05/11/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. What is a fair

price for an hour's work? Labour says they will name employers who

do not pay a living wage, but should employers be ashamed? Gear-

changes to the planning law threaten our green and pleasant

land? DPM is in the Middle East selling Britain's military wares,

good for exports, but is it ethical? I think it is maybe time

for maybe a business plan, how about that? And roll up, rock stars,

actors and comedians, but do celebrity endorsements help the

political cause they espouse? All that in the next hour, and with

us for the whole programme today is the broadcaster Fiona Phillips,

welcome to the programme. Let's start with an issue close to her

heart, because the Daily Mail reports that the Prime Minister is

soon to announce the creation of new high-tech brain clinics which

will help to cut the diagnosis time for dementia from 18 months to just

three. New line an ambassador of the Alzheimer's Society, what to

think about this? I think it is a good move, and early diagnosis

helps people plan their care. When somebody is diagnosed with

Alzheimer's or dementia, it is a huge bomb in the lives of carers as

well, they have to take over their whole lives, financial staff, so it

is the carer's time to plan and the sort that out. But what is the

point of diagnosing all these people when they're still is not

enough money going into research for a cure? There was a startling

story a couple of weeks ago which, if it was about cancer, would have

caused a national uproar, in that some of the drug companies are

deciding to abandon research for Alzheimer's drugs because it is

costing them too much, because they do not tend to be successful. There

wird two big trials which were dropped recently because they were

proven not to have worked. Shareholders are worried about

their slice of the cake, so it is a scandal. Imagine if they said

cancer drug companies are not researching a cure because the

shareholders want more money back on their investment. Because it is

not seen, is it, excuse the word, fashionable in terms of their

interests, but it is more prevalent, so do you think that will change

attitudes, hearts and minds of these companies when they realise

more people are being diagnosed not just with Alzheimer's but early

onset Alzheimer's? The problem is ageism, pure and simple. It is seen

as an elderly disease, it is like the Liverpool care at way, let's

see them shove off the mortal coil without much care what dignity,

because they're old anyway. My mother was in her 50s when she was

showing signs of Alzheimer's. was my father. It is devastating

for a family, as you know, Jo. I met a lady last week he was 39. It

is not just an elderly disease, but it is costing the NHS �23 billion a

year, and only 20 is being invested for a cure. What about drugs to

slow down the deterioration of people's brains? Is that where the

focus should be? If there is more early onset Alzheimer's and drugs

are available not to cure but which might slow down the deterioration,

should that be where people's money and minds should be? Yes, because

it certainly gives the carer probably about 18 months more

quality of life than they would have without the drug, although

having said that, drugs such as Aricept, the main drug we are

talking about, do not work for everyone. They did not work for my

mother, and I did not give my father any drugs, and he functioned

better without them, to be honest with you. But what is the point

when there is no cure? There is no proper care. The later stages, I

had a nightmare... And the cost, if they have to go into homes to be

looked after 24 hours. The cost to the NHS is 23 billion a year, and

yet only 20 million is being invested in research at the moment.

It is crazy. Moving on to something different, our daily quiz,

newspapers are reporting today that David Cameron's former strategy

guru, Steve Hilton, is thinking about opening a restaurant in

London. So our question is, what sort of restaurant is he planning

to open, organic vegan, Native American, Hungarian, or sushi? We

will give you the answer at the end of the show. I would not mind

organic vegan! Do not give any clues. Few things unite Boris

Johnson and Ed Miliband, but the living wage is one of them. The

wage is supposed to begin at needed to provide an adequate standard of

living. It does not have any statutory force, but campaigners

want firms to commit themselves to paying the living wage rather than

the minimum wage, which is lower. This morning Labour leader Ed

Miliband has been promoting his ideas for extending the living wage

to millions of people around the country. It comes on the day it was

announced that the UK rate, outside London, has gone up from �7.20 per

hour up to �7.45. The London rate has also gone up from �8.30 power

up to �8.55. Boris Johnson spoke about it this morning. The London

living wage campaign is not just about helping to put some extra

cash into the pockets of some of the poorest and hardest Working

families in the city. It is also about giving them, from firms that

can afford it, extra cash to help the wheels of the economy turn, to

give them more spending power, to help consumption in the city. It

makes economic sense for us as a city. We asked Labour to come on,

since they are putting forward these proposals, but no-one was

available. With us his Neil Jameson from Citizens UK, who have been

promoting the campaign, and Mark Littlewood from the Institute of

Economic Affairs. Boris Johnson says it makes economic sense.

not agree with Boris Johnson. It makes economic sense to hope and

pray that everybody gets paid more, I would like to see everybody

getting �1 million per year! But it will help the economy if people

spend that money in the economy. I'm surprised Boris Johnson is

using this old-fashioned Keynesian argument. You do not need to do

that through a wage, I do not know what he will advocate next, taxing

bankers, taxing property, giving it to people at the low end of the

spectrum? It is well-intentioned but extremely misguided in my view,

especially the naming and shaming aspect. Why is it misguided?

