job it has been asked to
:16:24. > :16:29.do, revising and scrutiny, extremely well. Reformers like me
:16:29. > :16:33.believe there is scope for a smaller second chamber, directly
:16:33. > :16:35.elected, with the authority of the people. That would give the
:16:35. > :16:40.decisions it makes greater weight when it went back to the House of
:16:40. > :16:43.Commons. In your heart of hearts, you are a loyal member of the
:16:43. > :16:47.government and you will defend these proposals are, but in your
:16:47. > :16:51.heart of hearts, do you really think a chamber that could end up
:16:51. > :16:55.being composed of party hacks who fail to become an MP, would they be
:16:55. > :17:00.more effective at holding the government to a cat than a chamber
:17:00. > :17:07.filled with experts? You are characterising elections as just
:17:07. > :17:12.being a party hacks and you are characterising the House of Lords
:17:12. > :17:17.as something else. So do you truly believe that that elected way is
:17:17. > :17:21.the best way? It would be a very different house. It would be a more
:17:21. > :17:24.assertive house. It would hold the government to account better and it
:17:24. > :17:33.would challenge decisions by the House of Commons. What about
:17:33. > :17:38.legislative deadlock? That is a key concern. It would be dreadful.
:17:38. > :17:43.of the examples about an emergency Budget would not happen because the
:17:43. > :17:48.position of the House of Commons is protected. But there are other key
:17:48. > :17:52.issues of flagship plans that would be prevented under your scheme.
:17:52. > :17:58.of the problems we face is that the House of Commons is not strong
:17:58. > :18:03.enough. It does not stand up to governments as much as it could.
:18:03. > :18:07.This would be a way of exerting authority from the second chamber.
:18:07. > :18:10.That is why I have been in favour of an elected House for a long time.
:18:10. > :18:15.What about a referendum on the issue? That seems to be gaining
:18:15. > :18:19.momentum. It is, and yet at the general election all three main
:18:19. > :18:24.parties had similar commitments to reform, based largely on Jack
:18:24. > :18:27.Straw's White Paper of 2008. The trouble with referendums is that
:18:27. > :18:33.they are expensive and complicated unless you have very clear
:18:33. > :18:41.questions. What with the question be? I am not proposing a referendum.
:18:41. > :18:44.I think we can do this perfectly easily within Parliament. It is not
:18:44. > :18:49.as simple as saying people who go to the second chamber should be
:18:49. > :18:54.elected. That is a major constitutional change, to go from
:18:54. > :18:58.an unelected House to an elected House. It will change not only the
:18:58. > :19:04.way the upper chamber looks, but it will change its role. It will be
:19:04. > :19:08.able to challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. In 1999, when
:19:08. > :19:12.we created an appointed chamber, the then leader of the Lords said
:19:12. > :19:15.almost what I am saying, that the house would become more assertive
:19:15. > :19:19.and effective. There was no question of having a referendum
:19:19. > :19:25.then. So why are the Labour Party asking for one now? But the prime
:19:25. > :19:29.minister has not ruled it out. The door has been left ajar for a
:19:29. > :19:35.referendum. Today, we are seeing the publication of a substantial
:19:35. > :19:40.report by the Joint Committee of both houses. Within it is a
:19:40. > :19:43.referendum. It is right that the Government should take it seriously
:19:43. > :19:52.and read the report and look at the question of a referendum.
:19:52. > :20:00.dismiss it? Maybe, maybe not. Let's see what the report is saying. Do
:20:00. > :20:05.the parties have a view as to the nature of a referendum? What about
:20:05. > :20:08.the threats and warnings from Conservative MPs? We have already
:20:08. > :20:14.had one or two parliamentary aides saying it could be a resignation
:20:15. > :20:19.issue. I regret that. But I accept that not just over the last ten
:20:19. > :20:23.weeks, but over the last 120 years, the Conservative Party has never
:20:23. > :20:26.taken a united view over House of Lords reform, which is why the
:20:26. > :20:31.Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister accept that there needs to
:20:31. > :20:34.be consensus across the parties. Will today's report be part of
:20:34. > :20:38.creating that consensus? That remains to be seen. If it gets
:20:38. > :20:43.through the Commons, how will you get it through the Lords? With
:20:43. > :20:47.difficulty. And under no illusions that in the House of Lords, there
:20:47. > :20:54.is great antipathy towards this reform for two reasons. The first
:20:54. > :20:57.is about the primacy of the House of Commons. It will not do anything
:20:57. > :21:03.to affect the relationship between the government and the House of
:21:03. > :21:05.Commons. Secondly, they think they do a good job and there are people
:21:05. > :21:11.of ability can kill within the House of Lords, and an election
:21:11. > :21:14.would change that. It is not a few I share. Will it really happen?
:21:14. > :21:18.There is more chance of it happening over the last 18 months
:21:18. > :21:28.than there has been over the last 100 years, so yes. We might have to
:21:28. > :21:32.get you back on when we see how this pans out. And what about you?
:21:32. > :21:36.Will your name be on the ballot paper? I think if we get to an
:21:36. > :21:40.elected House, I would consider it very strongly. I would like to be
:21:40. > :21:42.an elected member of the chamber. I am not sure my colleagues in the
:21:42. > :21:47.House of Commons would appreciate that.
