:00:42. > :00:47.Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. What is a fair
:00:47. > :00:53.price for an hour's work? Labour says they will name employers who
:00:53. > :00:55.do not pay a living wage, but should employers be ashamed? Gear-
:00:55. > :01:03.changes to the planning law threaten our green and pleasant
:01:03. > :01:09.land? DPM is in the Middle East selling Britain's military wares,
:01:09. > :01:14.good for exports, but is it ethical? I think it is maybe time
:01:14. > :01:18.for maybe a business plan, how about that? And roll up, rock stars,
:01:18. > :01:26.actors and comedians, but do celebrity endorsements help the
:01:26. > :01:30.political cause they espouse? All that in the next hour, and with
:01:30. > :01:33.us for the whole programme today is the broadcaster Fiona Phillips,
:01:33. > :01:36.welcome to the programme. Let's start with an issue close to her
:01:36. > :01:40.heart, because the Daily Mail reports that the Prime Minister is
:01:41. > :01:45.soon to announce the creation of new high-tech brain clinics which
:01:45. > :01:48.will help to cut the diagnosis time for dementia from 18 months to just
:01:49. > :01:53.three. New line an ambassador of the Alzheimer's Society, what to
:01:53. > :01:57.think about this? I think it is a good move, and early diagnosis
:01:57. > :02:02.helps people plan their care. When somebody is diagnosed with
:02:02. > :02:07.Alzheimer's or dementia, it is a huge bomb in the lives of carers as
:02:07. > :02:11.well, they have to take over their whole lives, financial staff, so it
:02:11. > :02:14.is the carer's time to plan and the sort that out. But what is the
:02:14. > :02:19.point of diagnosing all these people when they're still is not
:02:19. > :02:23.enough money going into research for a cure? There was a startling
:02:23. > :02:26.story a couple of weeks ago which, if it was about cancer, would have
:02:26. > :02:30.caused a national uproar, in that some of the drug companies are
:02:30. > :02:35.deciding to abandon research for Alzheimer's drugs because it is
:02:35. > :02:38.costing them too much, because they do not tend to be successful. There
:02:38. > :02:42.wird two big trials which were dropped recently because they were
:02:42. > :02:46.proven not to have worked. Shareholders are worried about
:02:46. > :02:49.their slice of the cake, so it is a scandal. Imagine if they said
:02:49. > :02:53.cancer drug companies are not researching a cure because the
:02:54. > :02:58.shareholders want more money back on their investment. Because it is
:02:59. > :03:04.not seen, is it, excuse the word, fashionable in terms of their
:03:04. > :03:07.interests, but it is more prevalent, so do you think that will change
:03:07. > :03:10.attitudes, hearts and minds of these companies when they realise
:03:10. > :03:16.more people are being diagnosed not just with Alzheimer's but early
:03:16. > :03:21.onset Alzheimer's? The problem is ageism, pure and simple. It is seen
:03:21. > :03:24.as an elderly disease, it is like the Liverpool care at way, let's
:03:24. > :03:28.see them shove off the mortal coil without much care what dignity,
:03:28. > :03:33.because they're old anyway. My mother was in her 50s when she was
:03:33. > :03:39.showing signs of Alzheimer's. was my father. It is devastating
:03:39. > :03:46.for a family, as you know, Jo. I met a lady last week he was 39. It
:03:46. > :03:50.is not just an elderly disease, but it is costing the NHS �23 billion a
:03:50. > :03:54.year, and only 20 is being invested for a cure. What about drugs to
:03:54. > :03:58.slow down the deterioration of people's brains? Is that where the
:03:58. > :04:02.focus should be? If there is more early onset Alzheimer's and drugs
:04:02. > :04:07.are available not to cure but which might slow down the deterioration,
:04:07. > :04:11.should that be where people's money and minds should be? Yes, because
:04:11. > :04:13.it certainly gives the carer probably about 18 months more
:04:13. > :04:18.quality of life than they would have without the drug, although
:04:18. > :04:21.having said that, drugs such as Aricept, the main drug we are
:04:21. > :04:25.talking about, do not work for everyone. They did not work for my
:04:25. > :04:29.mother, and I did not give my father any drugs, and he functioned
:04:29. > :04:34.better without them, to be honest with you. But what is the point
:04:34. > :04:38.when there is no cure? There is no proper care. The later stages, I
:04:38. > :04:44.had a nightmare... And the cost, if they have to go into homes to be
:04:44. > :04:47.looked after 24 hours. The cost to the NHS is 23 billion a year, and
:04:47. > :04:53.yet only 20 million is being invested in research at the moment.
:04:53. > :04:57.It is crazy. Moving on to something different, our daily quiz,
:04:57. > :05:00.newspapers are reporting today that David Cameron's former strategy
:05:00. > :05:05.guru, Steve Hilton, is thinking about opening a restaurant in
:05:05. > :05:11.London. So our question is, what sort of restaurant is he planning
:05:11. > :05:18.to open, organic vegan, Native American, Hungarian, or sushi? We
:05:18. > :05:22.will give you the answer at the end of the show. I would not mind
:05:23. > :05:26.organic vegan! Do not give any clues. Few things unite Boris
:05:26. > :05:29.Johnson and Ed Miliband, but the living wage is one of them. The
:05:29. > :05:32.wage is supposed to begin at needed to provide an adequate standard of
:05:32. > :05:36.living. It does not have any statutory force, but campaigners
:05:36. > :05:40.want firms to commit themselves to paying the living wage rather than
:05:40. > :05:44.the minimum wage, which is lower. This morning Labour leader Ed
:05:44. > :05:47.Miliband has been promoting his ideas for extending the living wage
:05:47. > :05:52.to millions of people around the country. It comes on the day it was
:05:52. > :05:57.announced that the UK rate, outside London, has gone up from �7.20 per
:05:57. > :06:02.hour up to �7.45. The London rate has also gone up from �8.30 power
:06:03. > :06:11.up to �8.55. Boris Johnson spoke about it this morning. The London
:06:11. > :06:16.living wage campaign is not just about helping to put some extra
:06:16. > :06:21.cash into the pockets of some of the poorest and hardest Working
:06:21. > :06:26.families in the city. It is also about giving them, from firms that
:06:26. > :06:31.can afford it, extra cash to help the wheels of the economy turn, to
:06:31. > :06:38.give them more spending power, to help consumption in the city. It
:06:38. > :06:41.makes economic sense for us as a city. We asked Labour to come on,
:06:41. > :06:46.since they are putting forward these proposals, but no-one was
:06:46. > :06:50.available. With us his Neil Jameson from Citizens UK, who have been
:06:50. > :06:54.promoting the campaign, and Mark Littlewood from the Institute of
:06:54. > :06:57.Economic Affairs. Boris Johnson says it makes economic sense.
:06:57. > :07:02.not agree with Boris Johnson. It makes economic sense to hope and
:07:02. > :07:06.pray that everybody gets paid more, I would like to see everybody
:07:06. > :07:09.getting �1 million per year! But it will help the economy if people
:07:09. > :07:12.spend that money in the economy. I'm surprised Boris Johnson is
:07:12. > :07:16.using this old-fashioned Keynesian argument. You do not need to do
:07:16. > :07:20.that through a wage, I do not know what he will advocate next, taxing
:07:20. > :07:25.bankers, taxing property, giving it to people at the low end of the
:07:25. > :07:34.spectrum? It is well-intentioned but extremely misguided in my view,
:07:34. > :07:36.especially the naming and shaming aspect. Why is it misguided?