Perhaps he feels people cannot afford to live in London unless

they are getting the living wage. We seem to have these experts who

are determined to the last penny to determine what a living wage is,

and actually familial circumstances differ widely. If you are a 21-

year-old living at home rent-free with your parents, for sake of

argument, your economic needs of rather less than if you are the

only breadwinner in a house with three of four dependence. The idea

that we straightjacket everybody into the, you need �8 per hour in

order to get by, I think that does not take account of the variety of

different lives that people lead. What do you say to that? Well,

obviously we do not agree, and that Citizens UK we have been promoting

his campaign for the last 10 years. Mark is right out on a limb,

several local authorities are now paying the living wage. The mayor

is leading as far as the GLA is concerned. Should people be looked

at in the same way? It is a gold standard to enter what. Today is

the beginning of living wage week, and our aim is to get as many

employers as possible taking the figure series A, the BBC included,

and that is what is happening. 76 employers have been signed up.

These are major employers. It is not intended to persuade small

businesses to take a living wage seriously. Why not? If your

argument is that it is a gold standard for what people should

live on, why should it only the big companies? People working for small

companies require the same standard of living. Lobbying small

businesses, it is up to their association. We are challenging

every employer to look to their own, to look to those people who are

cleaners, security guards, caterers, who are paid minimum wage. In

London, lots of people get London weighting, that has been recognised

for yonks, but the folks to protect and clean the capital do not get it.

Terrific that Barclays, KPMG and others have been able to lift the

salaries for those at the bottom, but to be honest it is public

sector workers, blue-chip companies that are signing up for this. Were

you really have a problem with low wages tends to be in the SME sector,

tends to be fairly manual jobs. You know, if you are running a fruit-

picking business or something like that. So my fear is that, yes, if

you are a cleaner at Barclays or in the City of London, or a runner for

the BBC, you might see our wages go up... What is wrong with that? It

is a start. If we are really worried about the working poor, we

have to get people in on the first rung of the ladder, and that is

typically at the family run business level. What I am concerned

about is that it seems to me if I were to set up a new business in

the north-east, a production line or something, and I offered 100

jobs at �7 per hour, because that is the only value of productivity,

they are not worth �7.25, I am going to be named... If you think

they are not worth that, they will work accordingly. Say that that

really is the value of the labour, if I pay more than that, I am going

bust. If I create 100 new jobs in the north-east of England, I am

named and shamed by Ed Miliband and Rachel Reeves, am I, for being an

exploitative employers? It is a voluntary scheme... Labour is

wanting to name and shame. You think that should happen? It is a

voluntary code with no statutory element, but you think it is right

to name and shame companies? I do not know which will be included.

Nor do they! Should that be part of it? No, absolutely not, because

that gives the whole thing a negative connotation, but people

adopt the living wage and the performance of staff, 80% of

employers... Their performance has gone up immeasurably because they

feel valued, and levels of absenteeism have gone down by 25%.

That makes the economic sense that Boris Johnson is talking about.

that point, possibly, possibly not, but this is not politics, it is

management consultancy. If you have a good idea and can knock on the

doors of business, I get dozens of calls a week about how to improve

my business. You have got ideas, Gustavo will be better off if you

pay them more, make sure you take them out to a Christmas lunch to

improve morale. -- your staff. That is a management consultancy

business, and you should not compete as politicians. If you have

got two parents working at the minimum wage and one could afford

to work part-time if they were earning a living wage and looking

after the children, looking after teenagers, I have got one, they

need more management now than ever before! That is good for society,

families have time to spend with their children because one of them

is earning a living wage. I wonder if I could just have a second, it

is not an accident, this is driven by a civil society. The market has

had its say and tends to drive down wages. We are a civil society

organisation that came from families saying they could not

afford to live in London, which is why this is so important, because

it is really a family wage. does support for the living wage

square with the pay freeze on unions? Labour, of course, is

supporting that pay freeze for unions. You know, keeping wages

down to boost growth is the opposite of what you are proposing.

Sure, there has to be some middle ground, but most people are

employed in-house are well above the minimum wage, so this is, as I

say, apart out sourced people who are not in this position. I do not

think it is Labour is saying it should be frozen at the minimum

wage, this is about incremental growth for people that are paid

below the living wage. What would you support? Are you in favour of

the minimum wage? You're not in favour of any sort of flat rate

that gives a standard, why not? Because I think we are in danger,

and I'm delighted this is a voluntary arrangement, and I do not

buy the view that everyone in the free market is running a Dickensian

workhouse, you know, I look at my staff, and those who are doing well

get pay rises, that boosts... some industries people are paid

next to nothing. You have got to give people a chance of getting the

first rung on a ladder, and we have got a real problem, especially

amongst young people, about getting them on the ladder, and if you make

jobs below �6.90 per hour illegal, and jobs below �8.50 per hour in

London socially unacceptable, if you like, we would still have loads

of people just graduated from university who cannot get that

first round on a ladder. I would rather see people coming in at the

low end of the labour market, not easy for the first few months or a

year, at �5.50 per hour, �6, because that is the best way to get

yourself up to �10, �15, and get rich over the long term. We are in

danger of pulling those early runs out of it. And youth unemployment

is a huge issue. Certainly, but the market has proved consistently that

is not the way to do it, and that is why this gold standard is so

important, frankly, and I do not accept that Mark is right in this

instance, because lots of people start on that basis. This is a

target to get there was for good employers who have the money, and

that is why this is so important. Now, it's estimated that about 1200

people were denied their democratic right to vote in the last election.

