23/04/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. More confusion over

the attempts to extradite radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada. What did

officials from the European Court of Human Rights tell the Home

Office? We have the latest. Lord Young Ladies, make way for

mainly elected senators. -- Lords and ladies. That his recommendation

of a cross-party group, meant to find a consensus, but it has kicked

off an almighty row. They are two arrogant posh boys who

show no remorse, contrition and no passion to understand the rest of

us. Who could that Conservative MP possibly be talking about? Why is

class so divisive in politics? Every dog needs to be microchipped,

but will this clamp down on dangerous dogs be any more

successful than the last? All that in the next hour, and with

us for the programme is the leader of the House of Lords, Lord

Strathclyde. Welcome. This afternoon there is more confusion

about the Home Office's handling of the attempt to extradite Muslim

cleric Abu Qatada. He was arrested on Tuesday last week because the

Home Office believed the deadline to appeal against a ruling from the

European Court of Human Rights had passed on Monday night. Abu

Qatada's lawyers subsequently lodged an appeal with the court

that they believed to be the Tuesday night deadline. Robin Brant

joins us now. Can you clear up for us, according to the Prime Minister,

that there were assurances to MPs that the deadline was Monday night?

Is that what he said? What is clear this afternoon is that the Prime

Minister's version of the advice sought by the Government and then

given by the court is at odds with the Home Office. The Home Office

has now not been able to can curb some of the statements made by the

Prime Minister this morning. -- can. He said twice that assurances were

received on this specific date, Monday night. This is exactly how

the conversation unfolded on the Today programme this morning.

Home Office is working on the basis of the deadline being Monday night.

I am answering you. That was something that they had checked

with the court. The other question is did they ask the court. When the

deadline was, and the answer to that is yes. And did they tell you?

I discussed this issue with the Home Secretary and she set out the

position. Absolutely. So what did they tell you in answer to that

question? The case was this, that the Home Office believed, and

checked during the process, that the date expired. We know what the

Home Office believed but the question is what the Court told the

Home Office. You say that Theresa May asked that question, so what

were they told? They were told throughout that the deadline

expired on the Monday night. There are two key parts do that exchange.

The Prime Minister pushed on what home Office officials asked and

what they got back in return. When asked if they asked about the

specifics, he said yes, absolutely, and then moved on quickly. I put

that to the Home Office and a classic spokesperson line came back

to me. They were unable to agree with both those statements. I was

told that if the Prime Minister says it, then it must be correct.

But the Home Office cannot agree with those statements made by the

Prime Minister. The confusion surrounding Abu Qatada continues.

If they cannot agree with what the Prime Minister says, in other words

they cannot tell you what they were told by there European Court, does

that mean that the Prime Minister was wrong and he had not been

briefed properly? Does it mean the Home Office is in a mess about what

it was told and it is trying to cover it up? Look back to Theresa

May and her statement on Thursday. She was asked the same question

repeatedly by Labour MPs, what was asked and what was given back? She

asserted that the evening of the 16th was the deadline. She said

they had consulted the court repeatedly and were working from

that basis. That is something that David Cameron and Teresa may have

spoken about, working from that basis. -- Theresa May. The Prime

Minister may have got into a bit of a mess this morning. Tomorrow, I

understand that Yvette Cooper and the Labour Party will be pushing

the Home Secretary to produce the evidence, which apparently the

Prime Minister says is there, about those assurances from the court.

This is not going away. Lord Strathclyde, fairly detailed

conversations about these deadlines are being had. But just listening

to that again, it do you think the Home Office has clocked up? I don't

think so. I don't think the Home Secretary would have made a

statement without being absolutely clear that the advice that she was

receiving from other departments was absolutely correct. And she

told Parliament that as far as they were concerned, the deadline was

Monday night. And that is right that it should be Monday night,

three months from the original date. So the Government was correct and

has confirmed again that it was correct, and Monday night was the

date that they believed. And you are convinced that that was what

the Court told Home Office officials, who rang them to check

that? If that is the case, why can't the Home Office agree with

what the Prime Minister said? by sitting here and imagining that

the Home Secretary picked up the telephone and asked if it was the

date. I don't think it works like that. No, but an official would

have asked. So they say it was all it was then? There will have been a

process, a process of discussion between the Home Office, lawyers

and the court. They will have it that the President, decided on the

Monday night, and they will have decided on the Monday night on a

clear basis. -- they will have lurked at the precedent. Over the

next few weeks we will have to see what comes out of the court case.