:21:47. > :21:49.Now, we had further insights this morning into the prime minister's
:21:50. > :21:54.lifestyle in the Downing Street flat above Number 11. He told the
:21:54. > :21:57.Today programme of tea has regular "date nights" with his wife as well
:21:57. > :22:00.as the "kitchen suppers" we have heard so much about. But how good
:22:00. > :22:05.are the residents of Downing Street at persuading us that they are just
:22:05. > :22:08.ordinary blokes? The A R which, went to public
:22:08. > :22:12.school, Oxbridge, and despite that line that it is not where you came
:22:12. > :22:17.from but where you are going that matters, they are seen as posh. It
:22:17. > :22:23.is perhaps unfair, but only in the sense that to many people, MPs seem
:22:23. > :22:26.posh, not people like us. Since the financial crash, and all of us
:22:26. > :22:31.having to tighten our belts, we have become conscious of what
:22:31. > :22:36.people have, where it came from and, more trickily, or whether they
:22:36. > :22:43.deserve it. That means that in politics, being posh has suddenly
:22:43. > :22:48.become a problem. Everyone is struggling at the moment. Also, we
:22:48. > :22:51.have just had a cut in taxes for millionaires. When you have a
:22:51. > :22:58.government which has so many millionaires in it, people are
:22:58. > :23:04.bound to smell a bit of a rat. Having said that, it is Parliament.
:23:05. > :23:08.Parliament should look like Britain. It doesn't. We have no Old Etonians
:23:08. > :23:11.on our front bench, but as a body politic, we have all gone backwards
:23:11. > :23:16.in terms of working-class representation. That should concern
:23:16. > :23:19.everybody. But the truth is that right now, it is concerning the
:23:19. > :23:25.right more than anyone, because posh is just one of the problems
:23:25. > :23:33.they have with the men at the top. If you are the sort of person to
:23:33. > :23:38.whom our Prime Minister is a raging Liberal, raging quasi left the
:23:38. > :23:45.Liberal, then the plushness gives you a good stick to beat him with.
:23:45. > :23:53.-- the poshness. They see the ruling group from Notting Hill as
:23:53. > :23:58.being sort of liberal sons of Blair, and they hate it. There is a very
:23:58. > :24:04.tight, narrow clique of a certain group of people. And they act as a
:24:04. > :24:08.barrier and prevent Cameron and Osborne and others from really
:24:08. > :24:11.understanding what is happening in the rest of the country. And are
:24:11. > :24:17.they still two posh boys who don't know the price of milk in your
:24:17. > :24:20.opinion? Unfortunately, I think that not only are Cameron and
:24:21. > :24:26.Osborne two posh boys who don't know the price of milk, but they
:24:26. > :24:29.are two arrogant, posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition and
:24:29. > :24:34.no passion to want to understand the lives of others. That is there
:24:34. > :24:39.real crime. Other Conservative backbenchers might not dare say the
:24:39. > :24:42.same, but they certainly are concerned that this is or may
:24:42. > :24:46.become a widely held view. You might think all of this is a
:24:46. > :24:51.problem for our guest, Lord Strathclyde, with his estates and
:24:51. > :24:56.things like that. But he is not really posh. I mean, he is only a
:24:56. > :25:02.second baron, and he certainly didn't go to Eton.
:25:02. > :25:04.Are you relieved about that? Are best of the day is still here. And
:25:05. > :25:08.we are joined by the political commentator Ian Martin. Do you
:25:08. > :25:14.consider yourself posh, Tom Strathclyde? I do not think this
:25:15. > :25:21.argument should be about how I regard myself. I hope people regard
:25:21. > :25:25.me as authentic. I say what I think. We left behind a long time ago that
:25:25. > :25:30.we judge people on how they speak, where they went to school, the kind
:25:30. > :25:34.of homes they live in. I am what I am. But it seems that Conservative
:25:34. > :25:39.MPs, we heard Nadine Dorries say that David Cameron and George
:25:39. > :25:43.Osborne are two posh boys who don't know the price of milk. That is
:25:43. > :25:48.fairly crocheting. I am sure they do. Do they have to know the price
:25:48. > :25:54.of milk? I do not think they should, just as a matter of form, know the
:25:54. > :26:02.price of milk. Being in charge is about being authentic, being real,
:26:02. > :26:05.about where you are from and what you do and acting in the national
:26:05. > :26:11.interest. That is what the Conservative Party has always been
:26:11. > :26:15.best at. But her point and the point of a number of the new
:26:15. > :26:19.Conservative MPs is that they don't relate to David Cameron and George
:26:19. > :26:23.Osborne and can't relate to vast swathes of the public out there
:26:23. > :26:32.because of their background and because they have not experienced
:26:32. > :26:36.things, particularly in a recession, when everyone is struggling.
:26:36. > :26:40.don't share that view. They are in touch with what is going on. Even
:26:40. > :26:44.in the Cabinet, we have a cheap -- a chief whip who was a miner.