:07:37. > :07:41.Perhaps he feels people cannot afford to live in London unless
:07:41. > :07:45.they are getting the living wage. We seem to have these experts who
:07:45. > :07:50.are determined to the last penny to determine what a living wage is,
:07:50. > :07:53.and actually familial circumstances differ widely. If you are a 21-
:07:53. > :07:57.year-old living at home rent-free with your parents, for sake of
:07:57. > :08:01.argument, your economic needs of rather less than if you are the
:08:01. > :08:05.only breadwinner in a house with three of four dependence. The idea
:08:05. > :08:10.that we straightjacket everybody into the, you need �8 per hour in
:08:10. > :08:14.order to get by, I think that does not take account of the variety of
:08:14. > :08:18.different lives that people lead. What do you say to that? Well,
:08:18. > :08:23.obviously we do not agree, and that Citizens UK we have been promoting
:08:23. > :08:29.his campaign for the last 10 years. Mark is right out on a limb,
:08:29. > :08:33.several local authorities are now paying the living wage. The mayor
:08:33. > :08:36.is leading as far as the GLA is concerned. Should people be looked
:08:36. > :08:41.at in the same way? It is a gold standard to enter what. Today is
:08:41. > :08:45.the beginning of living wage week, and our aim is to get as many
:08:45. > :08:51.employers as possible taking the figure series A, the BBC included,
:08:51. > :08:55.and that is what is happening. 76 employers have been signed up.
:08:55. > :08:59.These are major employers. It is not intended to persuade small
:08:59. > :09:02.businesses to take a living wage seriously. Why not? If your
:09:02. > :09:07.argument is that it is a gold standard for what people should
:09:07. > :09:11.live on, why should it only the big companies? People working for small
:09:11. > :09:15.companies require the same standard of living. Lobbying small
:09:15. > :09:22.businesses, it is up to their association. We are challenging
:09:22. > :09:26.every employer to look to their own, to look to those people who are
:09:26. > :09:29.cleaners, security guards, caterers, who are paid minimum wage. In
:09:29. > :09:35.London, lots of people get London weighting, that has been recognised
:09:35. > :09:38.for yonks, but the folks to protect and clean the capital do not get it.
:09:38. > :09:42.Terrific that Barclays, KPMG and others have been able to lift the
:09:42. > :09:46.salaries for those at the bottom, but to be honest it is public
:09:46. > :09:51.sector workers, blue-chip companies that are signing up for this. Were
:09:51. > :09:55.you really have a problem with low wages tends to be in the SME sector,
:09:55. > :09:59.tends to be fairly manual jobs. You know, if you are running a fruit-
:09:59. > :10:04.picking business or something like that. So my fear is that, yes, if
:10:04. > :10:08.you are a cleaner at Barclays or in the City of London, or a runner for
:10:08. > :10:11.the BBC, you might see our wages go up... What is wrong with that? It
:10:11. > :10:15.is a start. If we are really worried about the working poor, we
:10:15. > :10:19.have to get people in on the first rung of the ladder, and that is
:10:19. > :10:23.typically at the family run business level. What I am concerned
:10:23. > :10:26.about is that it seems to me if I were to set up a new business in
:10:26. > :10:30.the north-east, a production line or something, and I offered 100
:10:30. > :10:35.jobs at �7 per hour, because that is the only value of productivity,
:10:35. > :10:38.they are not worth �7.25, I am going to be named... If you think
:10:38. > :10:43.they are not worth that, they will work accordingly. Say that that
:10:43. > :10:47.really is the value of the labour, if I pay more than that, I am going
:10:47. > :10:53.bust. If I create 100 new jobs in the north-east of England, I am
:10:53. > :10:57.named and shamed by Ed Miliband and Rachel Reeves, am I, for being an
:10:57. > :11:01.exploitative employers? It is a voluntary scheme... Labour is
:11:01. > :11:05.wanting to name and shame. You think that should happen? It is a
:11:05. > :11:10.voluntary code with no statutory element, but you think it is right
:11:10. > :11:15.to name and shame companies? I do not know which will be included.
:11:15. > :11:19.Nor do they! Should that be part of it? No, absolutely not, because
:11:19. > :11:23.that gives the whole thing a negative connotation, but people
:11:23. > :11:29.adopt the living wage and the performance of staff, 80% of
:11:29. > :11:35.employers... Their performance has gone up immeasurably because they
:11:35. > :11:39.feel valued, and levels of absenteeism have gone down by 25%.
:11:39. > :11:44.That makes the economic sense that Boris Johnson is talking about.
:11:44. > :11:47.that point, possibly, possibly not, but this is not politics, it is
:11:47. > :11:50.management consultancy. If you have a good idea and can knock on the
:11:50. > :11:56.doors of business, I get dozens of calls a week about how to improve
:11:56. > :11:58.my business. You have got ideas, Gustavo will be better off if you
:11:58. > :12:03.pay them more, make sure you take them out to a Christmas lunch to
:12:03. > :12:07.improve morale. -- your staff. That is a management consultancy
:12:07. > :12:10.business, and you should not compete as politicians. If you have
:12:10. > :12:14.got two parents working at the minimum wage and one could afford
:12:14. > :12:18.to work part-time if they were earning a living wage and looking
:12:18. > :12:24.after the children, looking after teenagers, I have got one, they
:12:24. > :12:27.need more management now than ever before! That is good for society,
:12:27. > :12:32.families have time to spend with their children because one of them
:12:32. > :12:36.is earning a living wage. I wonder if I could just have a second, it
:12:36. > :12:43.is not an accident, this is driven by a civil society. The market has
:12:43. > :12:45.had its say and tends to drive down wages. We are a civil society
:12:45. > :12:48.organisation that came from families saying they could not
:12:48. > :12:53.afford to live in London, which is why this is so important, because
:12:53. > :12:57.it is really a family wage. does support for the living wage
:12:57. > :13:01.square with the pay freeze on unions? Labour, of course, is
:13:01. > :13:04.supporting that pay freeze for unions. You know, keeping wages
:13:04. > :13:09.down to boost growth is the opposite of what you are proposing.
:13:09. > :13:12.Sure, there has to be some middle ground, but most people are
:13:13. > :13:16.employed in-house are well above the minimum wage, so this is, as I
:13:16. > :13:20.say, apart out sourced people who are not in this position. I do not
:13:20. > :13:23.think it is Labour is saying it should be frozen at the minimum
:13:23. > :13:28.wage, this is about incremental growth for people that are paid
:13:28. > :13:32.below the living wage. What would you support? Are you in favour of
:13:32. > :13:36.the minimum wage? You're not in favour of any sort of flat rate
:13:37. > :13:40.that gives a standard, why not? Because I think we are in danger,
:13:40. > :13:44.and I'm delighted this is a voluntary arrangement, and I do not
:13:44. > :13:48.buy the view that everyone in the free market is running a Dickensian
:13:48. > :13:52.workhouse, you know, I look at my staff, and those who are doing well
:13:52. > :13:56.get pay rises, that boosts... some industries people are paid
:13:56. > :13:59.next to nothing. You have got to give people a chance of getting the
:13:59. > :14:06.first rung on a ladder, and we have got a real problem, especially
:14:06. > :14:11.amongst young people, about getting them on the ladder, and if you make
:14:11. > :14:14.jobs below �6.90 per hour illegal, and jobs below �8.50 per hour in
:14:14. > :14:17.London socially unacceptable, if you like, we would still have loads
:14:17. > :14:21.of people just graduated from university who cannot get that
:14:21. > :14:25.first round on a ladder. I would rather see people coming in at the
:14:25. > :14:29.low end of the labour market, not easy for the first few months or a
:14:29. > :14:35.year, at �5.50 per hour, �6, because that is the best way to get
:14:35. > :14:39.yourself up to �10, �15, and get rich over the long term. We are in
:14:39. > :14:43.danger of pulling those early runs out of it. And youth unemployment
:14:43. > :14:47.is a huge issue. Certainly, but the market has proved consistently that
:14:47. > :14:51.is not the way to do it, and that is why this gold standard is so
:14:51. > :14:55.important, frankly, and I do not accept that Mark is right in this
:14:55. > :14:58.instance, because lots of people start on that basis. This is a
:14:58. > :15:08.target to get there was for good employers who have the money, and
:15:08. > :15:12.