The reason? Long queues at polling stations across England, including

this one in Nick Clegg's constituency in Sheffield. Many

people were turn add way because the polls closed at 10pm.

I think everybody's very angry. People missed out their votes. It's

totally wrong. This happens in poor countries. You don't expect it to

happen in the UK. This could make all the difference between somebody

loseing or winning. Well strong feeling there. Now the Electoral

Commission wants a change in the law so that anyone in the queue

when the polls close will be allowed to vote. Jenny Watson is

chair of the commission and perhaps rather appropriately she's waiting

patiently for us outside on College Green. Thanks for braving the cold

for us. What exactly do you want to see? We want a change in the law to

make sure that there is flexibility when the polls close, which would

mean if you're in a queue at 10pm, whether inside or outside the

polling station, you can be issued with your ballot paper and you can

cast your vote. That would mean we would not have a repeat of the

scenes you just showed. At the moment the law is inflexible. There

is a 10pm cut off. If you don't have your ballot paper you can't

cast your vote. We have always had that 10pm cut off. That was a one

off. The Government has said your proposal aren't necessary because

if local authorities had made proper provision we shouldn't have

that situation. When we reported on this we found there were three

causes - poor planning, that's right and there's a lot that can be

done there. There is also poor contingency planning or that

doesn't kick in as intended. A cause of what happened was the lack

of flexibility in the law. It's a very simple amendment that we're

putting forward. It has the support of the House of Lords constitution

committee. It has cross-party support. I can't see a good reason

for doing. It the interesting thing is that we know that it works

because the Scottish Government changed the law for the Scottish

local elections earlier this year in May. So we have seen, for the

first time, the first three people who were in a queue at 10pm and who

were able to cast their vote under that law in Scotland. We can see

that it works. I suppose what occurs to me is that everyone rocks

up at 9.55pm because it's inconvenient to come earlier

knowing that as long as they're in the queue or even aat 30 seconds to

ten they can vote. That's unlikely to happen. We saw from 2010, some

of those had been queuing for a long time, in some cases over an

hour. We know that people want to get to the polling station in good

time. If you commute into a major city you only need a transport

incident and you could have a few people turning up late. It's a

flexibility that means everybody can cast our vote. That's so

important in our democracy. I hope it's pass and will be accepted by

the Government. Is there a danger it might be abused? Would it be a

case, you mention the Scottish elections, is there a case for

passing ballot papers in the street? I don't think. So a managed

process where we have the flexibility in the law and people

know if they're in a queue that they can vote is likely to be less

problematic than one where they think that if they're in a queue

and don't get there by 10pm they might not vote. This won able

returning officers to manage the queue tightly, to be where the cut

off is at 10pm and issue the papers as people move into the polling

station. It's a sensible solution. How many people did it affect in

2010? We think it affected around 1200 people in 16 constituencies.

So not that many. For those people who can't vote, extremely important,

many of them very angry. It was a desperate shame that the kind of

signal it sent about our democracy. Those pictures went around the

world. That's one of the very important things. We would expect

this to be rare. Majority of polling stations would close

absolutely as usual at 10pm. If there was a queue in a few stations

there would be the flexibility and everybody would be able to cast

their vote. What about cost? Will extra cost have to be provided for

in the case of an overrun? There are no new costs associated with

this. In fact, I think the returning officers who had problems

in 2010 would probably tell you the cost of having to get in the police

to manage those queues when people were getting very aggrieved and dot

reviews afterwards and fiebd whatlet lessons were, that's where

the additional cost were. This flexibility doesn't introduce new

costs. Thank you very much. What do you think, is it a sensible

proposal and the Government shouldn't make any fuss about it?

Absolutely. Of course it's a sensible proposal. I would go

further actually. In the States, I think the majority of the states in

America offer individuals the right to take time off work to vote. If

you think, I know what it's like - It is a problem to get to the polls

if you are working. It is especially in a big city. People

have managed it and there is erbly voting. There is the chance for

people to organise themselves. Some people. That's the problem!

suppose the view is that actually we've managed for decades in terms

of getting there at 10pm. If it's important enough people take the

trouble. Do we really need to make it easier, is it going to be the

thin end of the wedge? I think, we're a mature democracy that

countries around the world look to. To see scenes like that, people

locked out and not being able to vote because they've turned up a

few minutes late is not on. Well, it's a busy time for American

celebrities with political leanings. They're lending support to their

favoured candidates in the US presidential election. Last night,

Stevie Wonder, I think you could hear him, entertained crowds before

a Barack Obama rally in Ohio. Celebrity endorsement of political

campaigns is not confined to the United States. But how helpful is

an actor, rock star or comedian sympathetic to the cause?

My guy's mad at me. It was Kenneth Brannagh playing McLouglin being in

the Harry Potter film that's said, "Celebrity is as celebrity does".

Which sounds and looks very good and profound and actually means

nothing at all. Which when it comes to it, sums up the pit falls of

celebrities mixing with politics. But they all do it. To be fair,

sometimes it's a marriage of convenience, not so much card

carrying endorsement of policy but a joint interest in a similar issue.