:26:44. > :26:52.Nobody would call Eric Pickles Bosch. Side of Warsi, the chairman
:26:52. > :26:58.of the party -- cider Warsi is the first Muslim. Why are people making
:26:58. > :27:04.these attacks on their own leadership? People have to be wary
:27:04. > :27:06.of attempting to play a game which is about proving who is more
:27:06. > :27:13.working-class than thou and running the old Monty Python class about
:27:13. > :27:17.trying to prove who is more working class. But there is a problem, and
:27:17. > :27:21.the government struggles to articulate a message for the
:27:21. > :27:25.aspirational classes in this country. And the Tories did not win
:27:25. > :27:31.the election because they failed to convince a significant enough
:27:31. > :27:34.number of the strivers that Thatcher was on their side. Tony
:27:34. > :27:39.Blair, a public schoolboy, understood that he had to think his
:27:39. > :27:44.way into those people's heads to win. So did Harold Macmillan. This
:27:44. > :27:49.bunch don't seem to get that. They don't understand the importance of
:27:49. > :27:53.the aspirational classes. What do you say to that? They are not like
:27:53. > :27:57.Margaret Thatcher, who a lot of Tory MPs feel did that have that
:27:57. > :28:04.connection with the aspirational classes. Let me give you just one
:28:04. > :28:07.example. Look at the education policies of Michael Gove. He is
:28:07. > :28:12.going to revolutionise educational opportunities for a whole
:28:12. > :28:15.generation. And he has done that in the last two years simply by
:28:15. > :28:19.battling with the establishment of the education bodies to provide
:28:19. > :28:24.schools that will give that opportunity. Then why are other
:28:24. > :28:28.people in the party attacking the leadership on this basis? They need
:28:28. > :28:32.to attack the leadership on something, so why not the fact that
:28:32. > :28:38.they went to Eton and Oxford and all that kind of stuff? So they
:28:38. > :28:46.have an axe to grind? Maybe. That is part of what happens. Within the
:28:46. > :28:52.Conservative Party, we as a Cabinet have to react to what is said, so
:28:52. > :28:56.that we make sure people understand aspiration, growth and opportunity
:28:56. > :29:01.for people to better themselves. giving a tax break to people who
:29:01. > :29:06.who earned over �1 million a year, does that damage that credibility?
:29:06. > :29:12.For this is absurd. Throughout the 13 years of Labour, they never had
:29:12. > :29:19.a tax rate as high as 45 or 50% except for the last three weeks.
:29:19. > :29:29.Sure, but Conservatives are seen as a leadership in which they are
:29:29. > :29:32.
:29:32. > :29:36.willing to accept that by 2014, 5 million will play 40p tax. It is
:29:36. > :29:40.becoming the new standard rate of tax. In 1957, Harold Macmillan
:29:40. > :29:44.wrote to the then chairman of the Tory party and said, as I go round
:29:44. > :29:48.the country, I keep hearing about something called the emerging
:29:48. > :29:54.aspirational lower middle classes. Is it possible to find out who they
:29:54. > :29:59.are, what they want and give it to them? I am suggesting that previous
:29:59. > :30:03.prime ministers who have suffered a similar perception problem that
:30:03. > :30:08.David Cameron and George Osborne suffer have had to work very hard
:30:08. > :30:11.to counter it and win elections which, even from the point of view
:30:11. > :30:17.of relentless self interest, they should be interested in this stuff.
:30:17. > :30:19.It is baffling. It is the primary purpose of this government, the
:30:19. > :30:24.Conservatives and Liberal Democrats together, to try and reduce the
:30:24. > :30:27.budget deficit. We have an extraordinary economic situation.
:30:27. > :30:33.Look at what is happening in other countries. We are getting it right
:30:33. > :30:38.at by reducing the budget deficit, paying off the debt. But does
:30:38. > :30:43.language like "kitchen suppers" and "we are all in this together" and
:30:43. > :30:46."filling up your jerry cans" - does that help? They are saying it
:30:46. > :30:50.because it is true. You might as well say you have a kitchen supper.
:30:51. > :31:00.We are all in it together. That does not mean everyone is equal,
:31:01. > :31:02.
:31:02. > :31:06.but it is right to provide equality Says just over a week to go until
:31:06. > :31:10.the Queen's Speech, where we will find out what legislation the
:31:10. > :31:15.Government has planned. Meanwhile there is plenty going on in the
:31:15. > :31:20.Westminster village. The Leveson Inquiry racemes today, and today
:31:20. > :31:25.James Murdoch will be giving evidence followed by Rupert Murdoch
:31:25. > :31:28.on Tuesday and Thursday. The Abu Qatada deportation row will be high
:31:28. > :31:32.on home affairs select committee adjourned on Tuesday. Talks are
:31:32. > :31:36.continuing today to avert a strike by its fuel tanker drivers, you
:31:36. > :31:42.have until Tuesday to come to an agreement before a strike will beat
:31:42. > :31:47.called. And the Chancellor will be hoping for growth in the economy
:31:47. > :31:51.when the GDP figures are revealed on Wednesday. To discuss this we
:31:51. > :32:00.can talk to the sun's political editor, Tom Newton-Dunn and Kate
:32:00. > :32:04.Devlin from the Herald. -- The Sun. There have been comments about the
:32:04. > :32:09.timing in terms of the deadline for Abu Qatada to put in an appeal. How
:32:09. > :32:12.difficult is this for Theresa May, bearing in mind she appears before
:32:12. > :32:16.the Home Affairs Select Committee tomorrow? I think this is very
:32:17. > :32:20.difficult for Theresa May. This issue wasn't ever going to go away.