We are very convinced that the decision that the Home Secretary

made on the Monday night was correct. And based on the advice

coming from the European Court of Human Rights? On that basis, Abu

Qatada's lawyers missed the deadline and that appeal will be

thrown out. That is what you expect? It looks like that and that

is what we expect. We don't think that Abu Qatada has any right to be

in this country at all. That, we have heard that, and many people

agree with you across the political spectrum. But it is whether or not

he has the right to appeal and it is an important issue, this

deadline. Theresa May appears before the Home Affairs Select

Committee tomorrow, and if she cannot confirm what has happened,

it will she be under pressure with a job? Not at all. She did not make

this decision lightly. She did not make a parliamentary statement

without being clear about the advice that she received. I am sure

she would not have made that statement unless she was totally

confident that what she was saying was correct. Would it not have been

better to wait one day? They would only have waited the day if there

was any doubt and she was clear and so they made that decision.

Now on to Lords reform. A joint committee of peers and MPs have

published a long awaited report on a draft bill for the reform of the

House of Lords. The joint committee has called for an 80% elected upper

house where members serve non- renewable 15 year terms. They would

get paid a salary, rather than the existing attendance allowances.

Some members of the committee have issued a separate dissenting report.

They say that the Government has ducked the key issue of what powers

the newly elected chamber would have. There is one recommendation

from the main report that will prove controversial, to put any

Lords reform proposals to a referendum. The Prime Minister said

he did not see a compelling case for a referendum but did not rule

one out. In contrast, Nick Clegg said this on Sunday Politics: Why

should we spend a great deal of money, millions of pounds of

taxpayers' money, asking the British people a question that most

people frankly don't worry about and on which there is consensus

between three main parties? Literally, all three main parties,

Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, having a commitment

to Lords reform. To sub-contract to the British people an issue that

the politicians at Westminster just cannot deal with, I think that is

asking a lot of the British people when last year we did have a

referendum but that was when there was stark difference of opinion

between the political parties. Joining me now is Nadine de Haar,

thank you for coming on the programme. -- Nadhim Zahawi. All of

the political parties agreed that there should be reformed to the

House of Lords. Let's take a step back and look at what the parties

have said. In our manifesto said we would look towards a consensus. The

Prime Minister has said they would prefer consensus. You can see from

the evidence that there is no consensus, either in the House or

in the country. There is consensus for reform, isn't there? Absolutely

right. I am all for reform and not abolition. Let me just explain that

for a second. What worries me is the primacy of the Commons. The

reason it worries me is because the public have a very clear

understanding at the moment that each party puts forward a manifesto,

and then you vote for MPs into the Commons, and allow them to

legislate and deliver their manifesto. The idea of setting up a

second chamber that is elected, full of politicians, diluting that

primacy, taking that away, creating possible gridlock between the two

chambers, if you take the example of dealing with the economy, the

Chancellor would not have been able to convince the markets that he

could deliver an emergency budget if there was any doubt whatsoever

that a second chamber could get in the wave and stop him delivering

that in the first place. So that issue was not dealt within this

committee. It goes to the heart of the problem. I think we all need to

step back and take the Prime Minister's recommendation on board,

that the three parties must work together to get a consensus in

place before we go forward. So you could argue that nothing is going

to happen. Are you saying that he would prefer to stick with the

status quo of an unelected House? 800 Lords and ladies, or so, he

will carry on doing what they are doing, unaccountably? I am not.

Wheeler to what David Steel recommended. -- we should look to

what David still recommended, cutting the size of it. It is too

big. Taking away political patronage, and appoint an

independent committee, that actually appoints to the House of

Lords. You get rid of those that have committed crimes in the way

that we do in the Commons, and you make sure that the terms are

limited. Then you get rid of the hereditaries. We can do all of that

right now without getting bogged down in whether we should have an

elected second chamber and abolish the House of Lords. Should there be

a referendum on this issue? Yes or no? I think if there is going to be

a referendum, we should put it in with the general election so we

does not cost too much. I will fight my corner in a referendum but

I don't think the nation would thank us on this. We did some

polling on this. Only 6% think this is a priority for the Government.

Thank you very much. Lord Strathclyde is still with us. He

wants to get rid of heredity is, doesn't he? They were got rid of 12

years ago, at so no problem. I sit as a heredity, but I am only here

because I was elected by my peers. I am being cheeky, thank you. Do

you think this should be a legislative priority for the

Government? This debate has been rumbling on for so long, some

people say over 100 years. Over the last 10 years, when hereditary

peers were kicked out, the Labour Party said we should look towards a

more elected House. This is the endgame of that debate. The Prime

Minister should be the first to be congratulated for being the first

minister to come forward with a rational reform for the second

chamber. But there is division across the board. We have

alternative reforms. That is not new. There has always been division.

In a way that was part of what the Prime Minister was saying this

morning and the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday. There are

divisions within the parties, rather than between the parties.

Let's see if we can create a consensus over the Government bill,

which we can now look at and right over the next few months, and

presented to Parliament and then take the view. The House of Commons

will need to take a view as to how they should proceed. Many people

will say that the strength of the House of Lords is that it uses its

expertise to hold the Government to account. Do you agree with that?