:15:12. > :15:16.that is why this is so important. Now, it's estimated that about 1200
:15:16. > :15:20.people were denied their democratic right to vote in the last election.
:15:20. > :15:25.The reason? Long queues at polling stations across England, including
:15:26. > :15:31.this one in Nick Clegg's constituency in Sheffield. Many
:15:31. > :15:37.people were turn add way because the polls closed at 10pm.
:15:37. > :15:41.I think everybody's very angry. People missed out their votes. It's
:15:41. > :15:45.totally wrong. This happens in poor countries. You don't expect it to
:15:45. > :15:50.happen in the UK. This could make all the difference between somebody
:15:50. > :15:52.loseing or winning. Well strong feeling there. Now the Electoral
:15:52. > :15:57.Commission wants a change in the law so that anyone in the queue
:15:57. > :16:00.when the polls close will be allowed to vote. Jenny Watson is
:16:00. > :16:04.chair of the commission and perhaps rather appropriately she's waiting
:16:04. > :16:09.patiently for us outside on College Green. Thanks for braving the cold
:16:09. > :16:12.for us. What exactly do you want to see? We want a change in the law to
:16:13. > :16:17.make sure that there is flexibility when the polls close, which would
:16:17. > :16:21.mean if you're in a queue at 10pm, whether inside or outside the
:16:21. > :16:24.polling station, you can be issued with your ballot paper and you can
:16:24. > :16:27.cast your vote. That would mean we would not have a repeat of the
:16:27. > :16:31.scenes you just showed. At the moment the law is inflexible. There
:16:31. > :16:36.is a 10pm cut off. If you don't have your ballot paper you can't
:16:36. > :16:40.cast your vote. We have always had that 10pm cut off. That was a one
:16:40. > :16:43.off. The Government has said your proposal aren't necessary because
:16:43. > :16:47.if local authorities had made proper provision we shouldn't have
:16:47. > :16:51.that situation. When we reported on this we found there were three
:16:51. > :16:55.causes - poor planning, that's right and there's a lot that can be
:16:55. > :16:59.done there. There is also poor contingency planning or that
:16:59. > :17:03.doesn't kick in as intended. A cause of what happened was the lack
:17:03. > :17:06.of flexibility in the law. It's a very simple amendment that we're
:17:06. > :17:09.putting forward. It has the support of the House of Lords constitution
:17:10. > :17:13.committee. It has cross-party support. I can't see a good reason
:17:13. > :17:16.for doing. It the interesting thing is that we know that it works
:17:16. > :17:19.because the Scottish Government changed the law for the Scottish
:17:19. > :17:23.local elections earlier this year in May. So we have seen, for the
:17:23. > :17:26.first time, the first three people who were in a queue at 10pm and who
:17:26. > :17:32.were able to cast their vote under that law in Scotland. We can see
:17:32. > :17:37.that it works. I suppose what occurs to me is that everyone rocks
:17:37. > :17:41.up at 9.55pm because it's inconvenient to come earlier
:17:41. > :17:47.knowing that as long as they're in the queue or even aat 30 seconds to
:17:47. > :17:50.ten they can vote. That's unlikely to happen. We saw from 2010, some
:17:50. > :17:53.of those had been queuing for a long time, in some cases over an
:17:53. > :17:58.hour. We know that people want to get to the polling station in good
:17:58. > :18:02.time. If you commute into a major city you only need a transport
:18:02. > :18:05.incident and you could have a few people turning up late. It's a
:18:05. > :18:08.flexibility that means everybody can cast our vote. That's so
:18:08. > :18:12.important in our democracy. I hope it's pass and will be accepted by
:18:12. > :18:17.the Government. Is there a danger it might be abused? Would it be a
:18:18. > :18:22.case, you mention the Scottish elections, is there a case for
:18:22. > :18:24.passing ballot papers in the street? I don't think. So a managed
:18:24. > :18:30.process where we have the flexibility in the law and people
:18:30. > :18:32.know if they're in a queue that they can vote is likely to be less
:18:32. > :18:38.problematic than one where they think that if they're in a queue
:18:38. > :18:41.and don't get there by 10pm they might not vote. This won able
:18:41. > :18:45.returning officers to manage the queue tightly, to be where the cut
:18:45. > :18:50.off is at 10pm and issue the papers as people move into the polling
:18:50. > :18:55.station. It's a sensible solution. How many people did it affect in
:18:55. > :19:00.2010? We think it affected around 1200 people in 16 constituencies.
:19:00. > :19:05.So not that many. For those people who can't vote, extremely important,
:19:05. > :19:09.many of them very angry. It was a desperate shame that the kind of
:19:09. > :19:12.signal it sent about our democracy. Those pictures went around the
:19:12. > :19:17.world. That's one of the very important things. We would expect
:19:17. > :19:21.this to be rare. Majority of polling stations would close
:19:21. > :19:23.absolutely as usual at 10pm. If there was a queue in a few stations
:19:23. > :19:29.there would be the flexibility and everybody would be able to cast
:19:29. > :19:33.their vote. What about cost? Will extra cost have to be provided for
:19:33. > :19:37.in the case of an overrun? There are no new costs associated with
:19:38. > :19:41.this. In fact, I think the returning officers who had problems
:19:41. > :19:46.in 2010 would probably tell you the cost of having to get in the police
:19:46. > :19:50.to manage those queues when people were getting very aggrieved and dot
:19:50. > :19:53.reviews afterwards and fiebd whatlet lessons were, that's where
:19:53. > :19:56.the additional cost were. This flexibility doesn't introduce new
:19:56. > :19:59.costs. Thank you very much. What do you think, is it a sensible
:19:59. > :20:03.proposal and the Government shouldn't make any fuss about it?
:20:03. > :20:08.Absolutely. Of course it's a sensible proposal. I would go
:20:08. > :20:10.further actually. In the States, I think the majority of the states in
:20:10. > :20:14.America offer individuals the right to take time off work to vote. If
:20:14. > :20:18.you think, I know what it's like - It is a problem to get to the polls
:20:18. > :20:23.if you are working. It is especially in a big city. People
:20:23. > :20:26.have managed it and there is erbly voting. There is the chance for
:20:26. > :20:31.people to organise themselves. Some people. That's the problem!
:20:31. > :20:34.suppose the view is that actually we've managed for decades in terms
:20:34. > :20:39.of getting there at 10pm. If it's important enough people take the
:20:39. > :20:42.trouble. Do we really need to make it easier, is it going to be the
:20:42. > :20:46.thin end of the wedge? I think, we're a mature democracy that
:20:46. > :20:50.countries around the world look to. To see scenes like that, people
:20:50. > :20:55.locked out and not being able to vote because they've turned up a
:20:55. > :20:59.few minutes late is not on. Well, it's a busy time for American
:20:59. > :21:06.celebrities with political leanings. They're lending support to their
:21:06. > :21:10.favoured candidates in the US presidential election. Last night,
:21:11. > :21:15.Stevie Wonder, I think you could hear him, entertained crowds before
:21:15. > :21:19.a Barack Obama rally in Ohio. Celebrity endorsement of political
:21:19. > :21:28.campaigns is not confined to the United States. But how helpful is
:21:28. > :21:32.an actor, rock star or comedian sympathetic to the cause?
:21:33. > :21:37.My guy's mad at me. It was Kenneth Brannagh playing McLouglin being in
:21:37. > :21:40.the Harry Potter film that's said, "Celebrity is as celebrity does".
:21:40. > :21:44.Which sounds and looks very good and profound and actually means
:21:44. > :21:50.nothing at all. Which when it comes to it, sums up the pit falls of
:21:50. > :21:53.celebrities mixing with politics. But they all do it. To be fair,
:21:53. > :21:56.sometimes it's a marriage of convenience, not so much card
:21:56. > :22:01.carrying endorsement of policy but a joint interest in a similar issue.
