:00:39. > :00:42.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. On the show today:
:00:42. > :00:45.Fancy being a teacher? The Government's about to make it that
:00:45. > :00:52.little bit harder by demanding aspiring teachers take a test in
:00:52. > :00:55.maths and English before they start training.
:00:55. > :00:58.After the good economic news yesterday, Tory MPs are warning of
:00:58. > :01:00.a backlash against cuts to child benefit due in January. We'll talk
:01:00. > :01:03.to one of them. Should the European Parliament stop
:01:03. > :01:08.its monthly trek from Brussels to Strasbourg? We'll report on the
:01:08. > :01:11.latest campaign by MEPs to keep the Parliament in one place.
:01:11. > :01:17.And it's the great Government sell- off, as Francis Maude announced the
:01:17. > :01:27.sale of Admiralty Arch in central London for �60 million. But what
:01:27. > :01:32.
:01:32. > :01:35.will become of it? We'll reveal all All that in the next hour, and with
:01:35. > :01:42.me for the first half hour today, we've got some top talent from
:01:42. > :01:46.Fleet Street. They're the new Sonny and Cher of daytime TV - it's Anne
:01:46. > :01:51.McElvoy of the Economist and Philip Collins of the Times. Don't worry,
:01:51. > :01:54.you won't have to sing. Let's start with the news this
:01:54. > :01:56.morning that people who want to become teachers will face tougher
:01:56. > :02:02.tests in English, maths and reasoning before they start their
:02:02. > :02:06.training. The Government says it wants tests to be more rigorous to
:02:06. > :02:16.raise the quality and standing of teaching. Charlie Taylor is the
:02:16. > :02:17.
:02:17. > :02:21.chief executive of the Teaching When you look at the most
:02:22. > :02:25.successful education systems across the world, Finland, South Korea,
:02:25. > :02:30.Singapore, they set the bar very high in terms of the people they
:02:30. > :02:35.allow into teaching and teaching is a high-status job. What these tests
:02:35. > :02:38.do is to say, we want to get the very best people into teaching.
:02:38. > :02:42.And we've been joined by Alice Robinson from the Association of
:02:42. > :02:47.Teachers and Lecturers. You must welcome this? I think all teachers
:02:47. > :02:51.will welcome anything that will help raise standards. I'm not sure
:02:51. > :02:58.tests of these nature will achieve that. Because they will be too
:02:58. > :03:05.simple? No. There are a huge range of issues over becoming a graduate,
:03:05. > :03:08.people have demonstrated that they have GCSEs, they've then completed
:03:08. > :03:12.their degree. I think the Government, one of the things they
:03:12. > :03:17.said they would do was reduce bureaucracy. They've now introduced
:03:17. > :03:22.another level of assessment. They have demonstrated they don't trust
:03:22. > :03:26.the GCSE results, they don't trust A-level results, and now they are
:03:26. > :03:31.saying they don't trust the universities. You have to make sure
:03:31. > :03:36.they can read and count. I'm fairly certain the universities would have
:03:36. > :03:40.insisted on that before they granted firsts, honours degrees and
:03:40. > :03:45.so on. You can get that in Latin but you don't have to be able to
:03:45. > :03:49.read English. These are exams where there's a 98% pass rate. If someone
:03:49. > :03:55.can't pass an exam with 90% of the rest of people, they don't deserve
:03:55. > :04:00.to be a teacher. You have to ask the question, why do you need this?
:04:00. > :04:04.Why don't we have a tougher exams on maths, the basics of maths and
:04:04. > :04:10.English and reasoning on top of the degree before you get into
:04:10. > :04:15.teaching? The reason why places like Taiwan and Finland have such
:04:15. > :04:20.strong education systems is because they pick the best and brightest.
:04:20. > :04:26.That is not completely the case. is in Finland. In Finland, they
:04:26. > :04:31.give teachers a huge amount of autonomy, significant pay...
:04:31. > :04:37.honours graduates. They don't have to do an additional test. I think
:04:37. > :04:42.people will be amazed, every reform Labour or Conservative governments
:04:42. > :04:47.try to make, the teaching unions always oppose it. This is simply an
:04:47. > :04:51.attempt to make sure... I can insure -- a sure you, we employ
:04:51. > :04:56.them. People come out of university and they don't know good spelling
:04:56. > :05:04.or gram and they don't write very well. Why should we not ensure that
:05:05. > :05:08.teachers have that ability? Right. If that is the case, why has
:05:08. > :05:13.Michael Gove said that teachers in academies and free schools don't
:05:13. > :05:18.have to have Q T S? One of our issues is around there's not any
:05:18. > :05:23.consistency. You're against it because everybody is doing it.
:05:23. > :05:26.Would you be in favour of it if he said everybody had to do it. Her I
:05:26. > :05:34.would have welcomed consultation. You would still be in favour?
:05:34. > :05:38.not true. The union I represent... If the Government have based this
:05:39. > :05:44.evidence on a report produced by head teachers. I represent head
:05:44. > :05:49.teachers. I am an assistant head. Actually, the people who do the
:05:49. > :05:55.monitoring, the people who do the mentoring of student teachers, our
:05:55. > :05:58.classroom teachers who do pick up on things. In a small number of
:05:58. > :06:03.cases where people are not as numerate or literate as they should
:06:03. > :06:09.be, they are picked up on and told it is not good enough. There are
:06:09. > :06:15.issues around that. There are a huge number of entry pathways into
:06:15. > :06:23.teaching now, teach first, P G C, a graduate training programme. There
:06:24. > :06:28.is a myriad of entry... slightly flabbergasted by this. I
:06:28. > :06:34.can't see what is wrong with saying to people who are going to educate
:06:34. > :06:38.our children, in primary school or for sophisticated skills, that you
:06:38. > :06:41.must have as half -- high-standard of rudimentary maths and English. I
:06:41. > :06:46.have seen reports where I've wanted to put a red pencil around the
:06:46. > :06:51.grammar of the teachers. This happens because we let it go. As a
:06:51. > :06:55.system we let it go. Not only the teaching unions are responsible,
:06:55. > :06:59.but they are to some extent. Successive governments didn't pick
:06:59. > :07:04.it up. We are now right on it and Charlie Taylor is right to be
:07:04. > :07:08.saying lots of other countries... I do a lot of comparative work about
:07:08. > :07:14.education systems. In most countries this would not be in
:07:14. > :07:21.issue. I agreed with that. We will get on better than Sonny and Cher!
:07:21. > :07:26.In the air years. Thirtysomething else. The best systems also have a
:07:26. > :07:33.very rigorous -- rigorous aptitude test for teaching, which is a skill
:07:33. > :07:38.in itself. The best systems make it very hard to get into teaching, but
:07:38. > :07:42.quite easy to get out. If you've got a teaching certificate in some
:07:42. > :07:46.countries, that is sort of -- thought of as a very distinguished
:07:46. > :07:50.thing to have. If it doesn't work out for you, people going to very
:07:50. > :07:55.good professions because that is a badge of honour. Anything that can
:07:55. > :07:59.help us move towards that has to be a good thing. I entirely agree with
:07:59. > :08:02.what you've just said about attitude and that is one of the
:08:02. > :08:10.issues around a lack of consultation on this very basic
:08:10. > :08:13.test. Being a good teacher is around having a passion, a real
:08:13. > :08:17.understanding and an ability to communicate verbally with your
:08:17. > :08:24.students on a level they can understand. It is around aptitude.