Very much so. The House of Lords as a very good job. But it does it

without having the authority of the people, without election. My

argument is that in the 21st century, a house of Parliament

should have the authority of the people. And if it did, it would

behave more assertively, more aggressively. You are right to

point that out. But that might create better Lords. But how will

you protect that expertise that comes from people, from

crossbenchers, and also from former Cabinet ministers and so on? How it

would you protect that if elected plans go ahead? There is no reason

why you cannot elect people with expertise and knowledge. There are

plenty in the House of Commons. But you are right that you would lose

something from House of Lords which is very special. People who would

not naturally stand for election, which is why the Government wants

to propose that 20% of the House should be reserved for those people.

You would still be halving the number, quite significantly

reducing the number. If that is its greatest strength, why get rid of

it? We would still maintain that element, but I think the House of

Lords would be strengthened by being directly elected. How?

Because it would act on the authority of the people. Yes, that

could ultimately lead to clashes between the houses, but debate is

not a bad thing for improving law over time. But there is debate

going on now. We have had a lot of debate and scrutiny from the House

of Lords in its current form on important bits of legislation. The

welfare bill, the health bill. Why One of the difficult issues for

reform in the House of Lords is doing the job it has been asked to

do, revising and scrutiny, extremely well. Reformers like me

believe there is scope for a smaller second chamber, directly

elected, with the authority of the people. That would give the

decisions it makes greater weight when it went back to the House of

Commons. In your heart of hearts, you are a loyal member of the

government and you will defend these proposals are, but in your

heart of hearts, do you really think a chamber that could end up

being composed of party hacks who fail to become an MP, would they be

more effective at holding the government to a cat than a chamber

filled with experts? You are characterising elections as just

being a party hacks and you are characterising the House of Lords

as something else. So do you truly believe that that elected way is

the best way? It would be a very different house. It would be a more

assertive house. It would hold the government to account better and it

would challenge decisions by the House of Commons. What about

legislative deadlock? That is a key concern. It would be dreadful.

of the examples about an emergency Budget would not happen because the

position of the House of Commons is protected. But there are other key

issues of flagship plans that would be prevented under your scheme.

of the problems we face is that the House of Commons is not strong

enough. It does not stand up to governments as much as it could.

This would be a way of exerting authority from the second chamber.

That is why I have been in favour of an elected House for a long time.

What about a referendum on the issue? That seems to be gaining

momentum. It is, and yet at the general election all three main

parties had similar commitments to reform, based largely on Jack

Straw's White Paper of 2008. The trouble with referendums is that

they are expensive and complicated unless you have very clear

questions. What with the question be? I am not proposing a referendum.

I think we can do this perfectly easily within Parliament. It is not

as simple as saying people who go to the second chamber should be

elected. That is a major constitutional change, to go from

an unelected House to an elected House. It will change not only the

way the upper chamber looks, but it will change its role. It will be

able to challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. In 1999, when

we created an appointed chamber, the then leader of the Lords said

almost what I am saying, that the house would become more assertive

and effective. There was no question of having a referendum

then. So why are the Labour Party asking for one now? But the prime

minister has not ruled it out. The door has been left ajar for a

referendum. Today, we are seeing the publication of a substantial

report by the Joint Committee of both houses. Within it is a

referendum. It is right that the Government should take it seriously

and read the report and look at the question of a referendum.

dismiss it? Maybe, maybe not. Let's see what the report is saying. Do

the parties have a view as to the nature of a referendum? What about

the threats and warnings from Conservative MPs? We have already

had one or two parliamentary aides saying it could be a resignation

issue. I regret that. But I accept that not just over the last ten

weeks, but over the last 120 years, the Conservative Party has never

taken a united view over House of Lords reform, which is why the

Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister accept that there needs to

be consensus across the parties. Will today's report be part of

creating that consensus? That remains to be seen. If it gets

through the Commons, how will you get it through the Lords? With

difficulty. And under no illusions that in the House of Lords, there

is great antipathy towards this reform for two reasons. The first

is about the primacy of the House of Commons. It will not do anything

to affect the relationship between the government and the House of

Commons. Secondly, they think they do a good job and there are people

of ability can kill within the House of Lords, and an election

would change that. It is not a few I share. Will it really happen?

There is more chance of it happening over the last 18 months

than there has been over the last 100 years, so yes. We might have to

get you back on when we see how this pans out. And what about you?

Will your name be on the ballot paper? I think if we get to an

elected House, I would consider it very strongly. I would like to be

an elected member of the chamber. I am not sure my colleagues in the

House of Commons would appreciate that.