:22:01. > :22:09.Or just a one-sided declaration of something quite different. I love
:22:09. > :22:14.him. I officially want that to be known here today. I love Alan
:22:14. > :22:17.Johnson. It wasn't a bromance that brought Sir Michael Caine to the
:22:17. > :22:20.Conservatives in 2010, but the National Citizens' Service, but as
:22:21. > :22:24.it was the party's first election press conference of the campaign,
:22:24. > :22:31.he did ask what we were all thinking. What the hell is he doing
:22:31. > :22:36.here? Why is he here? It's not usual for -- unusual for film stars
:22:36. > :22:39.to dip their toes in political waters. Sean Connery's supported
:22:39. > :22:44.the SNP's bid for an independent homeland from Spain for years sm.
:22:44. > :22:48.Celebs are truly committed. You saw Neil Kinnock in Tracy Ullman's My
:22:48. > :22:54.Guy video. She's still with the party. And Eddie Izzard has moved
:22:54. > :22:58.from -- moved from Gordon to Ed. Really good of you to do this.
:22:58. > :23:02.problem. But does it work? Most of the evidence we have from polling
:23:02. > :23:06.is that it makes no difference whatsoever. Over 90% of people,
:23:06. > :23:11.when we read out a list of celebrities like Dawn French or
:23:11. > :23:16.even the Princess of Wales, 95% or more of people said it would make
:23:16. > :23:19.no difference knowing how they voted. The Tories used to lag
:23:19. > :23:25.behind, the odd soap star and Jim Davidson. Recently more pop star
:23:25. > :23:29.glamour. Is the shine coming off the whole thing? Certainly it's
:23:29. > :23:34.possible the Lib Dems, who have the odd famous face in their ranks,
:23:34. > :23:36.have decided why have a pop star when you can be one.
:23:37. > :23:41.When we're advising commercial brands about the use of celebrities,
:23:41. > :23:44.a lot of them do it all the time, the first advice is - are you sure
:23:44. > :23:48.there isn't anything more creative can you do than get this celebrity
:23:48. > :23:51.on the screen? If you are determined to have this celebrity,
:23:51. > :23:55.then ask yourself - do they fit the brand you're trying to advertise?
:23:55. > :24:02.Then after that, are you sure it isn't just going to distract from
:24:02. > :24:10.the brand and kill the message? Let's bomb Russia.
:24:10. > :24:16.Let's kick Michael Foot's stick away. What do you want me to tell
:24:16. > :24:20.Romney. I can't tell him to do that. He can't do that to himself. You're
:24:20. > :24:25.absolutely crazy. Celebrity endorsements in the
:24:25. > :24:31.short-term may give you a gain, but in the long-term they can build up
:24:31. > :24:39.real problems. The message really has got to be don't do it - I just
:24:39. > :24:43.want to say, I love this guy. I think he is one of the country's
:24:43. > :24:48.pre-eminent broadcasters. I'm minor celebrity Richard Bacon and I
:24:48. > :24:55.approve this message. Thanks Richard. Yeah, celebrity
:24:55. > :25:00.endorsements... They're... Walk ard -- awkward.
:25:00. > :25:04.Well done. Joaning me now is Penny Mordaunt a form ehead of
:25:04. > :25:09.broadcasting under William Hague. Does it work, is it a good thing?
:25:09. > :25:13.It rarely works. Can you have some spectacular results, notable cases
:25:13. > :25:19.are Oprah Winfrey, it's been calculated she gave Obama about a
:25:19. > :25:23.million votes in the primarys. George Clooney, he's authentic and
:25:23. > :25:27.knowledgeable on the issues he campaigns on. He got a spotlight on
:25:27. > :25:35.Rwanda when people weren't interested. There are notable
:25:35. > :25:41.exceptions, but generally the downsides outweigh the upsides.
:25:41. > :25:44.love Alan Johnson. You endorsed Labour. I wasn't endorsing Labour.
:25:44. > :25:48.They said they wanted me to brighten up conference and Alan
:25:48. > :25:53.asked me to do it because, well they said I was a breath of fresh
:25:53. > :25:58.air after. Yes, it was slightly embarrassing. You must have been
:25:58. > :26:01.brought on as a celebrity who was, even if you're saying... I was only
:26:01. > :26:05.introducing a debate. I'm a journalist I cannot be seen to be
:26:05. > :26:09.partial, however, I introduced it. They said they wanted me to appeal
:26:09. > :26:12.to the voters in the audience rather than having a stuffy
:26:12. > :26:20.introduction to Alan Johnson an Jack Straw. Would you do it again?
:26:20. > :26:23.No. No. Absolutely not. For any party? No, no. I'm at Downing
:26:23. > :26:27.Street on Thursday because the Prime Minister is making an
:26:27. > :26:32.announcement about demen sma. So if it's stuff like that, yes. I will
:26:32. > :26:36.go. It's interesting you say it's the type of celebrity. If you get
:26:36. > :26:40.the celebrity right and they know a bit about policy, then it can be a
:26:40. > :26:44.good thing? Yes, Fiona has campaigned domestically and also
:26:44. > :26:48.internationally on a range of issues. So you're an authentic
:26:48. > :26:52.person and credible. There is some merit with people that the public
:26:52. > :26:58.know getting involved with politics because we're trying to encourage
:26:58. > :27:02.people to do that, to vote, to edgester to vote etc. There have
:27:02. > :27:09.been some real disasters. Name me some of them. Just I suppose,
:27:09. > :27:13.celebrities not knowing their brief. Classic example is the sympathy
:27:13. > :27:16.note that Mariah Carrie sent out after the death of king Hussein of
:27:16. > :27:23.Jordan which said the world of basketball would never see his like
:27:23. > :27:28.again. Not sow much in politics, but in the charity sector, you have
:27:28. > :27:32.had celebrities which turn up to do their job and you've had to say
:27:32. > :27:37.they're stuck in a lift because they haven't been in any condition
:27:37. > :27:43.do -- to do anything. You get situations like. That They tend to
:27:43. > :27:47.be in it for their own self- aggrandisement. That's the
:27:47. > :27:51.difficulty. It's difficult to see why it wouldn't be a two-way street.
:27:51. > :28:00.There must be a feeling that celebrities are trying to publicise
:28:00. > :28:04.hemselves. Lindsay Lohan offered support to Obama, when was it? So
:28:04. > :28:08.2008, he said sorry that's not the kind of celebrity endorsement we're
:28:08. > :28:12.looking for. She's backing Romney this election. She thinks the
:28:12. > :28:16.employment issue is very important apparently. What did you think of
:28:16. > :28:20.the Clint Eastwood endorsement and that empty chair. You're talking to
:28:20. > :28:24.the wrong woman because Clint Eastwood can do no wrong in my book.
:28:24. > :28:29.But it's a gamble. I think Stephen Fry had it down very well a couple
:28:29. > :28:33.of years ago. All three political parties approached him to ask for
:28:33. > :28:39.endorsements and his view was "certainly not. This is a silly
:28:40. > :28:43.thing". You should just make up his own mind. JK Rowling has been a
:28:43. > :28:47.useful supporter for Labour, financially and in terms of pro
:28:47. > :28:51.file. Absolutely. I think it is certainly the most good that can
:28:51. > :28:55.come from that kind of relationship is a long-term relationship.
:28:55. > :28:58.can't expect celebrities to know the policies in that much detail or
:28:58. > :29:01.how much time do you spend with your celebrity backers? Do you go
:29:01. > :29:06.through briefing after briefing to make sure they know what you're
:29:06. > :29:12.talking about? No, I think that these days, it's much more about
:29:12. > :29:16.actual single issue campaigns. You might have celebrities backing
:29:16. > :29:22.knife crime issues or something about a local charity that they
:29:22. > :29:27.support. I think that's much more effective. Where you get into
:29:27. > :29:31.dangerous territory is when you have a celebrity that really isn't
:29:31. > :29:35.heart and soul signed up to a particular political party, doesn't
:29:36. > :29:39.know their stuff, isn't there for the long-term and is just looking
:29:39. > :29:44.to have that relationship because they've got a book coming out or
:29:44. > :29:48.something like that. Is it harder for the Tories to get celebrity
:29:48. > :29:51.endorsements? Has it been over the years? I think Jim Davidson is
:29:51. > :29:56.available still. Again. I think historically it's been. I don't
:29:56. > :30:02.think that's so much the case now. Yes, there were some grim moments.