:08:24. > :08:28.We would welcome somebody sitting down and saying, let's look at how
:08:28. > :08:33.we can best screen students, graduates, going into teaching, to
:08:33. > :08:37.demonstrate a wide range of skills, not just picking on one thing.
:08:37. > :08:42.Probably ban the phrase around aptitude to start with. It is
:08:43. > :08:47.slightly baggy language which goes around process and structures. That
:08:47. > :08:51.language hides what is going on and a lot of the education debate is
:08:51. > :08:55.affected by it. We have to raise the level of what we do in
:08:55. > :08:58.education and anything that gets under way... They are supposed to
:08:58. > :09:03.have great degrees, but there's a big problem about what universities
:09:03. > :09:07.are doing in education. There are too many pathways, we don't know
:09:07. > :09:11.what is good, bad and indifferent, and the elite universities are too
:09:12. > :09:19.far away from training teachers. You have a status problem. You will
:09:19. > :09:26.be allowed to fail these exams three times and still be a teacher.
:09:26. > :09:31.Coney 98% of those who apply, not everybody. -- Only. So Statistics!
:09:31. > :09:35.If there's a 98% pass rate on GCSEs on the ones they are trying to do
:09:35. > :09:39.to the level that is required, and even if somebody wants to be a
:09:39. > :09:43.teacher who fails to reach his pass rate the first time, as part of the
:09:43. > :09:47.to do so that did not get it, they can sit it again and again. Most
:09:47. > :09:55.people would say actually, to become a teacher, the tests should
:09:55. > :09:59.be tougher. We want a proper consultation about the whole range
:09:59. > :10:04.of how students are selected to become teachers. You love
:10:04. > :10:09.consultation in these unions rather than a system that will give kids
:10:09. > :10:14.the best possible chances. Her that is what teachers want. Really?
:10:14. > :10:18.Certainly. I was an assisted head and what I wanted in my school was
:10:18. > :10:22.to employ the best possible teachers. In it would surely
:10:22. > :10:27.increase the status of teachers if you had a really tough test that
:10:27. > :10:32.had a high barrier. That would be good for teaching. Not want that is
:10:32. > :10:36.just introduced on a very narrow set of issues. The Government
:10:36. > :10:39.proposes a lot of things that never see the light of day!
:10:40. > :10:44.Now it's time for our daily quiz. Nick Clegg met the President of the
:10:44. > :10:54.European Council, Herman van Rompuy, yesterday. But what language did
:10:54. > :10:57.
:10:57. > :11:00.And we'll give you the answer a little later in the show.
:11:00. > :11:03.After yesterday's good news on the economy, there's going to be some
:11:03. > :11:08.less welcome news for thousands of families next week as the
:11:08. > :11:11.Government prepares the ground for another cut to benefits. If you are
:11:11. > :11:14.lucky enough to earn more than �50,000 a year and have children,
:11:14. > :11:17.you'll get a letter from the taxman you'll get a letter from the taxman
:11:17. > :11:20.next week along with 1.3 million others. But it might not make happy
:11:20. > :11:24.reading. It will tell you that you have a choice either to surrender
:11:24. > :11:27.your child benefit altogether or that you will have to repay part of
:11:27. > :11:31.the benefit, or all of it if you earn over �60,000, when you fill in
:11:31. > :11:38.your end of year tax return. The Treasury thinks that the change
:11:39. > :11:46.will save them around �2.5 billion a year. But it will also mean an
:11:46. > :11:48.extra 500,000 people filing self- assessment tax returns. And a
:11:48. > :11:57.number of Conservative MPs have expressed their concerns, warning
:11:57. > :12:00.that the system will be "fiendishly complicated". But the Government
:12:00. > :12:05.claims that taking benefits from the rich as well as the poor will
:12:05. > :12:08.show that "we're all in this together". Well, this policy was
:12:08. > :12:10.first announced at the Conservative conference way back in 2010. Let's
:12:10. > :12:20.remind ourselves how George Osborne remind ourselves how George Osborne
:12:20. > :12:21.
:12:21. > :12:26.tried to sell the idea to his party. A system that taxes working people
:12:26. > :12:31.at high rates only to give it back in child benefit is very difficult
:12:31. > :12:35.to justify at a time like this. It is very difficult to justify taxing
:12:35. > :12:40.people on low incomes to pay for the child benefit of those earning
:12:40. > :12:44.so much more than them. These days we've really got to focus the
:12:44. > :12:50.resources on where they are most needed. We've got to be tough, but
:12:50. > :12:55.fair. That is why we will withdraw child benefit from households with
:12:55. > :12:58.a higher rate taxpayer. When the debts left by Labour threaten our
:12:58. > :13:07.economy, when our welfare costs are out of control, this measure makes
:13:07. > :13:12.sense. APPLAUSE that was the Chancellor in 2010.
:13:12. > :13:15.There was a bit of a backbench -- backlash even at the conference.
:13:15. > :13:25.With us now is the Conservative backbencher Mark Field. Welcome
:13:25. > :13:26.
:13:26. > :13:30.back to the Daily Politics. MP for Westminster. I am indeed. You've
:13:30. > :13:35.got a mixed constituency. You've got a lot of people on average
:13:35. > :13:40.incomes, and a lot of well-off people. Is there ahead of her steam
:13:40. > :13:45.building? There is, partly because there's some have confusion because
:13:45. > :13:48.the policy has changed. I believe in getting the deficit down. As a
:13:48. > :13:53.moral case as well as any economic case and I have always supported
:13:54. > :13:58.any measures that we have that will reduce public spending. We need to
:13:58. > :14:03.be wise before the event. We know there are some big institutional
:14:03. > :14:08.problems with this policy. Looking at the practicalities, the Way We
:14:08. > :14:12.Live Now is very different. People have consultancy incomes. They
:14:12. > :14:16.don't know what they're going to earn during the year. This policy
:14:16. > :14:21.will mean that anyone in a household where you earn �50,000 a
:14:21. > :14:27.more will see a tapering away off that child benefit. If they earn
:14:27. > :14:31.�60,000, they will have nothing. You'll have perverse invoices --
:14:31. > :14:35.incentives to put invoices in later. You have divorcing couples.