Now, we had further insights this morning into the prime minister's

lifestyle in the Downing Street flat above Number 11. He told the

Today programme of tea has regular "date nights" with his wife as well

as the "kitchen suppers" we have heard so much about. But how good

are the residents of Downing Street at persuading us that they are just

ordinary blokes? The A R which, went to public

school, Oxbridge, and despite that line that it is not where you came

from but where you are going that matters, they are seen as posh. It

is perhaps unfair, but only in the sense that to many people, MPs seem

posh, not people like us. Since the financial crash, and all of us

having to tighten our belts, we have become conscious of what

people have, where it came from and, more trickily, or whether they

deserve it. That means that in politics, being posh has suddenly

become a problem. Everyone is struggling at the moment. Also, we

have just had a cut in taxes for millionaires. When you have a

government which has so many millionaires in it, people are

bound to smell a bit of a rat. Having said that, it is Parliament.

Parliament should look like Britain. It doesn't. We have no Old Etonians

on our front bench, but as a body politic, we have all gone backwards

in terms of working-class representation. That should concern

everybody. But the truth is that right now, it is concerning the

right more than anyone, because posh is just one of the problems

they have with the men at the top. If you are the sort of person to

whom our Prime Minister is a raging Liberal, raging quasi left the

Liberal, then the plushness gives you a good stick to beat him with.

-- the poshness. They see the ruling group from Notting Hill as

being sort of liberal sons of Blair, and they hate it. There is a very

tight, narrow clique of a certain group of people. And they act as a

barrier and prevent Cameron and Osborne and others from really

understanding what is happening in the rest of the country. And are

they still two posh boys who don't know the price of milk in your

opinion? Unfortunately, I think that not only are Cameron and

Osborne two posh boys who don't know the price of milk, but they

are two arrogant, posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition and

no passion to want to understand the lives of others. That is there

real crime. Other Conservative backbenchers might not dare say the

same, but they certainly are concerned that this is or may

become a widely held view. You might think all of this is a

problem for our guest, Lord Strathclyde, with his estates and

things like that. But he is not really posh. I mean, he is only a

second baron, and he certainly didn't go to Eton.

Are you relieved about that? Are best of the day is still here. And

we are joined by the political commentator Ian Martin. Do you

consider yourself posh, Tom Strathclyde? I do not think this

argument should be about how I regard myself. I hope people regard

me as authentic. I say what I think. We left behind a long time ago that

we judge people on how they speak, where they went to school, the kind

of homes they live in. I am what I am. But it seems that Conservative

MPs, we heard Nadine Dorries say that David Cameron and George

Osborne are two posh boys who don't know the price of milk. That is

fairly crocheting. I am sure they do. Do they have to know the price

of milk? I do not think they should, just as a matter of form, know the

price of milk. Being in charge is about being authentic, being real,

about where you are from and what you do and acting in the national

interest. That is what the Conservative Party has always been

best at. But her point and the point of a number of the new

Conservative MPs is that they don't relate to David Cameron and George

Osborne and can't relate to vast swathes of the public out there

because of their background and because they have not experienced

things, particularly in a recession, when everyone is struggling.

don't share that view. They are in touch with what is going on. Even

in the Cabinet, we have a cheap -- a chief whip who was a miner.

Nobody would call Eric Pickles Bosch. Side of Warsi, the chairman

of the party -- cider Warsi is the first Muslim. Why are people making

these attacks on their own leadership? People have to be wary

of attempting to play a game which is about proving who is more

working-class than thou and running the old Monty Python class about

trying to prove who is more working class. But there is a problem, and

the government struggles to articulate a message for the

aspirational classes in this country. And the Tories did not win

the election because they failed to convince a significant enough

number of the strivers that Thatcher was on their side. Tony

Blair, a public schoolboy, understood that he had to think his

way into those people's heads to win. So did Harold Macmillan. This

bunch don't seem to get that. They don't understand the importance of

the aspirational classes. What do you say to that? They are not like

Margaret Thatcher, who a lot of Tory MPs feel did that have that

connection with the aspirational classes. Let me give you just one

example. Look at the education policies of Michael Gove. He is

going to revolutionise educational opportunities for a whole

generation. And he has done that in the last two years simply by

battling with the establishment of the education bodies to provide

schools that will give that opportunity. Then why are other

people in the party attacking the leadership on this basis? They need

to attack the leadership on something, so why not the fact that

they went to Eton and Oxford and all that kind of stuff? So they

have an axe to grind? Maybe. That is part of what happens. Within the

Conservative Party, we as a Cabinet have to react to what is said, so

that we make sure people understand aspiration, growth and opportunity

for people to better themselves. giving a tax break to people who

who earned over �1 million a year, does that damage that credibility?

For this is absurd. Throughout the 13 years of Labour, they never had

a tax rate as high as 45 or 50% except for the last three weeks.