:30:02. > :30:06.Anybody you tried to get? No, I never did that for the party at all.
:30:06. > :30:12.No, not me! I have worked this side of the pond but also in the States
:30:12. > :30:16.as well. There are a lot of celebrity adverts in the US. Could
:30:16. > :30:20.that work here? Or it will come here? You think it's cringey?
:30:20. > :30:26.think it's really cringey. A couple of universities in the States have
:30:26. > :30:31.done studies on whether it helps. Both say no. It can harm the
:30:31. > :30:34.celebrity. I mean being seen... brand? Yes, because you go off
:30:34. > :30:38.people. If you see certain people with someone you don't like, or you
:30:38. > :30:42.think I didn't real aisles he was so right or left-wing that damaging
:30:42. > :30:45.them too. On that note I'm going to say goodbye. Thank you very much
:30:45. > :30:50.and thank you for being our guest of the day. Now time to take a look
:30:50. > :30:53.at what's going to be making the news this week: The big story is
:30:53. > :30:57.Tuesday's American elections, which we've been discussing briefly. The
:30:57. > :31:00.polls show there's hardly anything in it between Barack Obama and Mitt
:31:00. > :31:04.Romney. Most experts expect it will go down to the wire. How will the
:31:04. > :31:07.result go down in Westminster? On Wednesday, Chancellor Angela Merkel
:31:07. > :31:12.is in Downing Street for talks with David Cameron. High on the agenda
:31:12. > :31:18.will be the upcoming EU budget. The Prime Minister is desperate for
:31:18. > :31:23.there not to be any increase and backbenchers will watch to see if
:31:23. > :31:26.she gives hints of a compromise. On Thursday the former International
:31:26. > :31:30.Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell will be in front of the
:31:30. > :31:34.aides Select Committee to answer questions on the decision to
:31:34. > :31:38.restore aid to Rwanda. More with two of Westminster's top insiders
:31:39. > :31:43.James Kirkup from the Daily Telegraph and Kate Devlin from the
:31:43. > :31:47.Herald. James on Europe, if David Cameron manages to secure an
:31:47. > :31:50.inflation-only rise in terms of the EU budget, will that really be
:31:50. > :31:58.enough to persuade those rebels who voted against the Government last
:31:58. > :32:04.Some of them. Not all of the rebels think it is possible for David
:32:04. > :32:08.Cameron to get at cut. They were saying, just be tougher. Some of
:32:08. > :32:12.the rebels, the other rebels, they will not be happy with whatever he
:32:13. > :32:17.brings back, to be honest, and they are the group who essentially see
:32:17. > :32:24.that boat as a way of pushing Britain a little bit closer to the
:32:24. > :32:28.European exit door. -- vote. To be honest, I suspect whatever he comes
:32:28. > :32:32.back with from that summit, if it does a deal, bear in mind it does
:32:32. > :32:36.not have to conclude this month and can go on a little longer, but
:32:36. > :32:41.whatever he comes back with will almost certainly see a fair number
:32:41. > :32:46.of people saying, not good enough, more reason to think about leaving.
:32:46. > :32:50.Kate Devlin, what does he need to promise into the next election? It
:32:50. > :32:54.seems nothing short of an inn-out referendum will do it. The problem
:32:54. > :32:57.is that he keeps changing what he thinks he needs to promise. He
:32:57. > :33:02.started by talking about getting powers back from Europe, then he
:33:02. > :33:06.was hinting at something that could be else, but now they are moving
:33:06. > :33:12.more towards a referendum definitely. And he keeps getting
:33:12. > :33:15.pushed by the rebels. The problem is, the more you give them, the
:33:15. > :33:20.more they want, and who knows where they will be going into the next
:33:20. > :33:24.election? Is there a sense that all three parties could end up
:33:24. > :33:27.promising a referendum on something? I know the Tories say it
:33:27. > :33:31.will be on the balance of competencies, repatriation of
:33:31. > :33:38.powers, but they could all go into the next election promising and get
:33:38. > :33:41.out referendum. It is possible. I think it would be quite surprising.
:33:41. > :33:44.From the Labour point of view, there is a certain short-term
:33:44. > :33:49.tactical appeal for the party and tried to outflank the Conservatives,
:33:49. > :33:53.play at this internal unhappiness in the Tory party. On the other
:33:53. > :33:58.hand, there are so many Labour Party will be saying, we should not
:33:58. > :34:02.be getting ourselves down into that sort of politics. It is a fairly
:34:02. > :34:07.active debate in the Labour Party. At the last general election, the
:34:07. > :34:11.Liberal Democrats, very pro European, talked about having an EU
:34:11. > :34:15.referendum to resolve the issue once and for, as they put it. They
:34:15. > :34:20.would hold a referendum and campaign for a "yes" vote to stay
:34:20. > :34:23.in, so it is not impossible they could do that. The uncertainty is
:34:23. > :34:28.around the Labour position, and I do not think that debate is
:34:28. > :34:32.resolved yet. Let's take a look across the water to the
:34:32. > :34:36.presidential elections. Number Ten has kept its powder dry in terms of
:34:36. > :34:40.endorsement, always a wise move at this stage. Absolutely. It is
:34:40. > :34:45.incredibly important that you do not back the wrong horse would have
:34:45. > :34:50.to start working with them. I think it has been an interesting race, it
:34:50. > :34:54.is incredibly close, but what you have seen from Romney is that he
:34:55. > :34:59.had to tack to the right to get the nomination. He has gone back now
:34:59. > :35:08.towards the centre to try to win the election. I think some people
:35:08. > :35:12.within Number Ten will be Obama -- will be thinking, at least they
:35:12. > :35:16.know what they're getting with Obama, it is uncertain which Romney
:35:16. > :35:22.will turn up for work. In terms of behind the scenes, there must have
:35:22. > :35:26.been talks with both camps. Yes, in terms of the personal relationship
:35:26. > :35:29.between the people at the top, there is an interesting question to
:35:29. > :35:33.be asked about how David Cameron would get along with President
:35:33. > :35:37.Romney. You will remember that when he came here in July at the start
:35:37. > :35:41.of the Olympics, he said a few things about questioning Britain's
:35:41. > :35:44.commitment to the Olympics, ruffling a few feathers in Downing
:35:44. > :35:51.Street. Since then, we have also heard the Prime Minister making
:35:51. > :35:54.private remarks suggesting that Mitt Romney have ended a lot of
:35:54. > :35:58.people in Britain, so there is a question about that personal
:35:58. > :36:04.relationship. Certainly, if he were to win, I think Number Ten would be
:36:04. > :36:08.quite keen to get them talking amicably as soon as possible.
:36:09. > :36:11.right, James Kirkup, Kate Devlin, thank you very much. We all know in
:36:11. > :36:15.the next three days to the next President will be.