:32:20. > :32:27.The Prime Minister seems to have opened the door to more questions
:32:27. > :32:32.about what exactly her office knew and when. The Theresa May, part of
:32:32. > :32:37.the problem is that this could always have happened. Abu Qatada
:32:37. > :32:40.could always have lodged an appeal and it could have been accepted by
:32:40. > :32:44.the court, even if it was judged to be late. The problem is that
:32:44. > :32:50.everything that happens from now on will be seen as her fault, her
:32:50. > :32:57.problem. Has the Prime Minister Major job more difficult? I think
:32:57. > :33:02.he did, this morning, yes. -- made her a job more difficult? It is
:33:02. > :33:08.emerging now that he might have gone a little bit too far by saying,
:33:08. > :33:12.and very strongly saying, that the Court of Human Rights did confirm
:33:12. > :33:17.to the Home Office what their understanding of the deadline was,
:33:17. > :33:21.Monday rather than Tuesday. We have just come out of lobby which was 45
:33:21. > :33:26.minutes, unbearably and painfully long, where the official spokesman
:33:26. > :33:32.refused to back him up on that, which is always a bad sign. I think
:33:32. > :33:36.we are into a tangential the shambles of the main shambles now.
:33:36. > :33:39.And this will never go away so long as Abu Qatada is in Britain. It
:33:39. > :33:44.will always be a problem for the Government and it will get worse
:33:44. > :33:49.the moment the lawyers go to court, possibly this week, possibly
:33:49. > :33:54.tomorrow, and ask for the man to be released. Habeas corpus. If Abu
:33:54. > :33:57.Qatada is back on the streets, it becomes a massive problem again.
:33:57. > :34:03.Let's look at Lords reform again. We seem to have had alternative
:34:03. > :34:08.reports to the Joint Committee's report on 80%-20% elected-non-
:34:08. > :34:11.elected. Do you think the case for the referendum will gain ground?
:34:11. > :34:16.think the referendum is a very difficult question for the
:34:16. > :34:20.coalition. The problem they have is if they do accept there should be a
:34:20. > :34:24.referendum on this, it will increase the clamour for referendum
:34:24. > :34:31.on an in or out decision on the EU. That is something that they want to
:34:31. > :34:35.avoid. They have been able to... I mean, we are having referendums, on
:34:35. > :34:41.independence in Scotland, but another national referendum would
:34:41. > :34:45.cause serious problems for them, I think, and a serious demand for
:34:45. > :34:48.another referendum on the EU. And I think they will resist that as hard
:34:48. > :34:53.as they can. The Prime Minister left the door open slightly on that
:34:53. > :34:58.issue as well. Conservative MPs are basically saying, some of them,
:34:58. > :35:02.that they will resign over this issue if it goes ahead. Again, this
:35:02. > :35:06.looks like it could be a total mess. It is already a total mess, I am
:35:06. > :35:09.afraid. There are already two different reports coming from the
:35:09. > :35:12.same joint committee this morning on what should happen. They cannot
:35:13. > :35:15.even agree on what should happen themselves and they are supposed to
:35:15. > :35:19.be the cross-party architects. Whether or not there is a
:35:19. > :35:23.referendum will be a headache, but an even bigger headache is who will
:35:23. > :35:27.win. The Lib Dems have put their flag in the sand and they won this
:35:27. > :35:31.to happen. The Tories do not want this to happen and there can only
:35:31. > :35:35.be one winner. It is another bout of collective lunacy from everybody
:35:35. > :35:40.in Westminster. Why make this the one issue to fight and die in a
:35:40. > :35:43.ditch over? Both parties have decided that this will be it, when
:35:43. > :35:51.it is of zero interest to the vast majority of our readers, certainly,
:35:51. > :35:55.and probably your viewers. On that note, thank you very much. I am
:35:55. > :35:58.joined by three MPs, Lilian Greenwood from Labour, Tessa Munt
:35:58. > :36:02.from the Liberal Democrats and Mary MacLeod from the Conservatives. Can
:36:02. > :36:05.I start with you, Tessa Munt? It is a nightmare for the Liberal
:36:05. > :36:09.Democrat if there is a referendum on this issue. I don't think there
:36:10. > :36:14.needs to be a referendum, actually. All three of the main parties, in
:36:14. > :36:18.fact all of the main parties, came into this Parliament knowing it was
:36:18. > :36:22.in their manifesto. We have needed Lords reform for 100 years and it
:36:22. > :36:28.has been trawling along and it has been shuffled sideways. We did not
:36:28. > :36:32.have a referendum when we got rid of the hereditary peers. You have
:36:32. > :36:39.got a referendum going on all over the place in terms of the mayoral
:36:39. > :36:42.referendum. The referendum on the subject began when we all put it in
:36:42. > :36:46.our manifesto, when we all said we were in favour of the House of
:36:46. > :36:52.Lords reform. I don't think we need a referendum. That was the
:36:52. > :36:59.manifesto. Our manifesto said there would be one. I think we have the
:36:59. > :37:03.right to have a say on this. don't think so. Referendums of very
:37:03. > :37:07.expensive. All three parties agree that we need change to the House of
:37:07. > :37:12.Lords, so let's go and do it. Let's not faff about. Let's get the job
:37:12. > :37:15.done. We don't need to wait 100 years. There are all sorts of other
:37:15. > :37:19.things going on in Government, besides dealing with the deficit
:37:19. > :37:24.which is very important, but don't stop everything else while we are
:37:24. > :37:27.moving forward in that direction. What do you say to Tory MPs saying
:37:27. > :37:32.this is such a big constitutional change that there should be a
:37:32. > :37:36.referendum? Absolutely disagree. What do you want them to do? Shut
:37:36. > :37:41.up. Sometimes people have to play the team game and do what your
:37:41. > :37:45.manifesto said. Well, do what your manifesto said? Yes, there are
:37:45. > :37:52.various opinions on this. I still think it is an important debate
:37:52. > :37:58.because it was in the manifestos to cut the House of Lords and we need
:37:58. > :38:02.to work together to make this happen. Given that it was in our
:38:02. > :38:06.manifestos and given that if you pulled the country today, they
:38:06. > :38:12.would say go with House of Lords reform and make it more democratic,
:38:12. > :38:16.then we should go ahead. -- if you asked the country. What about the
:38:16. > :38:23.idea that if there was a referendum it would cost a lot of money and of
:38:23. > :38:33.course it could be lost? What is there to lose? We have got 70% of
:38:33. > :38:36.