Sure, but Conservatives are seen as a leadership in which they are

willing to accept that by 2014, 5 million will play 40p tax. It is

becoming the new standard rate of tax. In 1957, Harold Macmillan

wrote to the then chairman of the Tory party and said, as I go round

the country, I keep hearing about something called the emerging

aspirational lower middle classes. Is it possible to find out who they

are, what they want and give it to them? I am suggesting that previous

prime ministers who have suffered a similar perception problem that

David Cameron and George Osborne suffer have had to work very hard

to counter it and win elections which, even from the point of view

of relentless self interest, they should be interested in this stuff.

It is baffling. It is the primary purpose of this government, the

Conservatives and Liberal Democrats together, to try and reduce the

budget deficit. We have an extraordinary economic situation.

Look at what is happening in other countries. We are getting it right

at by reducing the budget deficit, paying off the debt. But does

language like "kitchen suppers" and "we are all in this together" and

"filling up your jerry cans" - does that help? They are saying it

because it is true. You might as well say you have a kitchen supper.

We are all in it together. That does not mean everyone is equal,

but it is right to provide equality Says just over a week to go until

the Queen's Speech, where we will find out what legislation the

Government has planned. Meanwhile there is plenty going on in the

Westminster village. The Leveson Inquiry racemes today, and today

James Murdoch will be giving evidence followed by Rupert Murdoch

on Tuesday and Thursday. The Abu Qatada deportation row will be high

on home affairs select committee adjourned on Tuesday. Talks are

continuing today to avert a strike by its fuel tanker drivers, you

have until Tuesday to come to an agreement before a strike will beat

called. And the Chancellor will be hoping for growth in the economy

when the GDP figures are revealed on Wednesday. To discuss this we

can talk to the sun's political editor, Tom Newton-Dunn and Kate

Devlin from the Herald. -- The Sun. There have been comments about the

timing in terms of the deadline for Abu Qatada to put in an appeal. How

difficult is this for Theresa May, bearing in mind she appears before

the Home Affairs Select Committee tomorrow? I think this is very

difficult for Theresa May. This issue wasn't ever going to go away.

The Prime Minister seems to have opened the door to more questions

about what exactly her office knew and when. The Theresa May, part of

the problem is that this could always have happened. Abu Qatada

could always have lodged an appeal and it could have been accepted by

the court, even if it was judged to be late. The problem is that

everything that happens from now on will be seen as her fault, her

problem. Has the Prime Minister Major job more difficult? I think

he did, this morning, yes. -- made her a job more difficult? It is

emerging now that he might have gone a little bit too far by saying,

and very strongly saying, that the Court of Human Rights did confirm

to the Home Office what their understanding of the deadline was,

Monday rather than Tuesday. We have just come out of lobby which was 45

minutes, unbearably and painfully long, where the official spokesman

refused to back him up on that, which is always a bad sign. I think

we are into a tangential the shambles of the main shambles now.

And this will never go away so long as Abu Qatada is in Britain. It

will always be a problem for the Government and it will get worse

the moment the lawyers go to court, possibly this week, possibly

tomorrow, and ask for the man to be released. Habeas corpus. If Abu

Qatada is back on the streets, it becomes a massive problem again.

Let's look at Lords reform again. We seem to have had alternative

reports to the Joint Committee's report on 80%-20% elected-non-

elected. Do you think the case for the referendum will gain ground?