:36:15. > :36:19.The Prime Minister is on a tour of the Middle East aimed at promoting
:36:19. > :36:23.British exports, and in particular arms exports. Today he wants to
:36:23. > :36:28.cement the �6 billion deal with the way he for the BAE Typhoon fighter
:36:28. > :36:32.jet. Tomorrow he will travel to Saudi Arabia, another key ally in
:36:32. > :36:37.tackling terrorism and on the security threat of Iran, which is
:36:37. > :36:40.also considering adding to its Typhoon force. Speaking in Dubai,
:36:40. > :36:45.he answered concerns from human rights activists about the ethics
:36:45. > :36:48.of the deal. There are no no-go areas in this relationship, we
:36:48. > :36:52.discussed all of these things, but we show respect and friendship to
:36:52. > :36:56.an old ally and partner. In terms of defence sales, we have one of
:36:56. > :36:59.the strictest regimes anywhere in the world for sales of defence
:37:00. > :37:02.equipment, but we do believe that countries have a right to self-
:37:02. > :37:06.defence, a right to defend themselves, and we do believe
:37:06. > :37:09.Britain has important defence industries that employ over 300,000
:37:09. > :37:15.people, and so that sort of business is completely legitimate
:37:15. > :37:20.and right. I have been joined by our panel for the rest of the show,
:37:20. > :37:23.Conservative MP Simon Hart, Labour MP Stella Creasy and Duncan Hames
:37:23. > :37:27.of the Liberal Democrats. Also here is Henry McLoughlin from the
:37:27. > :37:35.Campaign against the Arms Trade. What is your reaction to this trip
:37:35. > :37:39.to Dubai? We do not think he should be selling weapons to countries
:37:39. > :37:43.like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These are countries
:37:43. > :37:47.that are clearly authoritarian regimes and have terrible human
:37:47. > :37:50.rights records, and it is completely inconsistent for David
:37:50. > :37:54.Cameron on one had to say that he wants to support human rights and
:37:54. > :37:58.democracy in the Middle East, and then on the other hand go and
:37:58. > :38:02.promote weapons to regimes which are repressing that. Hasn't there
:38:02. > :38:06.always been a level of hypocrisy in selling arms? From time immemorial,
:38:06. > :38:09.democratic countries in the West have armed autocratic regimes that
:38:09. > :38:14.have been helpful allies at one stage and then turned out to be
:38:14. > :38:19.less savoury. It is just the way the world works. It is
:38:19. > :38:23.unfortunately what has happened, beyond Argentina, before the
:38:23. > :38:27.Falkland Islands conflict, Saddam before the goal for, then Gaddafi
:38:27. > :38:30.right up until point where we had military strikes against him.
:38:30. > :38:34.would not be selling arms to most of the world unless we were using
:38:34. > :38:39.does standards. That would be great if we were not selling arms to most
:38:39. > :38:42.of the world, we would have a much more peaceful world. Britain is a
:38:42. > :38:46.massive arms exporter, in the top five in the world, and we have
:38:46. > :38:51.wasted a lot of taxpayers' money on it, so subsidies could be going to
:38:51. > :38:54.other industries that are absorbed by these arms exports. The Prime
:38:54. > :38:59.Minister says we have one of the strictest regimes in the world for
:38:59. > :39:04.the sales of defence equipment. Is that not true? On paper, it is one
:39:04. > :39:08.of the strictest in the world, and the arms controls are quite strict
:39:08. > :39:13.on paper, but in reality they are routinely ignored. Otherwise, a
:39:13. > :39:18.committee of MPs said the committee on arms export controls, which is
:39:18. > :39:21.chaired by the former Conservative defence minister, Sir John Stanley,
:39:21. > :39:26.said that the Government is ignoring its arms export controls
:39:26. > :39:31.in favour of promotion of weapons every time. It is hard to find an
:39:31. > :39:36.example where they have not agreed an arms sale. Simon Hart, the Prime
:39:36. > :39:40.Minister should not be there and it is hypocritical of him when he has
:39:40. > :39:44.spoken quite recently about are holding our values in terms of the
:39:44. > :39:49.countries where we are selling arms. No, I think this might have been
:39:49. > :39:52.the case if it was a new venture, but these are old allies, and as we
:39:52. > :39:57.have heard the conditions are stricter than in any other part of
:39:57. > :40:01.the world pretty well. On paper. think that is being a bit
:40:01. > :40:06.disingenuous. It is practical as well as on paper. We cannot ignore
:40:06. > :40:09.the fact that there are 700,000 jobs, a major part of UK industry
:40:09. > :40:14.is dependent on us. Is there any country we should not be selling
:40:14. > :40:18.arms to? I am sure. Which country? They have withdrawn many more
:40:18. > :40:22.licences in the last couple of years than under Gordon Brown's
:40:22. > :40:27.Premiership. Name me a country. would not send arms to Iran, I do
:40:27. > :40:30.not know whether anyone else would. But Saudi Arabia, a region where
:40:30. > :40:35.they worried about regional instability as a result of the
:40:35. > :40:39.threat from Iran. Is that a good move? It is important that we have
:40:39. > :40:45.allies around the world. We were taking action to protect innocent
:40:45. > :40:51.civilians in Libya not so long ago. We were glad to have Qataris as
:40:51. > :40:55.allies in helping as protect those people. And so... So what will be
:40:55. > :40:58.the case that there were the country's which we would be glad to
:40:58. > :41:01.see that they are able to work with us to promote human rights
:41:01. > :41:06.elsewhere in the world. I think the real answer he is about having a
:41:06. > :41:10.proper international treaty to control arms so that we can make
:41:10. > :41:12.sure that it is not just our proportion of the arms industry
:41:13. > :41:17.that is properly controlled but all arms sales around the world, and
:41:17. > :41:22.that is what the UN is trying to agree. Do you have any problem with
:41:22. > :41:27.arms being sold to Saudi Arabia? The problem Thakrar that Henry is
:41:27. > :41:30.pointing out, I think he is right to say, look, too often we have
:41:30. > :41:36.looked at a country's record retrospectively and work out
:41:36. > :41:38.whether a relationship is right. Given the Arab Spring, we have to
:41:39. > :41:42.recognise that the circumstances have changed so substantially, and
:41:42. > :41:46.the idea that we can be consistent about particular states does not
:41:46. > :41:50.withstand scrutiny. There is a lot we can learn about Sweden and
:41:50. > :41:53.America, actually, about how they have arms control and looking at
:41:53. > :41:56.making decisions before the ministers come into the process. I
:41:57. > :42:02.think we would all welcome greater scrutiny of decisions. In response
:42:02. > :42:05.to the Arab Spring, would you sell arms to Bahrain? This is exactly
:42:05. > :42:10.the point about evidence we are making decisions on... What should
:42:10. > :42:13.the evidence be on? Up what I think Henry is pointing out is that too
:42:13. > :42:17.often we have looked at issues after the fact, and what we need to
:42:17. > :42:20.do in this new world order is to look at more of the economic,
:42:20. > :42:24.social intelligence about what is happening in countries, whether or
:42:24. > :42:27.not they might just appear stable on the face of it but there are
:42:27. > :42:31.undercurrents and issues that we need to take account of. We need a
:42:31. > :42:34.process that is better able to do that, and there is a role for
:42:35. > :42:38.Parliament and learning from other countries in doing that. Saudi
:42:38. > :42:43.Arabia, the human rights record is not exactly fantastic, but actually
:42:43. > :42:46.there is a bar we should not sell to them? Many of us are concerned
:42:46. > :42:50.that the Prime Minister has gone but not taking the media with him.
:42:50. > :42:54.It is talking about human rights with these countries, why hide it?
:42:54. > :42:58.Why not do it in plain sight? Labour were happy to make friends
:42:58. > :43:03.with Gaddafi. We have all got to learn from these decisions, but
:43:03. > :43:07.transparency is key. Why is there no press entourage? Normally there
:43:07. > :43:14.would be a whole range of reporters and broadcasters, and it has been
:43:14. > :43:20.reduced to just one photographer and one journalist. Everybody
:43:20. > :43:26.complains when he takes a gang of journalists. There is a balance. It
:43:26. > :43:30.is not just as black and white as it seems. There are some sensitive
:43:30. > :43:34.economic, social and historical relationships here, and I think
:43:34. > :43:38.Cameron is -- has a very delicate path to tread between recognising
:43:38. > :43:41.the right to self-determination of the other countries, recognising
:43:41. > :43:45.the economic contribution to our own country of the arms industry,
:43:45. > :43:51.and trying to ensure that there is a reasonable justification for at
:43:51. > :43:55.least considering arms dealing as part of our... Back in 2011, in the
:43:55. > :43:59.aftermath of the Arab Spring, David Cameron said, our interests lie in
:43:59. > :44:03.upholding our values, insisting on the right to peaceful protest,
:44:03. > :44:07.freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the rule of law. Does
:44:07. > :44:11.that include Saudi Arabia? course, you cannot apply those
:44:11. > :44:16.comments to the whole world and say, do they fit every single nation
:44:16. > :44:19.better mark either you uphold your values for you do not. There is
:44:19. > :44:21.nothing that he is doing that he has not said he would do, there's
:44:21. > :44:26.nothing new about the relationship with these countries, nothing new
:44:26. > :44:30.at all. As I said at the beginning, Henry, this is the way the world is,
:44:30. > :44:33.and you have to be sensitive enough without killing off your business.