Or just a one-sided declaration of something quite different. I love

him. I officially want that to be known here today. I love Alan

Johnson. It wasn't a bromance that brought Sir Michael Caine to the

Conservatives in 2010, but the National Citizens' Service, but as

it was the party's first election press conference of the campaign,

he did ask what we were all thinking. What the hell is he doing

here? Why is he here? It's not usual for -- unusual for film stars

to dip their toes in political waters. Sean Connery's supported

the SNP's bid for an independent homeland from Spain for years sm.

Celebs are truly committed. You saw Neil Kinnock in Tracy Ullman's My

Guy video. She's still with the party. And Eddie Izzard has moved

from -- moved from Gordon to Ed. Really good of you to do this.

problem. But does it work? Most of the evidence we have from polling

is that it makes no difference whatsoever. Over 90% of people,

when we read out a list of celebrities like Dawn French or

even the Princess of Wales, 95% or more of people said it would make

no difference knowing how they voted. The Tories used to lag

behind, the odd soap star and Jim Davidson. Recently more pop star

glamour. Is the shine coming off the whole thing? Certainly it's

possible the Lib Dems, who have the odd famous face in their ranks,

have decided why have a pop star when you can be one.

When we're advising commercial brands about the use of celebrities,

a lot of them do it all the time, the first advice is - are you sure

there isn't anything more creative can you do than get this celebrity

on the screen? If you are determined to have this celebrity,

then ask yourself - do they fit the brand you're trying to advertise?

Then after that, are you sure it isn't just going to distract from

the brand and kill the message? Let's bomb Russia.

Let's kick Michael Foot's stick away. What do you want me to tell

Romney. I can't tell him to do that. He can't do that to himself. You're

absolutely crazy. Celebrity endorsements in the

short-term may give you a gain, but in the long-term they can build up

real problems. The message really has got to be don't do it - I just

want to say, I love this guy. I think he is one of the country's

pre-eminent broadcasters. I'm minor celebrity Richard Bacon and I

approve this message. Thanks Richard. Yeah, celebrity

endorsements... They're... Walk ard -- awkward.

Well done. Joaning me now is Penny Mordaunt a form ehead of

broadcasting under William Hague. Does it work, is it a good thing?

It rarely works. Can you have some spectacular results, notable cases

are Oprah Winfrey, it's been calculated she gave Obama about a

million votes in the primarys. George Clooney, he's authentic and

knowledgeable on the issues he campaigns on. He got a spotlight on

Rwanda when people weren't interested. There are notable

exceptions, but generally the downsides outweigh the upsides.

love Alan Johnson. You endorsed Labour. I wasn't endorsing Labour.

They said they wanted me to brighten up conference and Alan

asked me to do it because, well they said I was a breath of fresh

air after. Yes, it was slightly embarrassing. You must have been

brought on as a celebrity who was, even if you're saying... I was only

introducing a debate. I'm a journalist I cannot be seen to be

partial, however, I introduced it. They said they wanted me to appeal

to the voters in the audience rather than having a stuffy

introduction to Alan Johnson an Jack Straw. Would you do it again?

No. No. Absolutely not. For any party? No, no. I'm at Downing

Street on Thursday because the Prime Minister is making an

announcement about demen sma. So if it's stuff like that, yes. I will

go. It's interesting you say it's the type of celebrity. If you get

the celebrity right and they know a bit about policy, then it can be a

good thing? Yes, Fiona has campaigned domestically and also

internationally on a range of issues. So you're an authentic

person and credible. There is some merit with people that the public

know getting involved with politics because we're trying to encourage

people to do that, to vote, to edgester to vote etc. There have

been some real disasters. Name me some of them. Just I suppose,

celebrities not knowing their brief. Classic example is the sympathy

note that Mariah Carrie sent out after the death of king Hussein of

Jordan which said the world of basketball would never see his like

again. Not sow much in politics, but in the charity sector, you have

had celebrities which turn up to do their job and you've had to say

they're stuck in a lift because they haven't been in any condition

do -- to do anything. You get situations like. That They tend to

be in it for their own self- aggrandisement. That's the

difficulty. It's difficult to see why it wouldn't be a two-way street.

There must be a feeling that celebrities are trying to publicise

hemselves. Lindsay Lohan offered support to Obama, when was it? So

2008, he said sorry that's not the kind of celebrity endorsement we're

looking for. She's backing Romney this election. She thinks the

employment issue is very important apparently. What did you think of

the Clint Eastwood endorsement and that empty chair. You're talking to

the wrong woman because Clint Eastwood can do no wrong in my book.

But it's a gamble. I think Stephen Fry had it down very well a couple

of years ago. All three political parties approached him to ask for

endorsements and his view was "certainly not. This is a silly

thing". You should just make up his own mind. JK Rowling has been a

useful supporter for Labour, financially and in terms of pro

file. Absolutely. I think it is certainly the most good that can

come from that kind of relationship is a long-term relationship.

can't expect celebrities to know the policies in that much detail or

how much time do you spend with your celebrity backers? Do you go

through briefing after briefing to make sure they know what you're

talking about? No, I think that these days, it's much more about

actual single issue campaigns. You might have celebrities backing

knife crime issues or something about a local charity that they

support. I think that's much more effective. Where you get into

dangerous territory is when you have a celebrity that really isn't

heart and soul signed up to a particular political party, doesn't

know their stuff, isn't there for the long-term and is just looking

to have that relationship because they've got a book coming out or

something like that. Is it harder for the Tories to get celebrity

endorsements? Has it been over the years? I think Jim Davidson is

available still. Again. I think historically it's been. I don't

think that's so much the case now. Yes, there were some grim moments.