:38:37. > :38:40.our second House in the gift of three blokes. What is that? You do
:38:40. > :38:44.need to have experts in the House of Lords, but actually this just
:38:44. > :38:47.increases the level of patronage and it is not good enough. This is
:38:48. > :38:53.a modern democracy that we live in and it should not be how much money
:38:53. > :38:57.you have got. I don't see why we can't get the three parties working
:38:57. > :39:01.together to find a solution for the House of Lords and make it really
:39:01. > :39:05.positive, saying what can we do to make sure that Parliament is
:39:05. > :39:09.accountable and democratic? And actually delivering the right thing
:39:09. > :39:13.for the country. Aren't they doing a good job at the moment of
:39:13. > :39:21.scrutinising the legislation? It is quite big, so why not cut the
:39:21. > :39:25.numbers? There are more peers over the age of 90 than over the age of
:39:25. > :39:28.50 and they mostly come from the South East and London. People
:39:28. > :39:33.expect people making decisions for the country to be elected and
:39:33. > :39:36.accountable. What about the fact that they are not elected? 59% said
:39:37. > :39:41.they should be reformed, but everybody says that and nobody can
:39:41. > :39:44.agree on what it should be and what should be done. Is it a priority?
:39:44. > :39:47.don't think it is the top priority for people up there because they
:39:47. > :39:52.are rightly worried about their jobs and the state of the economy
:39:52. > :39:56.and rising unemployment. But the fact is we do need to tackle this
:39:56. > :39:59.under-represented second chamber and we committed to it in our
:39:59. > :40:04.manifestos so there does need to be action. What about the Abu Qatada
:40:04. > :40:08.debate? We heard this thing about the deadline being passed. Do you
:40:08. > :40:15.think Theresa May is in trouble? don't know. You should ask Mary
:40:15. > :40:17.MacLeod. I don't think so. I think they have followed to process. They
:40:17. > :40:22.have definitely made much more progress than the last Government
:40:22. > :40:25.did to get him out of the country. Our objective has been clear from
:40:25. > :40:30.the start. We want him out of the country and we are doing everything
:40:30. > :40:34.possible to do that. But to do it within the law. So they followed
:40:34. > :40:39.the due process, there is no mess up, Labour are just making
:40:39. > :40:43.mischief? Hardly. I think Theresa May has shown herself to be
:40:43. > :40:46.incompetent on this issue. It is basic stuff. When I was dealing
:40:46. > :40:49.with a criminal cases as a trade union official, the first thing you
:40:49. > :40:56.find out is when the deadline is for an application. You just need
:40:56. > :41:03.to know that. At one moment you are telling us to hurry up, and at the
:41:03. > :41:08.next that we should take our time. But shouldn't it have been wiser to
:41:08. > :41:11.wait a day rather than getting their negative headlines? The Home
:41:11. > :41:17.Secretary thought that she had got that clarification, so that is for
:41:17. > :41:21.her to discuss a internally. But I do think that we have made real
:41:21. > :41:25.progress on this. I am convinced that he will be out of this country
:41:25. > :41:29.in the months ahead, but we do have to follow due process, make sure it
:41:29. > :41:35.is done properly. We do not want this coming back on us, where he is
:41:35. > :41:42.the gets sent back or we have to pay compensation. -- either he gets
:41:42. > :41:46.sent back. Let's do it properly. have you got your fingers crossed
:41:46. > :41:50.that there will be positive news on growth? I always have my fingers
:41:50. > :41:57.crossed to get positive news on growth. But do you think there will
:41:57. > :42:00.be? We have done so much. There are lots of jobs out there. There is
:42:00. > :42:04.lots of opportunity for young people to go and find jobs. There
:42:04. > :42:08.is always more that we can be doing, but we are looking to get that
:42:08. > :42:11.Investment to encourage growth and trade elsewhere. Danny Alexander
:42:12. > :42:16.has been making a speech to the Treasury to say that he expects
:42:16. > :42:19.departments to keep in reserve another 5%. Do you support the fact
:42:19. > :42:24.that those departments just have to make more cuts to do that? We have
:42:24. > :42:28.to look at how departments spend money. If you take it down to a
:42:28. > :42:33.local level... But these are cuts. He is asking people to keep money
:42:33. > :42:41.in reserve. Not spend. Why are, yes, but if you look at what happens at
:42:41. > :42:44.a local level, by March, you will find every set of roadworks because
:42:44. > :42:48.everybody is trying to spend money at the end of their budget. It
:42:48. > :42:51.would be better to take a sensible view about how people spend their
:42:51. > :42:59.budgets and allocate them, and if it can be held for emergencies...