:44:33. > :44:38.I am not sure that saying there is nothing new about something
:44:38. > :44:41.justifies it. It can be bad and continue to be bad. Duncan is not
:44:41. > :44:45.quite right that is government has a better record on arms exports
:44:45. > :44:49.than the previous government. They are pretty much the same in that
:44:49. > :44:53.they're both very enthusiastic. Iran is not because of concern
:44:53. > :44:56.about human rights, it is because we have taken the decision that
:44:56. > :45:00.Saudi Arabia is our ally and Iran is not. It does nothing to do with
:45:00. > :45:04.human rights, that decision. I also wanted to pick up David Cameron as
:45:04. > :45:08.comments on the UK benefiting from 300,000 jobs in the defence sector.
:45:08. > :45:12.That is from a study that has been discredited, from about six years
:45:12. > :45:15.ago. The defence industry has declined since then, and in that
:45:16. > :45:21.study they included people like cleaners at the Ministry of Defence,
:45:21. > :45:26.which I would not include been that category. Duncan Hames, on the
:45:26. > :45:29.issue of David Cameron St there are no no-go areas with human rights,
:45:29. > :45:39.what concessions are you expecting the Prime Minister to extract from
:45:39. > :45:44.I do not know the answer to that. But what would you like? Every
:45:44. > :45:48.country that counts itself as an ally should be prepared to discuss
:45:48. > :45:53.human rights if our Prime Minister raises it. Actually, building
:45:53. > :45:56.better understanding, including of our expectations of the appropriate
:45:56. > :46:02.way to conduct oneself in the modern world and the rights that
:46:02. > :46:06.people around the world have is an important part of our international
:46:06. > :46:10.diplomacy. I'm glad that he's able to have these conversation was
:46:10. > :46:14.people right across this trip. And elsewhere in the world as well.
:46:14. > :46:17.Thank you very much. Now, some blue-sky thinking on
:46:17. > :46:21.cutting red tape that could affect the green belt. The coalition's
:46:21. > :46:27.growth bill in front of the Commons today, gives the community
:46:27. > :46:31.secretary Eric Pickles the power to fast-track planning approval for
:46:31. > :46:37.large scale business and commercial projects where Councils have a
:46:37. > :46:42.track record of poor performance. Some campaigners fear it will spoil
:46:42. > :46:46.some of the UK's best-loved land escapes. I'm joined by John Hoad
:46:46. > :46:51.now. What are you most worried about here? Good afternoon. The
:46:51. > :46:55.real worry is that the Government is back tracking on its commitment
:46:55. > :46:59.to localism which was that local councils who, from our point of
:46:59. > :47:03.view, as a campaigning organisation, are open to looking at the detail
:47:03. > :47:07.and making decisions are going to be cut out of some of the most
:47:07. > :47:11.important decision that's affect our countryside. You will have
:47:11. > :47:16.planning inspectors driven by a very strong Government view of the
:47:16. > :47:19.world that appears to be that any development is good development not
:47:19. > :47:24.giving good consideration to the balance of sustainable development
:47:24. > :47:32.which was in the national planning policy framework. Are you saying
:47:32. > :47:39.that any development you -- they will able to override local
:47:39. > :47:44.authorities and appeal to Eric Pickles or this quango, the
:47:44. > :47:48.planning inspectorate and roughshod over local planners? That's what it
:47:48. > :47:52.amounts to in practice. The detail is emerging. The bill effectively
:47:52. > :47:55.allows the Secretary of State to designate failing local planning
:47:55. > :47:59.authorities. From our point of view, as a campaigning organisation, the
:47:59. > :48:02.council that's are possibly going to be seen as failing are the ones
:48:02. > :48:06.that actually are taking careful decisions, which may take a bit
:48:06. > :48:13.longer. They're taking the decisions that give proper
:48:13. > :48:19.consideration to difficult issues which the Government might see as
:48:19. > :48:22.likely to feel -- fail. It's those councils that will be designated as
:48:23. > :48:25.failures. Aren't they just holding up much needed development.
:48:25. > :48:29.Everybody agrees we want to see growth in the economy. One of the
:48:29. > :48:32.reasons put forward is the planning system and people taking far too
:48:32. > :48:37.long to give the go ahead to important planning decisions.
:48:37. > :48:41.yes this is the Government's top- line story about delay and red tape.
:48:41. > :48:45.Isn't there some truth in that? I don't think there is any truth in
:48:46. > :48:50.that. Well over 90% of planning applications are approved within
:48:50. > :48:54.the statutory targets. Sometimes you will have decisions on
:48:54. > :48:58.important issues that need to take a bit longer, but I think it's a
:48:58. > :49:02.myth to say there's a major delay in the system causing problems. The
:49:03. > :49:07.real reason why development is not happening is about the funding
:49:07. > :49:11.situation and finance. Thank you very much. What's happened to
:49:12. > :49:15.localism? The national planning policy framework dramatically
:49:15. > :49:19.simplified the planning guidance. You heard it defended in that
:49:19. > :49:23.interview. He was concerned that it might be compromised. That is
:49:23. > :49:28.something which this Government has introduced in order to - Why have
:49:28. > :49:31.they complicated it? So that everyone can engage. Why have they
:49:31. > :49:35.complicated it by bringing in a planning inspectorate and now
:49:35. > :49:38.giving Eric Pickles the right to designate councils he thinks have a
:49:38. > :49:42.poor record and can you go straight to him. We've always had a planning
:49:42. > :49:48.inspectorate for a very long time. Sadly, we also have some local
:49:48. > :49:52.authorities who perform very badly. If we have interventions in schools
:49:52. > :49:55.which are failing the communities they're meant to serve, why not
:49:55. > :49:57.have interventions when local authorities fail. I thought the
:49:57. > :50:01.idea was that local authorities would make decisions good for local
:50:01. > :50:05.communities and now they won't be able to, because you can bet your
:50:05. > :50:09.bottom dollar when a developer comes forward and the local
:50:09. > :50:12.authority say we don't like this application. They'll say fine,
:50:12. > :50:17.we're going to Eric Pickles. He will probably say in the cause of
:50:17. > :50:21.the development you get the go ahead. This complaint is incredibly
:50:21. > :50:26.exaggerated. In the announcements which were made in September, there
:50:26. > :50:29.was a small number of major sites which had stalled in the planning
:50:29. > :50:35.system where the Government was prepared to negotiate, to see what
:50:35. > :50:39.would be done to bring them into play. At the same time we secured
:50:39. > :50:42.�300 million to support additional affordable housing elsewhere to
:50:42. > :50:46.compensate for anything negotiated on those particular sites. This is
:50:46. > :50:48.not about something which is going to completely override the national
:50:48. > :50:54.planning policy framework which the Government only recently
:50:54. > :50:58.interdeuced. I thought the planning system was there to protect the
:50:58. > :51:03.countryside? I completely agree with everything Duncan said. Funny
:51:03. > :51:06.that. We sometimes confuels the landscape for the people. I come
:51:06. > :51:10.from a position that the countryside is what it is because
:51:10. > :51:12.of people. I live in wost Wales. We're crying out for a flexible
:51:12. > :51:16.planning system. We want a better infrastructure because that
:51:16. > :51:20.actually keeps people in the area. It generates growth and...
:51:20. > :51:23.don't think the local authorities are doing a good enough job?