:14:35. > :14:40.Wouldn't it be easier to say if you on the 40% tax band you don't get
:14:40. > :14:45.child benefit? One of the easy things might have been to say you
:14:45. > :14:51.will only get child benefit for a certain number of children. But you
:14:51. > :14:55.couldn't do that with those on existing child benefit. Iain Duncan
:14:55. > :15:02.Smith was saying we would like this to be the case for future parents
:15:02. > :15:06.of families, not for two. He is. That will not save much. I would
:15:06. > :15:10.not be too surprised if these policies were co-ordinated in some
:15:10. > :15:14.way. The worry with this policy, we've talked about raising �2.5
:15:14. > :15:18.billion, a huge amount of money will go into administering this
:15:18. > :15:23.system for up to you don't think the saving will be 2.5 billion? You
:15:23. > :15:28.will have to write off a lot for the reasons I've set out. It is
:15:28. > :15:33.almost a tax on aspiration. If you are on �40,000 a year, you aspire
:15:33. > :15:37.to earn �50,000, and you might lose something. If you have three
:15:37. > :15:42.children and you earn between �50,000.60 �1,000, for the tax
:15:43. > :15:46.could be 65%. The Government says we are all in this together. It has
:15:46. > :15:50.cat housing benefit for those on the low end of the income scale. It
:15:50. > :15:56.is making it harder for people on welfare benefits, forcing them to
:15:56. > :16:01.look for work. They are making it tougher. They are also looking for
:16:01. > :16:05.another 10 billion of cuts in welfare. Surely your traditional
:16:05. > :16:15.supporters, who are probably in these income groups, they will take
:16:15. > :16:18.
:16:18. > :16:24.some of the pain. Some title lead I think there is a very strong case,
:16:24. > :16:28.and I totally agree with George Osborne, trying to get this deficit
:16:28. > :16:33.down at for moral reasons... understand that. You're not
:16:33. > :16:37.prepared to go along with it, the saving, because nobody is going to
:16:37. > :16:43.start as a result of this change, nobody is going to be homeless.
:16:43. > :16:47.don't think it will be two-and-a- half billion. We also see the other
:16:47. > :16:55.concern, problem, which is stay at home mothers are being distance and
:16:55. > :17:01.devised in the sense that if one person is being earning 60,000,...
:17:01. > :17:06.That was the original complaint. have more sympathy with a laugh
:17:06. > :17:10.complaint which is terrible. It sends a terrible signal to women
:17:10. > :17:15.from the party. I can't see a reason why this benefit exists for
:17:15. > :17:20.people earning quite well. Although it's very complicated, to get rid
:17:21. > :17:25.of an entitlement, but I thought we were trying to change the way we
:17:25. > :17:30.look at the welfare state. I can't really see the principle. I'm
:17:30. > :17:34.surprised to see that you don't see it actually not a good idea to have
:17:34. > :17:39.this idea of benefits as pocket money given to certain groups,
:17:39. > :17:42.unless they are in need. You need to bite the bullet on that. There
:17:43. > :17:46.is not well between two different ideals and the welfare state. The
:17:46. > :17:51.last word you'd used was need. The welfare state has become the
:17:51. > :17:55.welfare state of need. Contribution, as you contribute, you should get
:17:56. > :17:59.something out. It's absurd at a time when we haven't got any money
:18:00. > :18:06.as a country, we are transferring money to the state to people who do
:18:06. > :18:13.not need it. That's bizarre. If we save 2.5 billion, as its measured,
:18:13. > :18:21.there we go. It is future entitlement as well. You don't want
:18:21. > :18:25.to take the pain it now. I have got 16 and a half more years with my
:18:25. > :18:32.young daughter. The other issue is this. 40 years ago, when this
:18:32. > :18:40.benefit came in, it used to be a tax allowance, the state making a
:18:40. > :18:46.stall -- small statement saying its good for children to be invested in.
:18:46. > :18:50.The money was going to be in hands of mothers exclusively. I want to
:18:50. > :18:55.get the deficit down. There's been a lot of controversy about this and
:18:55. > :18:59.I think it will raise far less money than we think. Wouldn't a
:18:59. > :19:03.radical conservative government raised the threshold where the 40%
:19:03. > :19:08.clicks and, because, in real terms, it was meant for very well-off
:19:08. > :19:14.people, now average middle-class people, raise it and say, you are
:19:14. > :19:18.going to keep more of what you earn, if you are aspiring, but the child
:19:18. > :19:26.benefit has gone? You could do this. The argument about earning at a
:19:26. > :19:31.particular level were applied and part of the difficulty is that, in
:19:31. > :19:37.trying to raise money, it's all very well the rich having to pay,
:19:37. > :19:43.but there are very much more middle earners. Is it going to happen?
:19:43. > :19:49.sense is it might be delayed. The sensible thing would to started in
:19:49. > :19:55.at the next tax year. He needs the money. Come back if it is delayed
:19:55. > :20:03.and talk to us. Thank you. He has got his daughter outside now,
:20:03. > :20:09.putting a child benefit in a top pocket. How old is she? Six months
:20:09. > :20:12.old. She's already spending the money! Get your bookings in early.
:20:12. > :20:15.The iconic Admiralty Arch, it's at the end of the Mall leading to
:20:15. > :20:19.Trafalgar Square, is being turned into a hotel after the government
:20:19. > :20:23.flogged it off for �60 million. There it is. It was billed only 100
:20:23. > :20:26.years ago. No, it's not part of a government policy to make sure
:20:26. > :20:29.super-rich tourists have enough places to lay their heads. But part
:20:29. > :20:33.of a reorganisation of property that's paid for by the tax payer.
:20:33. > :20:37.Here's our Adam, who's hoping for a job as a chambermaid.
:20:37. > :20:42.Who would live in a house like this? Admiralty Arch was built 100
:20:42. > :20:45.years ago in honour of Queen Victoria and has been a crucial
:20:45. > :20:50.prop in that state occasions ever since. It's also been a home for
:20:50. > :20:55.Sea Lords, and a prime ministerial strategy unit, but no longer, as a
:20:55. > :21:00.news conference, the buildings 99 year lease has been sold for �60
:21:00. > :21:09.million to a property company who will turn it into a hotel. It's
:21:10. > :21:15.about the restoration, bring it back to life, the genius design the
:21:15. > :21:19.original architect built exactly 100 years ago. The idea is to bring
:21:19. > :21:24.up to life. We were given a rare access. Obviously it offers amazing
:21:24. > :21:30.views, when you can see them with Buckingham Palace on one side and a
:21:30. > :21:34.Trafalgar Square on the other. But inside, it's a Hamas to civil
:21:34. > :21:37.service drabness. With a dash of glamour and the odd mist. Political
:21:37. > :21:40.obsesses me want to think twice before they book a room here
:21:40. > :21:45.because you can't stay in the flat where John Prescott used to live
:21:45. > :21:48.where he used to serve shepherd's pie to Tony and Gordon to make them
:21:48. > :21:52.see eye-to-eye, because that's a completely different building and a
:21:52. > :21:56.corner. The sale is part of a big reorganisation of government
:21:56. > :22:02.property. We are getting out of quite a lot of properties. We have
:22:02. > :22:07.raised about �640 million in total so far by selling buildings, but
:22:07. > :22:12.our main business is just to get out of under-used property. In
:22:12. > :22:21.Bristol, for example, central government occupies one and and 15
:22:21. > :22:26.different buildings which is insane. It's expensive. -- 115.