:42:59. > :43:03.Can it? Yes, it can. You think that governments are sitting on money
:43:03. > :43:11.despite the past seven years? Department of Health has just saved
:43:11. > :43:17.goodness knows how many. -- how much. Yes, by cutting nurses.
:43:17. > :43:20.they found that money. What did you say? We have invested more in
:43:20. > :43:25.health service, so that is ridiculous. I came from the
:43:25. > :43:29.business world, and every year we look at cutting and reducing...
:43:29. > :43:32.Even when there has been 20% cuts? There is always room for
:43:32. > :43:36.improvement. Look at what is happening to the economy as a
:43:36. > :43:41.result of the cuts that you have made. Let us finish. The economy
:43:41. > :43:47.has been flat lining. We left you an economy growing at 2.1% and this
:43:47. > :43:52.year the best it will achieve is less than 1%. Not 0.7% is predicted.
:43:52. > :43:56.There are more jobs in the private sector. We have 1 million young
:43:56. > :44:01.people unemployed, the highest rate since 1995. Corporation tax is good.
:44:01. > :44:06.There has been a 0.3% contraction in the last figures, so one could
:44:06. > :44:10.say those cuts have not led to growth. We have to look at these
:44:10. > :44:14.cuts and see where we can look at the general economic climate and
:44:14. > :44:18.see where we can carry on making progress. We are in difficult
:44:18. > :44:22.economic times. That was the mess that we were left. That was what we
:44:22. > :44:30.were left by the last Labour Government. They destroyed this
:44:30. > :44:36.country. A growing employment -- economy, and more employment, that
:44:36. > :44:40.is what we left you. We need to look at what we can adjust and
:44:40. > :44:44.change as times go on. So there should be adjustments and changes?
:44:44. > :44:49.Not an overall plan. And to support the announcement that there would
:44:49. > :44:54.have to be �10 billion of further welfare cuts? Liberal Democrats are
:44:54. > :44:58.behind that? The welfare cuts are in essence sensible. There are
:44:58. > :45:02.things that I do not agree with myself, but we have to look at the
:45:02. > :45:06.special cases, so that the people that are most hard-hit our help.
:45:06. > :45:11.And then we can make changes. Nothing is so cut and dried that we
:45:11. > :45:14.cannot reflect on the difficulties that people have.
:45:14. > :45:17.The Government has outlined its plans to cut down on dangerous dogs
:45:17. > :45:21.in England. The last attempt to legislate on this issue was in
:45:21. > :45:26.1990s when specific breeds were banned, and it is widely believed
:45:26. > :45:36.to have produced an ineffective law. Will what is announced today be any
:45:36. > :45:38.
:45:38. > :45:42.I am joined by David Bowles of the RSPCA. The RSPCA believes this is a
:45:42. > :45:46.wasted opportunity. It is 21 years since the Dangerous Dogs Act has
:45:46. > :45:51.come into effect, which everybody acknowledges did not decrease dog
:45:51. > :45:54.bites or the number of illegal dogs on the street. It is a huge problem.
:45:54. > :45:57.Two years since the consultation finished, the Government have come
:45:57. > :46:03.up with another consultation which will last for another two years.
:46:03. > :46:07.The RSPCA believes this fails dog- owners and people who have
:46:07. > :46:13.irresponsibly kept dog and it fails the public who will get bitten by
:46:13. > :46:18.dogs. So you don't welcome it, obviously. But are you talking
:46:18. > :46:22.specifically about whether to microchip all dogs? There is also a
:46:22. > :46:27.case of closing the loophole, which would mean you would be prosecuted
:46:27. > :46:36.if you... Attack someone on public land. Do you support that changed -
:46:36. > :46:42.- if your dog attacks someone on public land. Yes, expanding the law
:46:42. > :46:46.to include private property is good. But the RSPCA was calling for
:46:46. > :46:53.action to prevent dog bites from happening. All the property thing
:46:53. > :46:58.will do well be to react after one of the RSPCA inspectors has been
:46:58. > :47:06.bitten. But it will not prevent these things happening in the first
:47:06. > :47:09.place. The RSPCA wanted a holistic approach to this, to have dog
:47:09. > :47:14.licensing or at least a centralised system where we could link the
:47:14. > :47:18.owner with its dog, and if they were not behaving properly, because
:47:18. > :47:22.this is more about owners than dogs, to crack down on them. At the
:47:23. > :47:28.moment, we have the same that we have had before. The RSPCA believes
:47:28. > :47:32.that we have had six deaths in the last five years. We have not had
:47:32. > :47:35.the death of a child, fortunately, for some time. I'm afraid that if
:47:35. > :47:40.the government are trying to reverse the process of an increase
:47:40. > :47:46.in dog bites and an increase in illegal dogs, this will not do it.