Anybody you tried to get? No, I never did that for the party at all.

No, not me! I have worked this side of the pond but also in the States

as well. There are a lot of celebrity adverts in the US. Could

that work here? Or it will come here? You think it's cringey?

think it's really cringey. A couple of universities in the States have

done studies on whether it helps. Both say no. It can harm the

celebrity. I mean being seen... brand? Yes, because you go off

people. If you see certain people with someone you don't like, or you

think I didn't real aisles he was so right or left-wing that damaging

them too. On that note I'm going to say goodbye. Thank you very much

and thank you for being our guest of the day. Now time to take a look

at what's going to be making the news this week: The big story is

Tuesday's American elections, which we've been discussing briefly. The

polls show there's hardly anything in it between Barack Obama and Mitt

Romney. Most experts expect it will go down to the wire. How will the

result go down in Westminster? On Wednesday, Chancellor Angela Merkel

is in Downing Street for talks with David Cameron. High on the agenda

will be the upcoming EU budget. The Prime Minister is desperate for

there not to be any increase and backbenchers will watch to see if

she gives hints of a compromise. On Thursday the former International

Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell will be in front of the

aides Select Committee to answer questions on the decision to

restore aid to Rwanda. More with two of Westminster's top insiders

James Kirkup from the Daily Telegraph and Kate Devlin from the

Herald. James on Europe, if David Cameron manages to secure an

inflation-only rise in terms of the EU budget, will that really be

enough to persuade those rebels who voted against the Government last

Some of them. Not all of the rebels think it is possible for David

Cameron to get at cut. They were saying, just be tougher. Some of

the rebels, the other rebels, they will not be happy with whatever he

brings back, to be honest, and they are the group who essentially see

that boat as a way of pushing Britain a little bit closer to the

European exit door. -- vote. To be honest, I suspect whatever he comes

back with from that summit, if it does a deal, bear in mind it does

not have to conclude this month and can go on a little longer, but

whatever he comes back with will almost certainly see a fair number

of people saying, not good enough, more reason to think about leaving.

Kate Devlin, what does he need to promise into the next election? It

seems nothing short of an inn-out referendum will do it. The problem

is that he keeps changing what he thinks he needs to promise. He

started by talking about getting powers back from Europe, then he

was hinting at something that could be else, but now they are moving

more towards a referendum definitely. And he keeps getting

pushed by the rebels. The problem is, the more you give them, the

more they want, and who knows where they will be going into the next

election? Is there a sense that all three parties could end up

promising a referendum on something? I know the Tories say it

will be on the balance of competencies, repatriation of

powers, but they could all go into the next election promising and get

out referendum. It is possible. I think it would be quite surprising.

From the Labour point of view, there is a certain short-term

tactical appeal for the party and tried to outflank the Conservatives,

play at this internal unhappiness in the Tory party. On the other

hand, there are so many Labour Party will be saying, we should not

be getting ourselves down into that sort of politics. It is a fairly

active debate in the Labour Party. At the last general election, the

Liberal Democrats, very pro European, talked about having an EU

referendum to resolve the issue once and for, as they put it. They

would hold a referendum and campaign for a "yes" vote to stay

in, so it is not impossible they could do that. The uncertainty is

around the Labour position, and I do not think that debate is

resolved yet. Let's take a look across the water to the

presidential elections. Number Ten has kept its powder dry in terms of

endorsement, always a wise move at this stage. Absolutely. It is

incredibly important that you do not back the wrong horse would have

to start working with them. I think it has been an interesting race, it

is incredibly close, but what you have seen from Romney is that he

had to tack to the right to get the nomination. He has gone back now

towards the centre to try to win the election. I think some people

within Number Ten will be Obama -- will be thinking, at least they

know what they're getting with Obama, it is uncertain which Romney

will turn up for work. In terms of behind the scenes, there must have

been talks with both camps. Yes, in terms of the personal relationship

between the people at the top, there is an interesting question to

be asked about how David Cameron would get along with President

Romney. You will remember that when he came here in July at the start

of the Olympics, he said a few things about questioning Britain's

commitment to the Olympics, ruffling a few feathers in Downing

Street. Since then, we have also heard the Prime Minister making

private remarks suggesting that Mitt Romney have ended a lot of

people in Britain, so there is a question about that personal

relationship. Certainly, if he were to win, I think Number Ten would be

quite keen to get them talking amicably as soon as possible.

right, James Kirkup, Kate Devlin, thank you very much. We all know in

the next three days to the next President will be.