think the referendum is a very difficult question for the

coalition. The problem they have is if they do accept there should be a

referendum on this, it will increase the clamour for referendum

on an in or out decision on the EU. That is something that they want to

avoid. They have been able to... I mean, we are having referendums, on

independence in Scotland, but another national referendum would

cause serious problems for them, I think, and a serious demand for

another referendum on the EU. And I think they will resist that as hard

as they can. The Prime Minister left the door open slightly on that

issue as well. Conservative MPs are basically saying, some of them,

that they will resign over this issue if it goes ahead. Again, this

looks like it could be a total mess. It is already a total mess, I am

afraid. There are already two different reports coming from the

same joint committee this morning on what should happen. They cannot

even agree on what should happen themselves and they are supposed to

be the cross-party architects. Whether or not there is a

referendum will be a headache, but an even bigger headache is who will

win. The Lib Dems have put their flag in the sand and they won this

to happen. The Tories do not want this to happen and there can only

be one winner. It is another bout of collective lunacy from everybody

in Westminster. Why make this the one issue to fight and die in a

ditch over? Both parties have decided that this will be it, when

it is of zero interest to the vast majority of our readers, certainly,

and probably your viewers. On that note, thank you very much. I am

joined by three MPs, Lilian Greenwood from Labour, Tessa Munt

from the Liberal Democrats and Mary MacLeod from the Conservatives. Can

I start with you, Tessa Munt? It is a nightmare for the Liberal

Democrat if there is a referendum on this issue. I don't think there

needs to be a referendum, actually. All three of the main parties, in

fact all of the main parties, came into this Parliament knowing it was

in their manifesto. We have needed Lords reform for 100 years and it

has been trawling along and it has been shuffled sideways. We did not

have a referendum when we got rid of the hereditary peers. You have

got a referendum going on all over the place in terms of the mayoral

referendum. The referendum on the subject began when we all put it in

our manifesto, when we all said we were in favour of the House of

Lords reform. I don't think we need a referendum. That was the

manifesto. Our manifesto said there would be one. I think we have the

right to have a say on this. don't think so. Referendums of very

expensive. All three parties agree that we need change to the House of

Lords, so let's go and do it. Let's not faff about. Let's get the job

done. We don't need to wait 100 years. There are all sorts of other

things going on in Government, besides dealing with the deficit

which is very important, but don't stop everything else while we are

moving forward in that direction. What do you say to Tory MPs saying

this is such a big constitutional change that there should be a

referendum? Absolutely disagree. What do you want them to do? Shut

up. Sometimes people have to play the team game and do what your

manifesto said. Well, do what your manifesto said? Yes, there are

various opinions on this. I still think it is an important debate

because it was in the manifestos to cut the House of Lords and we need

to work together to make this happen. Given that it was in our

manifestos and given that if you pulled the country today, they

would say go with House of Lords reform and make it more democratic,

then we should go ahead. -- if you asked the country. What about the

idea that if there was a referendum it would cost a lot of money and of

course it could be lost? What is there to lose? We have got 70% of

our second House in the gift of three blokes. What is that? You do

need to have experts in the House of Lords, but actually this just

increases the level of patronage and it is not good enough. This is

a modern democracy that we live in and it should not be how much money

you have got. I don't see why we can't get the three parties working

together to find a solution for the House of Lords and make it really

positive, saying what can we do to make sure that Parliament is

accountable and democratic? And actually delivering the right thing

for the country. Aren't they doing a good job at the moment of

scrutinising the legislation? It is quite big, so why not cut the

numbers? There are more peers over the age of 90 than over the age of

50 and they mostly come from the South East and London. People

expect people making decisions for the country to be elected and

accountable. What about the fact that they are not elected? 59% said

they should be reformed, but everybody says that and nobody can

agree on what it should be and what should be done. Is it a priority?

don't think it is the top priority for people up there because they

are rightly worried about their jobs and the state of the economy

and rising unemployment. But the fact is we do need to tackle this

under-represented second chamber and we committed to it in our

manifestos so there does need to be action. What about the Abu Qatada

debate? We heard this thing about the deadline being passed. Do you

think Theresa May is in trouble? don't know. You should ask Mary

MacLeod. I don't think so. I think they have followed to process. They

have definitely made much more progress than the last Government

did to get him out of the country. Our objective has been clear from

the start. We want him out of the country and we are doing everything

possible to do that. But to do it within the law. So they followed

the due process, there is no mess up, Labour are just making

mischief? Hardly. I think Theresa May has shown herself to be

incompetent on this issue. It is basic stuff. When I was dealing

with a criminal cases as a trade union official, the first thing you

find out is when the deadline is for an application. You just need

to know that. At one moment you are telling us to hurry up, and at the

next that we should take our time. But shouldn't it have been wiser to

wait a day rather than getting their negative headlines? The Home

Secretary thought that she had got that clarification, so that is for

her to discuss a internally. But I do think that we have made real

progress on this. I am convinced that he will be out of this country

in the months ahead, but we do have to follow due process, make sure it

is done properly. We do not want this coming back on us, where he is

the gets sent back or we have to pay compensation. -- either he gets

sent back. Let's do it properly. have you got your fingers crossed

that there will be positive news on growth? I always have my fingers

crossed to get positive news on growth. But do you think there will

be? We have done so much. There are lots of jobs out there. There is

lots of opportunity for young people to go and find jobs. There

is always more that we can be doing, but we are looking to get that

Investment to encourage growth and trade elsewhere. Danny Alexander

has been making a speech to the Treasury to say that he expects

departments to keep in reserve another 5%. Do you support the fact

that those departments just have to make more cuts to do that? We have

to look at how departments spend money. If you take it down to a

local level... But these are cuts. He is asking people to keep money

in reserve. Not spend. Why are, yes, but if you look at what happens at

a local level, by March, you will find every set of roadworks because

everybody is trying to spend money at the end of their budget. It

would be better to take a sensible view about how people spend their

budgets and allocate them, and if it can be held for emergencies...

Can it? Yes, it can. You think that governments are sitting on money

despite the past seven years? Department of Health has just saved

goodness knows how many. -- how much. Yes, by cutting nurses.

they found that money. What did you say? We have invested more in

health service, so that is ridiculous. I came from the

business world, and every year we look at cutting and reducing...