:47:46. > :47:50.Do you think the problem will get worse? The number of attacks by
:47:50. > :47:59.dangerous Dogs has increased. have a 3% increase of dog bites
:47:59. > :48:02.each year. The number of illegal dogs taken off the streets
:48:02. > :48:07.increased to fold over a 12 year period. The RSPCA believes there is
:48:07. > :48:11.little to prevent this the Kerrin in the future. This will fail
:48:11. > :48:14.responsible dog owners, and it will also fail the general public. In
:48:14. > :48:20.the future, we could see more incidents of children and adults
:48:20. > :48:25.been bitten by dogs and also dogs not been taken off the street and
:48:25. > :48:28.people not behaving responsibly. A resounding no to those proposals,
:48:28. > :48:34.because it will fail the general public and fail law-abiding dog
:48:34. > :48:39.owners. Sounds like a waste of time? It is worth discussing,
:48:39. > :48:42.because this is about protecting the public. The majority of blood
:48:42. > :48:46.donors are very responsible, so we are talking about a minority.
:48:46. > :48:53.if you look at the figures, the number of people attacked by
:48:53. > :48:56.dangerous dogs has doubled in the last 13 years. It was one of the
:48:56. > :49:03.first issues that a constituent of came to me about when I became an
:49:03. > :49:08.MP. Something does need to be done. These proposals, like the
:49:08. > :49:14.microchipping, which can be done at a low-cost, are worth looking at.
:49:14. > :49:18.But we have heard that it will not work. 54% have already had their...
:49:18. > :49:26.Microchipped. Those are just the responsible ones. So what do you do
:49:26. > :49:34.about those owners? It is a good proposal in that you microchip
:49:34. > :49:40.every puppy. But what about the... That are dangerous now? It is like
:49:40. > :49:46.having something in Tesco that goes bleep. But not everyone is
:49:46. > :49:52.responsible. It will be years before you can say that every dog
:49:52. > :49:57.will have been microchipped. Who is going to object in this
:49:57. > :50:01.consultation to having microchipping? People who are not
:50:01. > :50:07.responsible dog owners. But the point is that it will not work.
:50:07. > :50:11.think it will. We do not need to consult about it again. They waited
:50:11. > :50:16.two years to respond to the consultation. We should just round
:50:16. > :50:19.that one through. Do you think microchipping is a good idea?
:50:19. > :50:23.think it is a good idea, and they are right to phase it in with
:50:23. > :50:29.puppies, but they should have given more power to police and councils
:50:29. > :50:32.to tackle dangerous dogs. That is one of the proposals, to give the
:50:32. > :50:39.police more power to seize animals while they decide whether they
:50:39. > :50:42.should be destroyed. The RSPCA could have done things to tackle
:50:42. > :50:46.dangerous owners at the moment who do not take proper measures to
:50:46. > :50:50.control their dogs. What can you do firstly about the dog owners who
:50:50. > :50:59.will not have their dog microchipped and will not get a
:50:59. > :51:05.licence? We put forward specific proposals around dealing with dogs,
:51:05. > :51:09.which was supported by the RSPCA. The Government should have listened.
:51:09. > :51:12.You said it was one of the things that make the first things a
:51:12. > :51:17.constituent said to you. Do you think more money should have been
:51:17. > :51:24.spent on this to give police and community is the power to clamp
:51:24. > :51:27.down on dangerous or banned breeds? It is not just about money. But in
:51:27. > :51:32.local communities, there is certainly more that could be done
:51:32. > :51:38.to help people work together to identify the irresponsible owners
:51:38. > :51:43.and get prosecutions happening. Wright, David Cameron told us today
:51:43. > :51:46.that he is at the kitchen table at 5:45am every morning going through
:51:46. > :51:52.his paperwork. Life at the top is clearly a demanding and stressful
:51:52. > :51:55.business, but what about ordinary MPs? Like you three? And politics
:51:55. > :51:59.get too stressful? And is there a danger that too much stress caused
:51:59. > :52:04.them to fail to take decisions probably? Joining me now from
:52:04. > :52:09.Salford is Dr Ashley Weinberg. What evidence do you have that being an
:52:09. > :52:15.ordinary MP is stressful? Over the last 20 years, I'm afraid it has
:52:15. > :52:19.been one of my sad hobbies to research into this topic. I am
:52:19. > :52:23.grateful to hundreds of MPs both here and abroad who have filled in
:52:23. > :52:31.questionnaires asking about their experiences of their working lives
:52:31. > :52:35.as politicians, but also symptoms of psychological strain. And has
:52:35. > :52:38.there been anything out of the ordinary? Being an MP is just one
:52:38. > :52:43.of many stressful jobs. Is it something the MPs should be worried
:52:43. > :52:47.about all that we should be surprised about? There are two
:52:47. > :52:52.things to consider. As you say, everyone who is trying to work
:52:52. > :52:55.probably does a job that contains some level of stress. When it comes
:52:56. > :52:59.to politicians and certain other jobs, where decisions can carry
:52:59. > :53:02.very high stakes, we should be vigilant about how well they are
:53:02. > :53:08.functioning and whether they need extra support to carry out their
:53:08. > :53:16.duties. What should they have? Should they be going to see a
:53:16. > :53:21.counsellor regular -- regularly? Cronje, the UK parliament is very
:53:21. > :53:25.well provided for. It does have an occupational health service that
:53:25. > :53:30.MPs can access. People dared to an excellent job of screening as many
:53:30. > :53:33.MPs as they can in a given year, but the uptake is about 40% of MPs
:53:34. > :53:38.to go for a regular mental and physical health check. If all MPs
:53:38. > :53:41.did that, they could at least be certain that things are going well
:53:41. > :53:49.for them. And if there are psychological or physical needs
:53:49. > :53:53.they have, they could be addressed. What are the classic signs? Of
:53:53. > :53:57.those who answered your survey, what are the signs of stress?