:22:26. > :22:33.aircraft carrier Ark Royal was sold for scrap for �3 million. A bid to
:22:33. > :22:35.turn it into a casino was turned down. This betting organisation was
:22:35. > :22:39.sold for �265 million though the Government had to share that with a
:22:39. > :22:44.horse racing industry. And what about this for a big price tag? A
:22:44. > :22:47.Channel Tunnel rail link was sold for more than �2 billion. But the
:22:47. > :22:52.buyers of his British icon still have to get planning permission so
:22:52. > :22:57.they can't give a date for when the first guests will be checking in.
:22:57. > :23:01.Adam Fleming reporting. Looks pretty imposing. And we've been
:23:01. > :23:06.joined by the Cabinet Office Minister Chloe Smith. It says
:23:06. > :23:13.welcome back to the Daily Politics. Have you been with us before?
:23:14. > :23:19.recently, no. Not in the past 100 years, in other words. It's going
:23:19. > :23:23.to become a hotel, right? You have sold it on a lease. We have sold
:23:24. > :23:29.and 99 year lease hold for �60 million, which means it's a
:23:29. > :23:34.particularly good deal for the taxpayer because not only do we get
:23:34. > :23:39.that peace in the meantime, but in due course it reverts to the public.
:23:39. > :23:43.This is part of a process also I'm told you want to raise �6 billion
:23:43. > :23:47.doing this. What is next? The decisions are being taken across
:23:47. > :23:50.the Government property portfolio, that's for sure. This is one
:23:51. > :23:55.particularly good example and represents a really cracking deal
:23:55. > :23:58.for the taxpayer, in fact, but we are taking those decisions across
:23:58. > :24:02.property with a view to getting good value for money and a view to
:24:02. > :24:05.using space sensibly. Do we know what could be the next iconic
:24:05. > :24:10.building that could be on the block? I don't think there is a
:24:10. > :24:18.shopping list. You have got a lot to go because the barely raised 600
:24:18. > :24:25.million so far. The 640 million saved, according to the Government.
:24:25. > :24:29.10 times that to go. Will a lot to be sold? It's not only a question
:24:30. > :24:34.of selling, it's important to note, there's a number of things you can
:24:34. > :24:39.do with property. You can make sure space is used sensibly. This
:24:39. > :24:45.building was used for office space for a short while and it's not
:24:45. > :24:50.really meant for that. It has been empty recently. What do you say to
:24:50. > :24:53.people who say this is an iconic building at the heart of the couple,
:24:53. > :24:59.the gateway between Buckingham Palace at the end of The Mall into
:24:59. > :25:06.Trafalgar Square, and there should be a national monument? A National
:25:06. > :25:09.Building, a museum, an art gallery? Why wouldn't you do that? Do the
:25:09. > :25:17.key point is, the public can get into it for the first time ever.
:25:17. > :25:24.Think about we are going from a set of shabby office space in disrepair
:25:24. > :25:28.which costs �900,000 a year running costs, while stenting, to something
:25:28. > :25:31.the public can access. I think that's part of it being a good deal.
:25:32. > :25:37.As long as you can afford 20 quid for a cup of tea because it will be
:25:37. > :25:42.a posh hotel, won't it? There will be bars and cafes in it and
:25:42. > :25:47.interestingly, it will be won a best viewpoints in London. It's a
:25:47. > :25:52.great asset open to the public. What else can you see? Buckingham
:25:52. > :25:56.Palace, that would get a ton of money, wouldn't it? The Queen
:25:56. > :26:03.doesn't own it. I'm sure the Queen that would have something to say
:26:03. > :26:09.about that. The but she doesn't own that. Lease it back to them for 99.
:26:09. > :26:15.Andrew, perhaps you would like to put that forward. I just have.
:26:15. > :26:20.you talk to the Queen about it? official response. You did a famous
:26:20. > :26:27.interview on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman. How do you feel about that
:26:27. > :26:31.now? Well, all I can say is, Andrew, you're far more pleasant person to
:26:31. > :26:37.sit opposite, and I'm sure the BBC prides itself on the quality of its
:26:37. > :26:45.presenters. Do you think you've had the last laugh on Newsnight?
:26:45. > :26:49.continue in my life having a good laugh,. You must have a quiet
:26:49. > :26:53.chuckle at what's happened to the programme since then? It a good
:26:53. > :26:56.moment for the BBC to reflect. The Jimmy Savile allegations are
:26:57. > :27:01.shocking, and I don't think too many people are laughing about
:27:01. > :27:08.those on the whole. Will you come back and see us? I would be
:27:08. > :27:13.delighted. Perhaps we can have a cup of tea. Maybe in the new hotel?
:27:13. > :27:17.Are you all right with this? Yes, I am all right with it. There are so
:27:17. > :27:22.many dead buildings. Somerset House, the revenues Santon there for so
:27:22. > :27:26.long. There is more access to the public. Michael Portillo said he
:27:26. > :27:29.couldn't even remember he owned it when he was a minister. William
:27:29. > :27:32.Morris wrote a book where he suggest the House of Commons be
:27:32. > :27:39.sold off and turned into a storehouse for manure. That might
:27:39. > :27:42.be the next one. No change there. Thank you for joining us. Thank
:27:42. > :27:45.goodness it's Friday. Always the end of a long political week.
:27:45. > :27:48.Perhaps the perfect day for a ministerial resignation. And why
:27:48. > :27:52.would you want to fall on your sword at the beginning of a crisis
:27:52. > :27:55.when you can stick it out to see whether your fate improves? I'm not
:27:55. > :27:58.suggesting Andrew Mitchell clung on his handle bars until the bitter
:27:58. > :28:02.end just a week ago. But ministers sometimes do. Indeed, as followers
:28:02. > :28:04.of The Thick Of It will know, it is hard for our our top dogs to know
:28:04. > :28:09.whether or not resignation is the honourable thing to do.
:28:09. > :28:18.This is going to be about the inquiry. I'm thinking I should
:28:18. > :28:22.resign now. No one shaves your lion's mane of. I am not a lion. A
:28:22. > :28:27.man died because of a policy I signed upon. I should take the
:28:27. > :28:34.dignified way out. No, you have missed the dignified exit,
:28:34. > :28:38.straightaway, basically. Sometimes it's a documentary. It's
:28:38. > :28:40.not comedy or fiction. And we've been joined by the Independent
:28:40. > :28:48.newspaper's parliamentary sketchwriter, and former
:28:48. > :28:53.Conservative MP, Michael Brown. Former. Are you so ashamed of it?
