:00:45. > :00:48.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. Auntie's angst
:00:49. > :00:53.continues as more heads not exactly roar but step aside. It was the
:00:53. > :00:56.turn of the head of news and her deputy this morning. And on the
:00:56. > :01:02.principle that it never rains but it pours for the BBC these days, a
:01:02. > :01:05.row has broken out over the pay-off to the new -- to the now former
:01:05. > :01:10.Director-General George Entwistle. The Prime Minister and a raft of
:01:10. > :01:16.other politicians this morning said it was hard to justify his golden
:01:16. > :01:20.goodbye of �450,000. More political shenanigans in the
:01:20. > :01:25.Commons, this time over the price of petrol. Rebel Tory MPs could
:01:25. > :01:29.side with Labour again and forced another government defeat.
:01:29. > :01:35.Is it all really doom and gloom Armagh High Street are we
:01:35. > :01:39.witnessing a retail version of Darwin's natural selection?
:01:39. > :01:47.And it really is tough in the jungle. It is possibly one of the
:01:47. > :01:51.worst nights of my life and I don't think I want to go through it again.
:01:51. > :01:57.Who was that?! Have you not seen her before?!
:01:57. > :02:05.With us is the chief executive of isn't -- Vision Express, Jonathan
:02:05. > :02:10.Lawson. You are not spec Savers? Absolutely not, Vision Express.
:02:10. > :02:15.Let's talk about tax avoidance. You couldn't resist! Executives
:02:15. > :02:18.from Google, Starbucks and Amazon will be questioned later today by
:02:18. > :02:22.MPs on the Public Accounts Committee as part of an inquiry
:02:22. > :02:27.into tax-avoidance. All three companies have been accused of
:02:27. > :02:31.paying little or no tax on UK earnings. They say they meet all
:02:31. > :02:35.their legal obligations. Is Starbucks paying its fair share of
:02:35. > :02:39.Corporation Tax? That is for other people to understand whether they
:02:40. > :02:45.are adhering correctly. What do you think as an observer and also
:02:45. > :02:48.running a business? Are they paying what they should? In our
:02:48. > :02:53.circumstance, and I would suspect the vast majority of businesses
:02:53. > :02:59.that are like us, registered in the UK and domiciled in the UK, we pay
:02:59. > :03:03.a substantial amount of corporation tax. A few added to that the amount
:03:03. > :03:07.of VAT and National Insurance... You don't pay that, you collected
:03:07. > :03:15.from the customers and give it to the Government. We still incur the
:03:15. > :03:19.charge before we pay... You don't pay, we pay VAT, businesses do not.
:03:20. > :03:24.If I can finish the point, the vast majority of organisations like us,
:03:24. > :03:29.the level of tax we pay is greater than the total level of profit made
:03:29. > :03:33.in a financial year. Other companies are finding ways of
:03:33. > :03:37.avoiding that. If that is within the rules than the answers are for
:03:37. > :03:41.those who make the rules, not necessarily the individuals.
:03:41. > :03:46.should they change? You must get annoyed if you are paying that
:03:46. > :03:50.level of tax, and VAT, you must get very cross with companies who avoid
:03:50. > :03:55.it? I focus on getting cross with things like an influence like how
:03:55. > :03:58.we run our own business. I would prefer to see rather than a
:03:58. > :04:03.discussion about changing the rules, enforcing and implementing the
:04:03. > :04:07.rules. Suggestions of a further potential sales tax... That is what
:04:07. > :04:15.was suggested by the former City Minister. Starbucks said they do
:04:15. > :04:20.not have profits here, he says they should pay tax on their fails. --
:04:20. > :04:25.are now sales. That would be the last thing we would need at the
:04:25. > :04:28.moment. I would come back to my point, enforce the rules fairly to
:04:28. > :04:33.begin with rather than coming up with yet another level of
:04:33. > :04:37.bureaucracy. Is there anything wrong with companies basing their
:04:37. > :04:41.European operations in countries with lower corporation tax rates,
:04:41. > :04:45.like Ireland and Luxembourg? think the point you are making is
:04:45. > :04:51.this is quite complex. If we were to make further changes we would
:04:51. > :04:54.need to do it with the support of other countries. Some of the things
:04:54. > :05:00.we are seeing in terms of Starbucks, Vision Express has other operators
:05:00. > :05:06.in other parts of Europe operating under our licence. We pay tax in
:05:06. > :05:11.the UK on that revenue. Thank you. Or be it is time for our daily quiz.
:05:11. > :05:16.MP Nadine Dorries, if you did not recognise her in the opening, has
:05:16. > :05:19.be appearing on the reality show I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here.
:05:19. > :05:23.Last night the public decided she would be one of the first to
:05:23. > :05:27.undergo something called a bush tucker trial. What will it be?
:05:27. > :05:32.Being buried alive with insects, being buried alive with angry
:05:32. > :05:35.constituents from Mid Bedfordshire, sounds uncomfortable, a 40 minute
:05:35. > :05:40.interview with John Humphrys or obtaining a cobra? We will give you
:05:40. > :05:43.the correct answer at the end of the show.