The Prime Minister is on a tour of the Middle East aimed at promoting

British exports, and in particular arms exports. Today he wants to

cement the �6 billion deal with the way he for the BAE Typhoon fighter

jet. Tomorrow he will travel to Saudi Arabia, another key ally in

tackling terrorism and on the security threat of Iran, which is

also considering adding to its Typhoon force. Speaking in Dubai,

he answered concerns from human rights activists about the ethics

of the deal. There are no no-go areas in this relationship, we

discussed all of these things, but we show respect and friendship to

an old ally and partner. In terms of defence sales, we have one of

the strictest regimes anywhere in the world for sales of defence

equipment, but we do believe that countries have a right to self-

defence, a right to defend themselves, and we do believe

Britain has important defence industries that employ over 300,000

people, and so that sort of business is completely legitimate

and right. I have been joined by our panel for the rest of the show,

Conservative MP Simon Hart, Labour MP Stella Creasy and Duncan Hames

of the Liberal Democrats. Also here is Henry McLoughlin from the

Campaign against the Arms Trade. What is your reaction to this trip

to Dubai? We do not think he should be selling weapons to countries

like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These are countries

that are clearly authoritarian regimes and have terrible human

rights records, and it is completely inconsistent for David

Cameron on one had to say that he wants to support human rights and

democracy in the Middle East, and then on the other hand go and

promote weapons to regimes which are repressing that. Hasn't there

always been a level of hypocrisy in selling arms? From time immemorial,

democratic countries in the West have armed autocratic regimes that

have been helpful allies at one stage and then turned out to be

less savoury. It is just the way the world works. It is

unfortunately what has happened, beyond Argentina, before the

Falkland Islands conflict, Saddam before the goal for, then Gaddafi

right up until point where we had military strikes against him.

would not be selling arms to most of the world unless we were using

does standards. That would be great if we were not selling arms to most

of the world, we would have a much more peaceful world. Britain is a

massive arms exporter, in the top five in the world, and we have

wasted a lot of taxpayers' money on it, so subsidies could be going to

other industries that are absorbed by these arms exports. The Prime

Minister says we have one of the strictest regimes in the world for

the sales of defence equipment. Is that not true? On paper, it is one

of the strictest in the world, and the arms controls are quite strict

on paper, but in reality they are routinely ignored. Otherwise, a

committee of MPs said the committee on arms export controls, which is

chaired by the former Conservative defence minister, Sir John Stanley,

said that the Government is ignoring its arms export controls

in favour of promotion of weapons every time. It is hard to find an

example where they have not agreed an arms sale. Simon Hart, the Prime

Minister should not be there and it is hypocritical of him when he has

spoken quite recently about are holding our values in terms of the

countries where we are selling arms. No, I think this might have been

the case if it was a new venture, but these are old allies, and as we

have heard the conditions are stricter than in any other part of

the world pretty well. On paper. think that is being a bit

disingenuous. It is practical as well as on paper. We cannot ignore

the fact that there are 700,000 jobs, a major part of UK industry

is dependent on us. Is there any country we should not be selling

arms to? I am sure. Which country? They have withdrawn many more

licences in the last couple of years than under Gordon Brown's

Premiership. Name me a country. would not send arms to Iran, I do

not know whether anyone else would. But Saudi Arabia, a region where

they worried about regional instability as a result of the

threat from Iran. Is that a good move? It is important that we have

allies around the world. We were taking action to protect innocent

civilians in Libya not so long ago. We were glad to have Qataris as

allies in helping as protect those people. And so... So what will be

the case that there were the country's which we would be glad to

see that they are able to work with us to promote human rights

elsewhere in the world. I think the real answer he is about having a

proper international treaty to control arms so that we can make

sure that it is not just our proportion of the arms industry

that is properly controlled but all arms sales around the world, and

that is what the UN is trying to agree. Do you have any problem with

arms being sold to Saudi Arabia? The problem Thakrar that Henry is

pointing out, I think he is right to say, look, too often we have

looked at a country's record retrospectively and work out

whether a relationship is right. Given the Arab Spring, we have to

recognise that the circumstances have changed so substantially, and

the idea that we can be consistent about particular states does not

withstand scrutiny. There is a lot we can learn about Sweden and

America, actually, about how they have arms control and looking at

making decisions before the ministers come into the process. I

think we would all welcome greater scrutiny of decisions. In response

to the Arab Spring, would you sell arms to Bahrain? This is exactly

the point about evidence we are making decisions on... What should

the evidence be on? Up what I think Henry is pointing out is that too

often we have looked at issues after the fact, and what we need to

do in this new world order is to look at more of the economic,

social intelligence about what is happening in countries, whether or

not they might just appear stable on the face of it but there are

undercurrents and issues that we need to take account of. We need a

process that is better able to do that, and there is a role for

Parliament and learning from other countries in doing that. Saudi

Arabia, the human rights record is not exactly fantastic, but actually

there is a bar we should not sell to them? Many of us are concerned

that the Prime Minister has gone but not taking the media with him.

It is talking about human rights with these countries, why hide it?

Why not do it in plain sight? Labour were happy to make friends

with Gaddafi. We have all got to learn from these decisions, but

transparency is key. Why is there no press entourage? Normally there

would be a whole range of reporters and broadcasters, and it has been

reduced to just one photographer and one journalist. Everybody

complains when he takes a gang of journalists. There is a balance. It

is not just as black and white as it seems. There are some sensitive

economic, social and historical relationships here, and I think

Cameron is -- has a very delicate path to tread between recognising

the right to self-determination of the other countries, recognising

the economic contribution to our own country of the arms industry,

and trying to ensure that there is a reasonable justification for at

least considering arms dealing as part of our... Back in 2011, in the

aftermath of the Arab Spring, David Cameron said, our interests lie in

upholding our values, insisting on the right to peaceful protest,

freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the rule of law. Does

that include Saudi Arabia? course, you cannot apply those

comments to the whole world and say, do they fit every single nation

better mark either you uphold your values for you do not. There is

nothing that he is doing that he has not said he would do, there's

nothing new about the relationship with these countries, nothing new

at all. As I said at the beginning, Henry, this is the way the world is,

and you have to be sensitive enough without killing off your business.