Even when there has been 20% cuts? There is always room for

improvement. Look at what is happening to the economy as a

result of the cuts that you have made. Let us finish. The economy

has been flat lining. We left you an economy growing at 2.1% and this

year the best it will achieve is less than 1%. Not 0.7% is predicted.

There are more jobs in the private sector. We have 1 million young

people unemployed, the highest rate since 1995. Corporation tax is good.

There has been a 0.3% contraction in the last figures, so one could

say those cuts have not led to growth. We have to look at these

cuts and see where we can look at the general economic climate and

see where we can carry on making progress. We are in difficult

economic times. That was the mess that we were left. That was what we

were left by the last Labour Government. They destroyed this

country. A growing employment -- economy, and more employment, that

is what we left you. We need to look at what we can adjust and

change as times go on. So there should be adjustments and changes?

Not an overall plan. And to support the announcement that there would

have to be �10 billion of further welfare cuts? Liberal Democrats are

behind that? The welfare cuts are in essence sensible. There are

things that I do not agree with myself, but we have to look at the

special cases, so that the people that are most hard-hit our help.

And then we can make changes. Nothing is so cut and dried that we

cannot reflect on the difficulties that people have.

The Government has outlined its plans to cut down on dangerous dogs

in England. The last attempt to legislate on this issue was in

1990s when specific breeds were banned, and it is widely believed

to have produced an ineffective law. Will what is announced today be any

I am joined by David Bowles of the RSPCA. The RSPCA believes this is a

wasted opportunity. It is 21 years since the Dangerous Dogs Act has

come into effect, which everybody acknowledges did not decrease dog

bites or the number of illegal dogs on the street. It is a huge problem.

Two years since the consultation finished, the Government have come

up with another consultation which will last for another two years.

The RSPCA believes this fails dog- owners and people who have

irresponsibly kept dog and it fails the public who will get bitten by

dogs. So you don't welcome it, obviously. But are you talking

specifically about whether to microchip all dogs? There is also a

case of closing the loophole, which would mean you would be prosecuted

if you... Attack someone on public land. Do you support that changed -

- if your dog attacks someone on public land. Yes, expanding the law

to include private property is good. But the RSPCA was calling for

action to prevent dog bites from happening. All the property thing

will do well be to react after one of the RSPCA inspectors has been

bitten. But it will not prevent these things happening in the first

place. The RSPCA wanted a holistic approach to this, to have dog

licensing or at least a centralised system where we could link the

owner with its dog, and if they were not behaving properly, because

this is more about owners than dogs, to crack down on them. At the

moment, we have the same that we have had before. The RSPCA believes

that we have had six deaths in the last five years. We have not had

the death of a child, fortunately, for some time. I'm afraid that if

the government are trying to reverse the process of an increase

in dog bites and an increase in illegal dogs, this will not do it.

Do you think the problem will get worse? The number of attacks by

dangerous Dogs has increased. have a 3% increase of dog bites

each year. The number of illegal dogs taken off the streets

increased to fold over a 12 year period. The RSPCA believes there is

little to prevent this the Kerrin in the future. This will fail

responsible dog owners, and it will also fail the general public. In

the future, we could see more incidents of children and adults

been bitten by dogs and also dogs not been taken off the street and

people not behaving responsibly. A resounding no to those proposals,

because it will fail the general public and fail law-abiding dog

owners. Sounds like a waste of time? It is worth discussing,

because this is about protecting the public. The majority of blood

donors are very responsible, so we are talking about a minority.

if you look at the figures, the number of people attacked by

dangerous dogs has doubled in the last 13 years. It was one of the

first issues that a constituent of came to me about when I became an

MP. Something does need to be done. These proposals, like the

microchipping, which can be done at a low-cost, are worth looking at.

But we have heard that it will not work. 54% have already had their...

Microchipped. Those are just the responsible ones. So what do you do

about those owners? It is a good proposal in that you microchip

every puppy. But what about the... That are dangerous now? It is like

having something in Tesco that goes bleep. But not everyone is

responsible. It will be years before you can say that every dog

will have been microchipped. Who is going to object in this

consultation to having microchipping? People who are not

responsible dog owners. But the point is that it will not work.

think it will. We do not need to consult about it again. They waited

two years to respond to the consultation. We should just round

that one through. Do you think microchipping is a good idea?

think it is a good idea, and they are right to phase it in with

puppies, but they should have given more power to police and councils

to tackle dangerous dogs. That is one of the proposals, to give the

police more power to seize animals while they decide whether they

should be destroyed. The RSPCA could have done things to tackle

dangerous owners at the moment who do not take proper measures to

control their dogs. What can you do firstly about the dog owners who

will not have their dog microchipped and will not get a

licence? We put forward specific proposals around dealing with dogs,

which was supported by the RSPCA. The Government should have listened.