:28:53. > :28:56.Welcome back. I've not seen you for ages. Two ministers resigned too
:28:56. > :29:01.much or too little these days? think there's too much of it,
:29:01. > :29:06.frankly. When you look back at the Thatcher resignation, I looked at a
:29:06. > :29:10.list today, Lord Carrington, Michael Heseltine, Nigel Lawson,
:29:10. > :29:15.Geoffrey Howe, all on matters of principle, Nicholas Ridley had to
:29:15. > :29:21.resign, because of the Germans. I just read his article today. How
:29:22. > :29:25.right he was. They were resignations on the real issues. He
:29:25. > :29:30.was right about the Germans also I think he had to resign. Edwina
:29:30. > :29:35.Currie resigned and was unfairly treated. Everything she said turned
:29:35. > :29:39.out to be true. These days, we are resigning over bits of trivia. I
:29:39. > :29:45.mean, David Laws, it's arguable whether he needed to resign a
:29:45. > :29:49.couple of years ago. On my Twitter account, they all hate him. The in
:29:49. > :29:52.the end, it doesn't come down to the issue but whether the public
:29:52. > :29:59.perception, and short backbench colleagues, most of them are
:29:59. > :30:05.usually driven out. I have another list here. Tim Smith. Oh no! Neil
:30:05. > :30:08.Hamilton, Jonathan Aitken. didn't have much support on the
:30:08. > :30:12.back bench, did they? Up exactly, what tells at the end of the day is
:30:12. > :30:18.when you have support on the backbenches. I resigned as a
:30:18. > :30:22.government whip over a sex scandal in 1994. But the thing is, they you
:30:22. > :30:29.are, most of them are easily forgettable. Ian Gow resigned as a
:30:29. > :30:33.minister. Keith Speed? I don't even know who he is? Secretary of State
:30:33. > :30:43.for Scotland? How dare you! He was the parliamentary private secretary
:30:43. > :30:47.
:30:47. > :30:52.to Margaret Thatcher who was $:/STARTFEED. Andrew Mitchell's
:30:52. > :30:57.resignation has already been forgotten. Ary Nieve was the other
:30:57. > :31:03.Conservative close to Mrs Thatcher who was also assassinated. Just
:31:03. > :31:07.after the election, I remember that one. Two terrible days. Do you have
:31:07. > :31:11.a list of those who should have resigned and didn't? Right at the
:31:11. > :31:16.top of my list is Jeremy Hunt. I think Jeremy Hunt should have
:31:16. > :31:21.resigned a few weeks ago. It is arguable whether Grant Shapps
:31:21. > :31:25.should really be in post. Really? After what the Guardian has
:31:25. > :31:30.suggested. You can't pretend to be somebody else all the time. That
:31:30. > :31:35.wouldn't be like being a politician at all! I would say immediately
:31:35. > :31:39.there are far more questions about those two staying. But they are so
:31:39. > :31:47.close to the Prime Minister that there resignation affects him.
:31:47. > :31:52.we too keen on the media to form a lynch mob? Are you going to resign,
:31:52. > :32:00.minister? When are you going to resign? A notice that this week,
:32:00. > :32:04.the BBC reporter was chasing after the Eid Director General of the BBC.
:32:04. > :32:08.Some day it must happen, a victim must be found. We go down the list
:32:08. > :32:14.as soon as somebody gets into trouble. I do think we should
:32:14. > :32:19.sometimes stand back. You have to allow operators is to find out --
:32:19. > :32:23.play out. You rarely find out what was going on. Liam Fox was a
:32:23. > :32:28.classic, embarrassment about his relationship with his aide and it
:32:28. > :32:34.got out of the way. I would rather find out what happened and come to
:32:34. > :32:39.review. We don't have any criteria for resignation. Key if you look at
:32:39. > :32:43.the textbooks, there are long disquisitions about the principles
:32:43. > :32:46.for resignation and they have gone. The lynch mob howls and howls and
:32:46. > :32:51.keeps on howling until you get to the point where the backbenchers
:32:51. > :32:57.say we have lost confidence in you. That becomes the pretext for the
:32:57. > :33:01.resignation. We've forgotten what the pretext was. We have data from
:33:01. > :33:09.the LSE that shows that of the 12 resignations that have taken place
:33:09. > :33:14.as a result of sex scandals from 1906-2006, 11 were Conservatives.
:33:14. > :33:19.Any theory of that? It always used to be said that if it was money, it
:33:20. > :33:24.was Labour MPs, if it was sex, it was Tory MPs. Cut it is the thing
:33:24. > :33:28.they can't get otherwise. It's Cecil Parkinson came back from a
:33:28. > :33:38.sex scandal. Tim Yeo came back from a sex scandal. A long list, thank
:33:38. > :33:45.you. Earlier we set the guests a little quiz. What language did Nick
:33:45. > :33:53.Clegg and Herman Van Rompuy his speech yesterday when they met?
:33:53. > :34:02.What is the correct answer? Dutch. German. The correct answer is Dutch.
:34:02. > :34:06.A huge glass of champagne waiting? He speaks about five languages.
:34:06. > :34:09.It's just gone 12.30, and it's time to say goodbye to my two guests of
:34:09. > :34:11.the day, Phil Collins and Anne McElvoy. And don't forget, if you
:34:11. > :34:15.can't survive the weekend without your regular politics hit, do join
:34:15. > :34:22.me for the Sunday Politics on BBC One at noon, when I'll be
:34:23. > :34:29.interviewing the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander. --
:34:29. > :34:32.it's at 11 o'clock! You get an extra hour's sleep before you have
:34:32. > :34:34.to watch us! This week, Members of the European
:34:34. > :34:37.Parliament have been meeting in Strasbourg for their regular
:34:38. > :34:47.plenary session. So what have they been getting up to? Here's Susana
:34:48. > :34:49.
:34:49. > :34:56.with our guide to latest from The scene is set for a showdown
:34:56. > :35:02.after MEPs rejected a position of all 27 National MEPs voted for a
:35:02. > :35:06.rise of 6.8%, the governments want to limit any increase to 2.8%, but
:35:06. > :35:10.the commissioner for budgets said they were ignoring reality.
:35:11. > :35:15.can't endorse the councillors decision to cut by more than 5
:35:15. > :35:19.billion our proposal. Her three appointments have a Luxembourg
:35:19. > :35:22.central banker to the all-male board has angered those who want to
:35:23. > :35:27.see more female candidates for the job. Ever struggled to get
:35:27. > :35:30.compensation for a delayed flight or lost luggage? MEPs agree with
:35:30. > :35:37.you and they have adopted a resolution, calling a passenger
:35:37. > :35:41.rights to be endorsed across the UK. The BC has backed a commission on
:35:41. > :35:46.the Robin Hood tax. The you couldn't get all 27 members to
:35:46. > :35:55.agree, but the 10, including France and Germany, want to carry on
:35:55. > :35:58.And with us for the next 30 minutes, I've been joined by Fiona Hall MEP.