:51:23. > :51:27.have a National Park to contend with as well. But the really
:51:27. > :51:29.important thing is if we're going to get the right balance there
:51:29. > :51:34.needs to be occasionally the provision whereby the Secretary of
:51:34. > :51:39.State can interview. How do you know it will be occasionally?
:51:39. > :51:42.do you know that it won't be? don't. You're right. Doesn't there
:51:42. > :51:45.have to be reassurance or you will get campaigns saying we're going to
:51:45. > :51:49.be laid open to all sorts of development which will not be good
:51:49. > :51:54.for the environment. I think there are huge protection measures
:51:54. > :51:58.whether in a National Park or a normal planning authority. What I'm
:51:59. > :52:02.concerned about is if people would rather live in a vibrant economy
:52:02. > :52:06.and contribute positively to the kuntriside than sit back and told
:52:06. > :52:11.they can't do anything ever. Don't I think it it is a good idea?
:52:11. > :52:17.been dealing with a planning issue around the Walthamstow dog track,
:52:17. > :52:21.which has massive local support not to be turned into a housing estate.
:52:21. > :52:25.Eric Pickles already has the power he seeks. It seems he's on the side
:52:25. > :52:29.of the developers in this instance. Communities support for planning is
:52:30. > :52:35.so important to good development. I'm sure you both agree, gentlemen.
:52:35. > :52:42.Why take the power from local authorities. Why ride roughshod
:52:42. > :52:50.over local itch. - -- localism. Why want our national parks to be full
:52:50. > :52:56.of noble phone pylons. Can you guarantee that's not going to
:52:56. > :53:00.happen Yes. How? This provides a safety net in case local councils
:53:00. > :53:04.are getting in the way of what is reasonable. You think the national
:53:04. > :53:08.parks authority is getting in the way of protecting our parks?
:53:08. > :53:12.could occupy you for half an hour living where I do. There is a
:53:12. > :53:15.balance to be struck. I accept. That the national parks are hugely
:53:15. > :53:19.important. Thre where people live and work. They are where people
:53:19. > :53:24.need to do business. We have to strike a balance. We can't fold our
:53:24. > :53:29.arms and pretend these things don't happen and stare at a lovely view.
:53:29. > :53:32.Why are we spending time on a piece of legislation that speaks to the
:53:32. > :53:37.developers rather than local communities. The problem in the
:53:37. > :53:42.economy is confidence. We have businesses sitting on investment
:53:42. > :53:46.because they're foo frightened. This won't help change that. With
:53:46. > :53:50.the localism bill we took about 15 big strides forward in terms of
:53:51. > :53:56.making it easier for local people to get involved. Now you're taking
:53:56. > :54:00.them away. This is a safety measure. I'm more than happy to admit that.
:54:00. > :54:07.Tell me a local authority that's performing badly. After programme
:54:07. > :54:11.The majority make the decisions within the time frames. There are
:54:11. > :54:18.some local authorities which have driven businesses bonkers. Labour
:54:18. > :54:22.is the one that is backing big business development, they want to
:54:22. > :54:26.spend money to stimulate the economy. Surely you should welcome
:54:26. > :54:30.this if it gets rid of a block to the planning application. The issue
:54:30. > :54:33.is about investment and confidence in the economy, about getting
:54:33. > :54:38.things moving otherwise we would see large numbers of authorities
:54:38. > :54:45.stalling on applications. The vast majority of authorities that could
:54:45. > :54:49.be hit are Conservative ones. have an independent council so
:54:49. > :54:54.count me out. The First Minister of Wales says he'll meet the
:54:54. > :54:58.Children's Minister to discuss fresh allegations of child abuse in
:54:58. > :55:02.care homes in North Wales in the 70s and 080s. One of the victims
:55:02. > :55:07.says a leading Conservative politician at the time was involved.
:55:07. > :55:09.A three-year inquiry into abuse at the care home was published in 2000.
:55:10. > :55:12.However the Welsh Government says it's now looking at whether there
:55:13. > :55:17.should be a fresh inquiry in light of the latest developments. Here's
:55:17. > :55:20.what Mr Jones had to say earlier. At the moment, we know that one
:55:20. > :55:25.person has come forward to make allegations. There would need to be
:55:25. > :55:28.more. Over the course of the next week, if there are further
:55:28. > :55:33.allegations made by a number of people, then that of course will
:55:33. > :55:36.influence any decision as to what kind of inquiry might take place in
:55:36. > :55:41.the future. Simon Hart, do you think it's time for a fresh inquiry
:55:41. > :55:44.into abuse? I remember this story. It was a long time ago. I think
:55:44. > :55:49.Ronald waterhouse was curtailed by what he could do in terms of his
:55:49. > :55:56.terms of reference. If there are fresh allegations involving new
:55:56. > :56:01.cases, I can see no reason why we shouldn't go for a new inquiry.
:56:01. > :56:07.need a police investigation. What we see with the limits that you
:56:07. > :56:12.describe on the Waterhouse inquiry was an example of where an inquiry
:56:12. > :56:16.itself isn't a substitute for proper criminal prosecutions. There
:56:16. > :56:19.has been this statement, which, from, with an allegation which came
:56:19. > :56:24.forward on Friday. I hope that the police are taking that seriously. I
:56:24. > :56:26.hope that they make sure whether it's as part of Operation Yewtree
:56:26. > :56:32.or a parallel investigation that they have the resources to respond
:56:33. > :56:39.to anyone reporting these crimes and I think it's incredibly
:56:39. > :56:45.important that they are in a position to do that, because...
:56:45. > :56:49.There's nothing stopping them doing that is there? It hasn't happened
:56:49. > :56:53.yet though. Politician kz offer inquiries left, right and centre.
:56:53. > :56:57.What people really want is that if anyone is guilty of these kind of
:56:57. > :57:02.crimes that they are prosecuted, tried and if they're guilty,
:57:02. > :57:06.convicted. That's the only thing that going -- that's going to
:57:06. > :57:10.properly meet the concerns that people have. If there are people
:57:10. > :57:14.alive today that allegations of very serious crimes are being made
:57:14. > :57:18.against. The man who has made the fresh allegations has asked for a
:57:18. > :57:23.meeting with the Prime Minister. Do you think the Prime Minister should
:57:23. > :57:27.meet him? Yes I do. I don't think you should be dismiss of of the
:57:27. > :57:31.importance of inquiries. I think there is a very grave concern that
:57:31. > :57:34.there are a number of areas of public life in which some of these
:57:34. > :57:38.activities have been taking place. It's right that we have an inquiry
:57:38. > :57:41.into it to get to the bottom of it and so we can learn. We talked
:57:41. > :57:46.about child protection for so many decades now. The honest truth is
:57:46. > :57:49.we're still not there in being able to protect young people of all ages
:57:49. > :57:53.in our communities. Downing Street has said the Government is
:57:53. > :57:56.investigating claims of sexual abuse allegedly committed by a
:57:56. > :58:00.Conservative MP during the Thatcher era. They've said they're actively
:58:00. > :58:04.looking at it. So, do you think that's the right thing to do?
:58:04. > :58:07.don't think there's any choice. Yes, it's absolutely the right thing to
:58:07. > :58:11.do. We will obviously have the latest information on this and
:58:11. > :58:15.bring it forward. Yes, that is the news that they're going to be
:58:15. > :58:19.investigating. There's time before we go to find out the answer to our
:58:19. > :58:25.quiz: What sort of rezstraunt is David Cameron's former strategy
:58:25. > :58:31.guru thinking of opening? Organic vegan, Native American, Hungarian
:58:31. > :58:39.or sushi? Any ideas? C. What was that? Hungarian. Yes, because Steve
:58:39. > :58:43.Hilton is of Hungarian parentage. Yes it is Hungarian. Well done.
:58:43. > :58:46.sure that the thick of it has finished that this story continues.
:58:46. > :58:50.You're good at these quizzes. That's all for today. Thanks to our