I am not sure that saying there is nothing new about something

justifies it. It can be bad and continue to be bad. Duncan is not

quite right that is government has a better record on arms exports

than the previous government. They are pretty much the same in that

they're both very enthusiastic. Iran is not because of concern

about human rights, it is because we have taken the decision that

Saudi Arabia is our ally and Iran is not. It does nothing to do with

human rights, that decision. I also wanted to pick up David Cameron as

comments on the UK benefiting from 300,000 jobs in the defence sector.

That is from a study that has been discredited, from about six years

ago. The defence industry has declined since then, and in that

study they included people like cleaners at the Ministry of Defence,

which I would not include been that category. Duncan Hames, on the

issue of David Cameron St there are no no-go areas with human rights,

what concessions are you expecting the Prime Minister to extract from

I do not know the answer to that. But what would you like? Every

country that counts itself as an ally should be prepared to discuss

human rights if our Prime Minister raises it. Actually, building

better understanding, including of our expectations of the appropriate

way to conduct oneself in the modern world and the rights that

people around the world have is an important part of our international

diplomacy. I'm glad that he's able to have these conversation was

people right across this trip. And elsewhere in the world as well.

Thank you very much. Now, some blue-sky thinking on

cutting red tape that could affect the green belt. The coalition's

growth bill in front of the Commons today, gives the community

secretary Eric Pickles the power to fast-track planning approval for

large scale business and commercial projects where Councils have a

track record of poor performance. Some campaigners fear it will spoil

some of the UK's best-loved land escapes. I'm joined by John Hoad

now. What are you most worried about here? Good afternoon. The

real worry is that the Government is back tracking on its commitment

to localism which was that local councils who, from our point of

view, as a campaigning organisation, are open to looking at the detail

and making decisions are going to be cut out of some of the most

important decision that's affect our countryside. You will have

planning inspectors driven by a very strong Government view of the

world that appears to be that any development is good development not

giving good consideration to the balance of sustainable development

which was in the national planning policy framework. Are you saying

that any development you -- they will able to override local

authorities and appeal to Eric Pickles or this quango, the

planning inspectorate and roughshod over local planners? That's what it

amounts to in practice. The detail is emerging. The bill effectively

allows the Secretary of State to designate failing local planning

authorities. From our point of view, as a campaigning organisation, the

council that's are possibly going to be seen as failing are the ones

that actually are taking careful decisions, which may take a bit

longer. They're taking the decisions that give proper

consideration to difficult issues which the Government might see as

likely to feel -- fail. It's those councils that will be designated as

failures. Aren't they just holding up much needed development.

Everybody agrees we want to see growth in the economy. One of the

reasons put forward is the planning system and people taking far too

long to give the go ahead to important planning decisions.

yes this is the Government's top- line story about delay and red tape.

Isn't there some truth in that? I don't think there is any truth in

that. Well over 90% of planning applications are approved within

the statutory targets. Sometimes you will have decisions on

important issues that need to take a bit longer, but I think it's a

myth to say there's a major delay in the system causing problems. The

real reason why development is not happening is about the funding

situation and finance. Thank you very much. What's happened to

localism? The national planning policy framework dramatically

simplified the planning guidance. You heard it defended in that

interview. He was concerned that it might be compromised. That is

something which this Government has introduced in order to - Why have

they complicated it? So that everyone can engage. Why have they

complicated it by bringing in a planning inspectorate and now

giving Eric Pickles the right to designate councils he thinks have a

poor record and can you go straight to him. We've always had a planning

inspectorate for a very long time. Sadly, we also have some local

authorities who perform very badly. If we have interventions in schools

which are failing the communities they're meant to serve, why not

have interventions when local authorities fail. I thought the

idea was that local authorities would make decisions good for local

communities and now they won't be able to, because you can bet your

bottom dollar when a developer comes forward and the local

authority say we don't like this application. They'll say fine,

we're going to Eric Pickles. He will probably say in the cause of

the development you get the go ahead. This complaint is incredibly

exaggerated. In the announcements which were made in September, there

was a small number of major sites which had stalled in the planning

system where the Government was prepared to negotiate, to see what

would be done to bring them into play. At the same time we secured

�300 million to support additional affordable housing elsewhere to

compensate for anything negotiated on those particular sites. This is

not about something which is going to completely override the national

planning policy framework which the Government only recently

interdeuced. I thought the planning system was there to protect the

countryside? I completely agree with everything Duncan said. Funny

that. We sometimes confuels the landscape for the people. I come

from a position that the countryside is what it is because

of people. I live in wost Wales. We're crying out for a flexible

planning system. We want a better infrastructure because that

actually keeps people in the area. It generates growth and...

don't think the local authorities are doing a good enough job?

have a National Park to contend with as well. But the really

important thing is if we're going to get the right balance there

needs to be occasionally the provision whereby the Secretary of

State can interview. How do you know it will be occasionally?

do you know that it won't be? don't. You're right. Doesn't there

have to be reassurance or you will get campaigns saying we're going to

be laid open to all sorts of development which will not be good

for the environment. I think there are huge protection measures

whether in a National Park or a normal planning authority. What I'm

concerned about is if people would rather live in a vibrant economy

and contribute positively to the kuntriside than sit back and told

they can't do anything ever. Don't I think it it is a good idea?

been dealing with a planning issue around the Walthamstow dog track,

which has massive local support not to be turned into a housing estate.