:35:58. > :36:02.She's the Lib Dem leader in the European Parliament. And Paul
:36:02. > :36:05.Nuttal MEP - he's the deputy leader of UKIP. Let's take a look at one
:36:05. > :36:14.of those stories in more detail. The European Parliament vote
:36:14. > :36:17.against the appointment of a man to the ECB executive board. This is a
:36:17. > :36:23.complaint which Europe has been talking a lot about, there are so
:36:23. > :36:29.few women on top boards. Where do you stand on this? I think we did
:36:29. > :36:33.the right thing on the vote on the ECB. It has been established that
:36:33. > :36:39.companies are much better, that they perform much better, if they
:36:39. > :36:46.don't just have men on the board. Duvet? What is the evidence? There
:36:46. > :36:51.was a survey done recently. In the UK, over the last year we have
:36:51. > :36:56.voluntary measures on getting women on to boards since the Davies
:36:56. > :37:00.report and there's been spectacular progress. The ECB is overwhelmingly
:37:00. > :37:04.male. It is largely made up of the existing central bankers and they
:37:04. > :37:09.are probably all male. Is there a female central banker in the
:37:09. > :37:15.eurozone? Originally there was one and she left. Germany is on record
:37:15. > :37:18.as saying it was always understood that they should be won. But our
:37:18. > :37:23.objection in Parliament was not that the new appointee Wasserman,
:37:23. > :37:29.but simply that there wasn't even a woman on the shortlist. We thought
:37:29. > :37:32.that was taking it too far. We are you on this? I believe in a
:37:32. > :37:37.meritocracy. If you are good enough, it doesn't matter if you are a man
:37:37. > :37:42.or woman. What is interesting is that Angela Merkel has swung behind
:37:43. > :37:47.this man to get a job. The last time I looked, she was a woman.
:37:47. > :37:51.Sarkozy didn't always think that. If you are saying it is a
:37:51. > :37:56.meritocracy, it therefore follows, given that the boards on the ECB
:37:56. > :38:00.are dominated by men, it follows from your argument, logically, in a
:38:00. > :38:04.meritocracy, that it is all men because the women are too thick. I
:38:04. > :38:10.don't think many people would accept that. Is that right? Across
:38:10. > :38:14.the world, women are in leading positions. The head of the IMF is a
:38:14. > :38:18.woman. The Chancellor of Germany is a woman, Hillary Clinton, Margaret
:38:18. > :38:23.Thatcher. Why no woman in the seedy? The women were not as
:38:23. > :38:27.qualified as the men. It shouldn't matter what sex you are, at the
:38:27. > :38:31.best person should get the job. clearly does matter because they
:38:31. > :38:35.are all men. Half the population is women, there are more women
:38:35. > :38:41.graduates than men and there's something that is a barrier at the
:38:41. > :38:45.moment. The ECB takes decisions that have effects on household
:38:45. > :38:51.budgets and living conditions which often women bear the brunt of.
:38:51. > :38:55.Exactly. You can get a very narrow view of the world. That is why
:38:55. > :39:00.there take women on board find that they prosper more, they share price
:39:00. > :39:04.goes up, they perform better. Surely it is demeaning to women.
:39:04. > :39:09.You wouldn't want to be the token woman on the board thinking you
:39:09. > :39:16.were only there because you are a placement. UKIP is the party that
:39:16. > :39:20.believes women should be cleaning... Nonsense. They may have moved out.
:39:20. > :39:23.-- moved on. So the stage is set for more
:39:23. > :39:26.fireworks over the EU's budget and there's lots at stake. First - this
:39:26. > :39:29.week, the EU Commission asked member states to stump up another
:39:29. > :39:32.�6 billion to help fill a �9 billion gap in the EU's finances up
:39:32. > :39:34.billion gap in the EU's finances up to the end of the year. Next, the
:39:34. > :39:37.European Parliament voted for a 6.8% increase in the budget for
:39:37. > :39:43.2013, rejecting a lower budget increase put forward by member
:39:43. > :39:47.states. MEPs and the Council of Ministers now have three weeks to
:39:47. > :39:57.try to reach a compromise. And finally, there's the arguments over
:39:57. > :40:05.
:40:05. > :40:09.the total budget for 2014-2020, the so-called "multi-annual framework".
:40:09. > :40:12.It is how much they will spend between now and 2020. MEPs and the
:40:12. > :40:16.European Commission are gunning for a big budget increase to the MFF,
:40:16. > :40:24.which would mean total spending up to 2020 would add up to over 1,000
:40:24. > :40:27.billion euros. But member states have a veto over this, and David
:40:27. > :40:33.Cameron has said he will use his to block any real-terms rise in the
:40:33. > :40:36.overall budget. European leaders are due to meet in late November to
:40:36. > :40:39.agree a plan, but the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has said
:40:39. > :40:48.the summit should be scrapped if Mr Cameron doesn't withdraw this
:40:48. > :40:56.Let's talk now to the Spanish MEP Salvador Garriga Polledo, who sits
:40:56. > :41:01.on the European Parliament budgets committee.
:41:01. > :41:06.It looks like you have a lot to resolve for this year, next year
:41:06. > :41:15.and the next six years. Will you get a settlement on all of this, do
:41:15. > :41:20.you think? It is going to be difficult. We started today with 20
:41:20. > :41:26.12th's remaining budget and we have two weeks to come to an agreement
:41:26. > :41:32.on 2013. At the same time, we are still awaiting developments for the
:41:32. > :41:38.coming negotiations. It is going to be a very busy three months.
:41:38. > :41:43.think a lot of people watching will wonder why the European Union
:41:43. > :41:46.should be getting any increase when their governments are they live
:41:46. > :41:51.under are having to slash their spending like mad. It is happening
:41:51. > :41:56.in Britain, it has happened in France, even with President
:41:56. > :42:01.Hollande and his austere budget, it is happening in your own country.
:42:01. > :42:09.National governments are having to cut so why should the European
:42:09. > :42:19.government, if I can call it that, get an increase? It depends on the
:42:19. > :42:22.
:42:22. > :42:25.idea about Europe, that different politicians have. The idea that
:42:25. > :42:35.even though they are slashing budgets, we concede that the
:42:35. > :42:44.European budget should incorporate the European added value. Money is
:42:44. > :42:49.spent in 27 member-states. think the money spent more
:42:49. > :42:54.effectively at a European level than a national level? The EU's
:42:54. > :42:57.accounts have not been approved for about 13 years now. How can it be
:42:57. > :43:07.more effective in spending than the Madrid, Paris or London
:43:07. > :43:14.governments? We truly believe that, and expenditure will be more
:43:14. > :43:24.effective, especially because we are dealing with coalition policy,
:43:24. > :43:26.
:43:26. > :43:32.innovation, development, European Social Fund. Many things are spread
:43:32. > :43:38.between 27 member states. It will produce a better effect. I'm asked
:43:38. > :43:42.say that the European budget is neutral. -- I must say. We don't
:43:42. > :43:52.want the member states to spend more money. We want to transfer
:43:52. > :43:53.