You said it was one of the things that make the first things a

constituent said to you. Do you think more money should have been

spent on this to give police and community is the power to clamp

down on dangerous or banned breeds? It is not just about money. But in

local communities, there is certainly more that could be done

to help people work together to identify the irresponsible owners

and get prosecutions happening. Wright, David Cameron told us today

that he is at the kitchen table at 5:45am every morning going through

his paperwork. Life at the top is clearly a demanding and stressful

business, but what about ordinary MPs? Like you three? And politics

get too stressful? And is there a danger that too much stress caused

them to fail to take decisions probably? Joining me now from

Salford is Dr Ashley Weinberg. What evidence do you have that being an

ordinary MP is stressful? Over the last 20 years, I'm afraid it has

been one of my sad hobbies to research into this topic. I am

grateful to hundreds of MPs both here and abroad who have filled in

questionnaires asking about their experiences of their working lives

as politicians, but also symptoms of psychological strain. And has

there been anything out of the ordinary? Being an MP is just one

of many stressful jobs. Is it something the MPs should be worried

about all that we should be surprised about? There are two

things to consider. As you say, everyone who is trying to work

probably does a job that contains some level of stress. When it comes

to politicians and certain other jobs, where decisions can carry

very high stakes, we should be vigilant about how well they are

functioning and whether they need extra support to carry out their

duties. What should they have? Should they be going to see a

counsellor regular -- regularly? Cronje, the UK parliament is very

well provided for. It does have an occupational health service that

MPs can access. People dared to an excellent job of screening as many

MPs as they can in a given year, but the uptake is about 40% of MPs

to go for a regular mental and physical health check. If all MPs

did that, they could at least be certain that things are going well

for them. And if there are psychological or physical needs

they have, they could be addressed. What are the classic signs? Of

those who answered your survey, what are the signs of stress?

for all of us, problems with sleeping, increased irritability, a

tendency to worry about things and losing confidence in yourself as a

person or your ability to make decisions. Do you think the job

should have a health warning on it? Some of my research seems to show

that for new MPs, there is an unexpected hit from adjusting to

the job in the first year, as there would be in many jobs. But there

are particular strains on family life that being awake in Parliament

can bring. We could do more to alert you MPs and prospective

candidates to what they might be coming into.

Let me come to you. Not that I want to belittle this, but do you

recognise any of those signs in terms of how stressful your job is?

Most of us probably find our job stressful. I find being a parent

stressful at times and being away from home can be stressful. But in

many ways, we are fortunate. We are incredibly well paid at over

�65,000. We have a fairly good job security. Compared with lots of my

constituents who are struggling in unemployment to make ends meet, our

stresses are not bad. Everybody needs access to support, whatever

job they do. A considerate employer would provide that. Do you think

MPs should be regularly screened for psychological strain, bearing

in mind that big decisions are being made? I am not sure about

screening. I did not know about the occupational health service. I did

know you could go to someone. staff probably need that more! But

we are similar to every small business. We are small businesses

in ourselves. We are meant to look after ourselves to a certain degree.

If I felt stressed, would have no hesitation in talking to somebody

about it. I don't, but then I am older. And a woman. Is it easier

for you as women, if you were having problems, to speak to

someone in the House of Commons, than for some of your male

colleagues? Not necessarily. Nowadays, lots of people go for

counselling and support. It does not matter about gender. But the

public expectation of an MP's role has increased and the workload has

increased. With e-mail and all the different social media that are out

there, there is a lot of work. Our staff need a lot of support as well,

because they do a lot of work and it is stressful for them as well.

What about closing the bars in the House of Commons? George Galloway

said that might help, if MPs did not drink. I am not saying that you

do, but do you think it is a bad combination? I think it is

important that people have mechanisms for coping with stress.

Alcohol is probably not unadvisable one. People do occasionally need to

get away from politics and do things that help you de-stress. I

enjoy going for a run or hanging out with my family. Are you

surprised that research shows that the new MPs particularly, the

elevated levels of psychological strain are showing even a year on?

Maybe it is particularly in that first year. Is it difficult to

adapt? Anybody starting a new job would find it stressful,

particularly when it involves a lot of travelling and being away from

home. That is not surprising. But it is important that everybody has

access to mental health services, and that it is not stigmatised.

it is. Everybody talks about a macho culture, and Eric Joyce

admitted that he was stressed. He had a stressful personal life that

had led to it. We'll deal with things in different ways. It is

about recognising your limitations and being upfront about those. As a

liberal, I would talk to my whips. But is probably not the same with

every party. My whips are really nice. We are strange. But I would

have no hesitation in speaking to them. They are very open. But I

know this is just extraordinary. But MPs are not necessarily in

control of your own working hours. That is something you need to adapt

to. I would change working hours to make them more professional. I

worked long hours in business, but I was more in control of the hours

are worked. I would change them so that people could make choices. It