Eric Pickles already has the power he seeks. It seems he's on the side

of the developers in this instance. Communities support for planning is

so important to good development. I'm sure you both agree, gentlemen.

Why take the power from local authorities. Why ride roughshod

over local itch. - -- localism. Why want our national parks to be full

of noble phone pylons. Can you guarantee that's not going to

happen Yes. How? This provides a safety net in case local councils

are getting in the way of what is reasonable. You think the national

parks authority is getting in the way of protecting our parks?

could occupy you for half an hour living where I do. There is a

balance to be struck. I accept. That the national parks are hugely

important. Thre where people live and work. They are where people

need to do business. We have to strike a balance. We can't fold our

arms and pretend these things don't happen and stare at a lovely view.

Why are we spending time on a piece of legislation that speaks to the

developers rather than local communities. The problem in the

economy is confidence. We have businesses sitting on investment

because they're foo frightened. This won't help change that. With

the localism bill we took about 15 big strides forward in terms of

making it easier for local people to get involved. Now you're taking

them away. This is a safety measure. I'm more than happy to admit that.

Tell me a local authority that's performing badly. After programme

The majority make the decisions within the time frames. There are

some local authorities which have driven businesses bonkers. Labour

is the one that is backing big business development, they want to

spend money to stimulate the economy. Surely you should welcome

this if it gets rid of a block to the planning application. The issue

is about investment and confidence in the economy, about getting

things moving otherwise we would see large numbers of authorities

stalling on applications. The vast majority of authorities that could

be hit are Conservative ones. have an independent council so

count me out. The First Minister of Wales says he'll meet the

Children's Minister to discuss fresh allegations of child abuse in

care homes in North Wales in the 70s and 080s. One of the victims

says a leading Conservative politician at the time was involved.

A three-year inquiry into abuse at the care home was published in 2000.

However the Welsh Government says it's now looking at whether there

should be a fresh inquiry in light of the latest developments. Here's

what Mr Jones had to say earlier. At the moment, we know that one

person has come forward to make allegations. There would need to be

more. Over the course of the next week, if there are further

allegations made by a number of people, then that of course will

influence any decision as to what kind of inquiry might take place in

the future. Simon Hart, do you think it's time for a fresh inquiry

into abuse? I remember this story. It was a long time ago. I think

Ronald waterhouse was curtailed by what he could do in terms of his

terms of reference. If there are fresh allegations involving new

cases, I can see no reason why we shouldn't go for a new inquiry.

need a police investigation. What we see with the limits that you

describe on the Waterhouse inquiry was an example of where an inquiry

itself isn't a substitute for proper criminal prosecutions. There

has been this statement, which, from, with an allegation which came

forward on Friday. I hope that the police are taking that seriously. I

hope that they make sure whether it's as part of Operation Yewtree

or a parallel investigation that they have the resources to respond

to anyone reporting these crimes and I think it's incredibly

important that they are in a position to do that, because...

There's nothing stopping them doing that is there? It hasn't happened

yet though. Politician kz offer inquiries left, right and centre.

What people really want is that if anyone is guilty of these kind of

crimes that they are prosecuted, tried and if they're guilty,

convicted. That's the only thing that going -- that's going to

properly meet the concerns that people have. If there are people

alive today that allegations of very serious crimes are being made

against. The man who has made the fresh allegations has asked for a

meeting with the Prime Minister. Do you think the Prime Minister should

meet him? Yes I do. I don't think you should be dismiss of of the

importance of inquiries. I think there is a very grave concern that

there are a number of areas of public life in which some of these

activities have been taking place. It's right that we have an inquiry

into it to get to the bottom of it and so we can learn. We talked

about child protection for so many decades now. The honest truth is

we're still not there in being able to protect young people of all ages

in our communities. Downing Street has said the Government is

investigating claims of sexual abuse allegedly committed by a

Conservative MP during the Thatcher era. They've said they're actively

looking at it. So, do you think that's the right thing to do?

don't think there's any choice. Yes, it's absolutely the right thing to

do. We will obviously have the latest information on this and

bring it forward. Yes, that is the news that they're going to be

investigating. There's time before we go to find out the answer to our

quiz: What sort of rezstraunt is David Cameron's former strategy

guru thinking of opening? Organic vegan, Native American, Hungarian

or sushi? Any ideas? C. What was that? Hungarian. Yes, because Steve

Hilton is of Hungarian parentage. Yes it is Hungarian. Well done.

sure that the thick of it has finished that this story continues.

You're good at these quizzes. That's all for today. Thanks to our