:43:53. > :43:59.some kind of spending to the European budget. Thank you. What
:43:59. > :44:05.should the British Government's strategy... What should they be in
:44:05. > :44:10.this European budget formation? think it is a mistake to say at the
:44:11. > :44:15.beginning that we might walk out. There are a lot of negotiations
:44:15. > :44:20.ahead and that is not the way you normally go into negotiations. I
:44:20. > :44:25.agree that in this time of austerity, we shouldn't be looking
:44:25. > :44:29.at a budget rise. But we also need to be looking at other aspects of
:44:29. > :44:33.the Budget. We need to make sure there's a review, because we know
:44:33. > :44:37.we are beginning to come out of recession and in a couple of years,
:44:37. > :44:41.that will be the moment to invest. We also have to make sure that the
:44:41. > :44:49.money we've got is spent more efficiently. At the moment you are
:44:49. > :44:56.not allowed to swap money between different... That is stupid.
:44:56. > :45:02.agree that the Budget should be frozen in real terms, if not for
:45:02. > :45:07.all of the 2014-2020 period, or maybe for 14, 15 and all 16?
:45:07. > :45:12.part of a package where we look at these other aspects and make sure
:45:12. > :45:19.we get a proper efficient use art of the money we have. If I could
:45:19. > :45:24.just say... Briefly. The accounts being signed off. The countries of
:45:24. > :45:26.Europe, countries like the UK who are responsible for that, it is the
:45:26. > :45:36.Department of Work and Pensions who have never had their accounts
:45:36. > :45:39.
:45:39. > :45:45.People do have doubts that money is being spent wisely at European
:45:45. > :45:48.level, let alone British level. This is completely indefensible
:45:48. > :45:52.when we have cuts in our own country and are living in times of
:45:52. > :45:56.austerity. The European Parliament has voted to increase our
:45:56. > :46:00.contributions by �2 billion a year, something we can't afford, and
:46:00. > :46:05.something the people of this country would not like. What should
:46:05. > :46:09.they do? Rejected completely. I would like to see the Budget
:46:09. > :46:14.reduced significantly. I think Cameron will go into negotiations.
:46:14. > :46:18.He got on the train a few years ago at St Pancras and said, "I'm going
:46:19. > :46:25.to Brussels and I will be the hard man." By the time he got there, he
:46:25. > :46:31.would he accept the 2.5%. If there is no deal because they want to
:46:31. > :46:36.avoid a British veto, as Angela Merkel is suggesting, this year's
:46:36. > :46:41.budget is automatically rolled over with a 2% increase, is an there is
:46:41. > :46:47.no veto on that. Would that be a sensible strategy? Cameron has got
:46:47. > :46:51.to play hardball, and if he has to walk out, I believe he should. The
:46:51. > :46:57.budget will go forward anyway. At the European Parliament wanted to
:46:57. > :47:03.be 6.8% increase which would take a contributions to over 16 billion.
:47:03. > :47:08.didn't get an answer. You have got to play hardball otherwise it won't
:47:08. > :47:12.play in this country at all, but if you play to add, you get rises you
:47:12. > :47:15.didn't want in the first place. are hugely benefiting from this
:47:15. > :47:23.particularly when you look at research programmes. Newcastle
:47:23. > :47:31.University has got 116 at research programmes at the moment. We are
:47:31. > :47:35.net contributors. No, we are not, on research. I understand point. I
:47:35. > :47:40.don't quite understand the point of the argument because, if we didn't
:47:40. > :47:45.make a contribution at all, and decided as a democracy not to, we
:47:45. > :47:52.could give that money to Newcastle University anyway. We wouldn't be
:47:52. > :47:59.in the single market if we did that. The average tax payer pays 8p a day.
:47:59. > :48:04.Poor Norwegian tax payer, he pays almost as much for the privilege.
:48:04. > :48:09.In the end, although it sounds like big money, when you driller down,
:48:09. > :48:14.per capita, it's peanuts. Actually, the contribution is quite
:48:14. > :48:22.significant but, beyond that, the money it takes to comply with EU
:48:22. > :48:25.directives. We give �16.3 billion a year to the European Union and get
:48:25. > :48:29.under half of Babak and then they will tell us how to spend our own
:48:29. > :48:35.money and that is not acceptable and it is wrong. A we have to move
:48:35. > :48:40.on. Plenty of time between now and Christmas to discuss it. Endless
:48:40. > :48:43.summer it's coming up now. David Cameron's air miles will be quite
:48:43. > :48:47.amazing if he carries on like this. Now, how many homes do you think
:48:47. > :48:50.the European Parliament has? I'm sure you know. Well, you might be
:48:50. > :48:53.surprised to find out that it actually has two. One in Brussels
:48:53. > :48:55.and another in Strasbourg. The moving between the two has been
:48:55. > :48:58.dubbed the travelling circus. And in these austere times, many are
:48:58. > :49:07.questioning if it's sensible or affordable? Jo Coburn packed her
:49:07. > :49:10.bag and set off to investigate. Brussels may be more famous for its
:49:10. > :49:19.chocolate and a beer, but it's also home to the European Parliament.
:49:19. > :49:23.Most of the time, anyway. Once a month, 754 MEPs and 3,000 staff
:49:23. > :49:30.trek to London 20 miles to their other home in Strasbourg. The
:49:30. > :49:34.official seat of the European Parliament. This tale of two cities
:49:34. > :49:38.is often referred to as the gravy train, and it could be about to hit
:49:38. > :49:42.the buffers. At the time of crisis, the campaign for a single seed for
:49:42. > :49:48.the European Parliament has been gathering speed. Its supporters
:49:48. > :49:53.claim the monthly shuttle costs 180 million euros a year. A round trip
:49:53. > :50:01.by car and train can take up to eight hours, and it produces 19,000
:50:01. > :50:08.tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions each year. The public see this
:50:08. > :50:13.travelling circus as an example of the EU waste and incompetence. The
:50:13. > :50:17.members themselves want change. We recognise what the public feel. We
:50:17. > :50:24.are responding to that by saying, come on, governments, stop forcing
:50:24. > :50:28.us to meet in Strasbourg. He British MEP Edward McMillan-Scott
:50:28. > :50:38.is leading the fight for a single seed based in Russells and support
:50:38. > :50:38.
:50:38. > :50:45.is growing. 74% of MEPs backed the call for change it -- Brussels. But
:50:45. > :50:48.the decision as a huge historical significance. The city is on the
:50:48. > :50:57.border with Germany. And, for many, it represents the close links
:50:57. > :51:05.between the two countries after two world wars. For us, Strasbourg is a
:51:05. > :51:15.symbol of peace and reconciliation with Germany and France, so it's
:51:15. > :51:15.
:51:15. > :51:19.very strong for us and for Germany or so. -- also. The view of the
:51:19. > :51:23.French is backed up by European law, which states that the parliament
:51:23. > :51:28.meets in Strasbourg 12 times a year. Changing where European
:51:28. > :51:31.institutions are based requires treaty change, agreed by all 27
:51:31. > :51:38.member states. History has proved how difficult that can be to
:51:38. > :51:42.achieve. Then the question is, how do you deal with, as it were,
:51:42. > :51:47.buying off the French? You have to give them something to compensate.