:53:57. > :54:02.for all of us, problems with sleeping, increased irritability, a
:54:02. > :54:06.tendency to worry about things and losing confidence in yourself as a
:54:06. > :54:11.person or your ability to make decisions. Do you think the job
:54:11. > :54:15.should have a health warning on it? Some of my research seems to show
:54:15. > :54:21.that for new MPs, there is an unexpected hit from adjusting to
:54:21. > :54:24.the job in the first year, as there would be in many jobs. But there
:54:24. > :54:29.are particular strains on family life that being awake in Parliament
:54:29. > :54:34.can bring. We could do more to alert you MPs and prospective
:54:34. > :54:40.candidates to what they might be coming into.
:54:40. > :54:45.Let me come to you. Not that I want to belittle this, but do you
:54:45. > :54:50.recognise any of those signs in terms of how stressful your job is?
:54:50. > :54:54.Most of us probably find our job stressful. I find being a parent
:54:54. > :54:59.stressful at times and being away from home can be stressful. But in
:54:59. > :55:05.many ways, we are fortunate. We are incredibly well paid at over
:55:05. > :55:09.�65,000. We have a fairly good job security. Compared with lots of my
:55:09. > :55:13.constituents who are struggling in unemployment to make ends meet, our
:55:13. > :55:19.stresses are not bad. Everybody needs access to support, whatever
:55:19. > :55:23.job they do. A considerate employer would provide that. Do you think
:55:23. > :55:28.MPs should be regularly screened for psychological strain, bearing
:55:28. > :55:36.in mind that big decisions are being made? I am not sure about
:55:36. > :55:42.screening. I did not know about the occupational health service. I did
:55:42. > :55:47.know you could go to someone. staff probably need that more! But
:55:47. > :55:50.we are similar to every small business. We are small businesses
:55:50. > :55:55.in ourselves. We are meant to look after ourselves to a certain degree.
:55:55. > :56:00.If I felt stressed, would have no hesitation in talking to somebody
:56:00. > :56:05.about it. I don't, but then I am older. And a woman. Is it easier
:56:05. > :56:07.for you as women, if you were having problems, to speak to
:56:07. > :56:12.someone in the House of Commons, than for some of your male
:56:12. > :56:16.colleagues? Not necessarily. Nowadays, lots of people go for
:56:16. > :56:20.counselling and support. It does not matter about gender. But the
:56:21. > :56:26.public expectation of an MP's role has increased and the workload has
:56:26. > :56:32.increased. With e-mail and all the different social media that are out
:56:32. > :56:36.there, there is a lot of work. Our staff need a lot of support as well,
:56:36. > :56:40.because they do a lot of work and it is stressful for them as well.
:56:40. > :56:44.What about closing the bars in the House of Commons? George Galloway
:56:44. > :56:51.said that might help, if MPs did not drink. I am not saying that you
:56:51. > :56:55.do, but do you think it is a bad combination? I think it is
:56:55. > :56:59.important that people have mechanisms for coping with stress.
:56:59. > :57:03.Alcohol is probably not unadvisable one. People do occasionally need to
:57:03. > :57:11.get away from politics and do things that help you de-stress. I
:57:11. > :57:14.enjoy going for a run or hanging out with my family. Are you
:57:14. > :57:19.surprised that research shows that the new MPs particularly, the
:57:19. > :57:23.elevated levels of psychological strain are showing even a year on?
:57:23. > :57:28.Maybe it is particularly in that first year. Is it difficult to
:57:28. > :57:31.adapt? Anybody starting a new job would find it stressful,
:57:31. > :57:39.particularly when it involves a lot of travelling and being away from
:57:39. > :57:42.home. That is not surprising. But it is important that everybody has
:57:42. > :57:45.access to mental health services, and that it is not stigmatised.
:57:45. > :57:50.it is. Everybody talks about a macho culture, and Eric Joyce
:57:50. > :57:56.admitted that he was stressed. He had a stressful personal life that
:57:56. > :58:01.had led to it. We'll deal with things in different ways. It is
:58:01. > :58:05.about recognising your limitations and being upfront about those. As a
:58:05. > :58:11.liberal, I would talk to my whips. But is probably not the same with
:58:11. > :58:20.every party. My whips are really nice. We are strange. But I would
:58:20. > :58:25.have no hesitation in speaking to them. They are very open. But I
:58:25. > :58:31.know this is just extraordinary. But MPs are not necessarily in
:58:31. > :58:37.control of your own working hours. That is something you need to adapt
:58:37. > :58:41.to. I would change working hours to make them more professional. I
:58:41. > :58:44.worked long hours in business, but I was more in control of the hours
:58:44. > :58:51.are worked. I would change them so that people could make choices. It