:51:47. > :51:52.You have to work out ways of using the historic value of Strasbourg in
:51:52. > :51:57.different ways. Making Brussels the only destination for Europe's MPs
:51:57. > :52:02.could be many years away. For now, I'd better book my ticket to come
:52:02. > :52:06.back to Strasbourg next month. Jo Coburn reporting. She actually
:52:07. > :52:12.got the train to the south of France! Are you against the
:52:12. > :52:17.situation? It indeed. It's crazy. It's the thing most people regard
:52:17. > :52:24.as the example of what is not efficient. We need to change it. It
:52:24. > :52:28.doesn't make sense from a money point of view. Your carbon
:52:28. > :52:32.footprint is enormous. Terrible. It made sense after the Second World
:52:32. > :52:38.War. This is the 21st century and we have got to make the EU work for
:52:38. > :52:44.the 21st century. Even if the whole parliament was United 100%, putting
:52:44. > :52:48.aside the Strasbourg MEP, who wouldn't be, it won't happen.
:52:48. > :52:52.quite simply, it shows you how powerless MPs are in this issue
:52:52. > :52:58.because we will basically be told it is written into the treaties and
:52:58. > :53:01.can't happen. There is a parliament was mothballed in Luxembourg which
:53:01. > :53:05.has two debating chambers which have never been used and the
:53:05. > :53:12.offices were done up at �800 million and there are 300 staff
:53:12. > :53:18.there. I was interested to learn of the French don't have another
:53:18. > :53:23.major... On French soil, they don't have another major European
:53:23. > :53:28.institution. If it was to stay in Brussels, wardens of Brussels have
:53:28. > :53:32.to sense something big down to Strasbourg to fill the gap? They
:53:32. > :53:42.had been at many good ideas which it used to be put to a building, a
:53:42. > :53:47.technology institute. A hotel like a naughty arch? Even though its
:53:47. > :53:50.right that MEPs can't do anything about it, it's in the coalition
:53:50. > :53:58.agreement with the support of both government parties. -- Admiralty
:53:58. > :54:01.We need to put it on a table. both have been in favour of
:54:01. > :54:07.reforming the Common Agricultural Policy together, too. Watch this
:54:07. > :54:09.space. I will, but I won't hold my breath! Now it might look like
:54:09. > :54:12.David Cameron and his ministers are endlessly shuttling between London
:54:12. > :54:18.and Brussels for make-or-break meetings with their EU counterparts.
:54:18. > :54:22.I know it certainly does to them! It's tough for us just to watch it
:54:22. > :54:24.and cover. But lots of the groundwork is done in advance by
:54:24. > :54:31.civil servants who are based in what's effectively Britain's
:54:31. > :54:41.embassy to the EU. Adam's been to see them in action for the latest
:54:41. > :54:49.
:54:49. > :54:55.in our series, the A-Z of Europe. In amongst the grandeur of the
:54:55. > :55:00.capital of Europe, where can you find our man in Brussels? Well,
:55:00. > :55:06.here in between a bar and a pharmacy. This is home up to the UK
:55:06. > :55:10.Permanent representation to the EU, known as UKREP. And the man in the
:55:10. > :55:15.middle with the blue folder full of secrets is power UKREP, our
:55:15. > :55:20.ambassador to the EU, John Cunliffe, the 10th person to have the job. We
:55:20. > :55:26.caught up with him prowling the corridors and lifts of power with
:55:26. > :55:28.his French opposite number. He grunted as a rare interview. We are
:55:29. > :55:32.responsible for all that associations which take place
:55:32. > :55:39.within the EU. When you think of it, we deal with a whole range of
:55:39. > :55:43.issues. I start the morning meeting the French ambassador and we
:55:43. > :55:46.discuss the agenda, where we are on particular positions, and then I
:55:47. > :55:53.think I'm meeting another couple of ambassadors this evening. My job is
:55:53. > :55:58.to make sure the UK's voice is heard and interests are promoted
:55:58. > :56:03.and are protected. And then he was off to the meeting of ambassadors
:56:03. > :56:08.from the other 26 member states. Here they do much of the EU's day-
:56:08. > :56:14.to-day work. On the agenda, next year's budget, Syria, Iran and
:56:14. > :56:18.immigration. UKREP is a team of people, 150 civil servants from
:56:18. > :56:22.across Whitehall, who spend between two and four years here at the time
:56:22. > :56:27.and do the really did tell me decisions. They also help out
:56:27. > :56:32.British guests when they pop over to Brussels. Here, guiding the
:56:32. > :56:36.minister through the complex world of the European Parliament. Critics
:56:36. > :56:40.of this place say it is full bureaucrats who are enthralled to
:56:40. > :56:44.Brussels. The kind of people who will do any deal rather than the
:56:44. > :56:49.real deal Number Ten would like to see. While they say they simply
:56:49. > :56:54.negotiate within limits, set by London. And there is some glamour
:56:54. > :56:59.to UKREP after all. It turns out our man in Basil gets a residence
:57:00. > :57:08.here on ambassador's role. I suppose he needs somewhere grand
:57:08. > :57:12.for his dinner parties. How does he know that? Adam Fleming
:57:12. > :57:16.reporting. Fiona Hall and Paul Nuttall are still with me. Does
:57:16. > :57:22.UKREP to a good job representing Britain in Brussels? I don't agree
:57:22. > :57:27.with what they do. Britain represents 12% of the population of
:57:27. > :57:31.the EU but only 4% of the staff within the EU are British. They are
:57:31. > :57:34.meant to go sit on our behalf. I'm not going to criticise the civil
:57:34. > :57:37.servants but they are taking their lead from the Foreign Office and
:57:37. > :57:43.quite frankly the Foreign Office has sold us down the river over the
:57:43. > :57:47.year. They report to the foreign office. What is the important thing
:57:47. > :57:54.they do for the UK? They don't just report to the Foreign Office but
:57:54. > :57:58.across the board to departments. Detailed piece of legislation. I
:57:58. > :58:03.think they do a good job and I work closely with them. High quality
:58:03. > :58:07.people? Yes, we had a gap when we stopped fast-tracking people but we
:58:07. > :58:10.are doing so again and that's very important. Are they work on the
:58:10. > :58:17.detail and have their hands tied behind their back because they
:58:17. > :58:23.don't get the full support of UK MEPs because some of them pocket
:58:23. > :58:26.their salary and don't actually do their detailed work. Names? Paul
:58:26. > :58:34.Nuttall has only once been in the environment committee in the last
:58:34. > :58:41.two years. I don't want to go down that road. We, even if you got your
:58:41. > :58:47.way, we still need a UKREP for the EU? If it still existed after we
:58:47. > :58:50.left, of course. I just up answer this question by not turning up. I
:58:50. > :58:55.would rather have a MEP like myself who votes in favour of Britain and
:58:55. > :58:59.against any sort of legislation but transfers power from the UK to
:58:59. > :59:02.Brussels. That's what I do and why I am good value for money. You have