:05:43. > :05:48.We are getting reports that Abu Qatada, who the British government
:05:48. > :05:55.has been trying to deport to Jordan on various terrorist charges, has
:05:55. > :05:59.won an appeal in front of I think it was an immigration... A special
:05:59. > :06:03.immigration tribunal. It has been a long, drawn-out process but he has
:06:03. > :06:06.won, a major setback for the Government and the Home Office. The
:06:06. > :06:09.moment we get more details we will bring them.
:06:09. > :06:15.You may have noticed, or you may have other things to do, that it
:06:15. > :06:21.has been a tumultuous time at the BBC. Another senior manager or two
:06:21. > :06:25.have stepped aside. It has been another busy morning, but Jo will
:06:25. > :06:28.bring us up to speed. The BBC crisis following the
:06:28. > :06:32.revelations about Jimmy Savile and the report on Newsnight which led
:06:32. > :06:36.to false suggestions about the involvement of Lord McAlpine in
:06:36. > :06:40.child abuse has continued to grow. On Saturday night the Director-
:06:41. > :06:46.General, George Entwistle, stepped down after only 54 days in the job.
:06:46. > :06:53.That has led to a row about a decision to award him a pay-off of
:06:53. > :06:57.�450,000, his annual salary. Some MPs have suggested Chris Patten's
:06:57. > :07:02.position as chairman of the BBC Trust is untenable. Two more senior
:07:02. > :07:06.managers, Helen Boaden and Steve Mitchell, the director and deputy
:07:06. > :07:11.directors of news, have stepped aside. A new acting editor, Karen
:07:11. > :07:15.O'Connor, has been appointed to lead Newsnight. The BBC says it
:07:15. > :07:20.wants to establish a single management to allow clarity around
:07:20. > :07:26.the editorial chain of command. The BBC's deputy political editor James
:07:26. > :07:30.Landale joins me. What is the feeling in political circles and
:07:30. > :07:34.the anger and the fall-out? At the moment, the political pressure is
:07:34. > :07:40.overt George Entwistle's pay-off. The Prime Minister's official
:07:40. > :07:43.spokesman says it is hard to justify, as does Culture Secretary
:07:43. > :07:46.Maria Miller. A Downing Street source said that Mr Entwistle
:07:47. > :07:51.should search his conscience, MPs are saying it is unacceptable.
:07:51. > :07:55.Grant Shapps, the chairman of the Conservatives, says it is correct
:07:55. > :08:02.to say that this pay-off will hurt the BBC almost most out of the
:08:02. > :08:05.current crisis dogging it. Where the pressure is there but not as
:08:05. > :08:10.acute is over the role of Chris Patten. Some Conservative MPs say
:08:10. > :08:13.his position is untenable and he should stand down, but Downing
:08:13. > :08:17.Street was asked explicitly this morning if the Prime Minister had
:08:17. > :08:21.confidence in all pattern and we were told that it did. At the
:08:21. > :08:24.moment Downing Street has tried to keep a certain amount of distance,
:08:24. > :08:28.but Downing Street has commented on the pay-off. Is Chris Patten in
:08:28. > :08:33.trouble? At the moment Khaled Downing Street will wait until all
:08:33. > :08:37.of these areas inquiry's report, get a sense of the layer of the
:08:37. > :08:41.land. I don't think they want to be in a position where they are
:08:41. > :08:45.accused of leaving the BBC rudderless. I think they want Chris
:08:45. > :08:48.Patten and plays so new changes can be put there, but at the moment
:08:48. > :08:52.they suggest that Chris Patten has the confidence of the Prime
:08:52. > :08:56.Minister and they give no evidence that will change in the short term.
:08:56. > :09:01.The BBC is taking steps to try to get a grip of the situation. At the
:09:01. > :09:06.moment it does not seem to have worked? What many MPs feel is a
:09:07. > :09:10.sense of frustration and anger. Many of them recognise in their
:09:10. > :09:14.view the importance of the BBC as an institution and its role in
:09:14. > :09:19.British society, but they express anger and frustration that some
:09:19. > :09:23.decisions made. I think they are hoping that better decisions will
:09:23. > :09:26.be made in the future, certainly the anger at the moment is focused
:09:26. > :09:31.on the pay-off rather than the structural changes that might have
:09:31. > :09:36.to be made. Thank you. Just to confirm that breaking news that
:09:36. > :09:40.Millbank, terror suspect Abu Qatada has won his appeal against
:09:41. > :09:43.deportation to Jordan, he has won his appeal, we will see what the
:09:44. > :09:48.fall-out is. No doubt the Home Secretary will make a statement
:09:48. > :09:51.shortly. Back to the BBC. With us the former
:09:52. > :09:57.Culture Secretary for the Labour government, Tessa Jowell, and,
:09:57. > :10:04.Burns, a Conservative MP serving on the Culture, Media and Sport Select
:10:04. > :10:10.Committee. We asked for anybody from the BBC to come on. They
:10:10. > :10:14.declined. We were very polite in our invitation, we even said please.
:10:14. > :10:19.We are told that the new acting Director-General of the BBC is
:10:19. > :10:24.giving an interview to the News Channel in the next hour or so,
:10:24. > :10:29.that is the BBC News Channel, but not to the BBC Daily Politics.
:10:29. > :10:34.There is a Marshall McLuhan moment going on, the BBC News Channel is
:10:34. > :10:40.anchoring its programme from outside the BBC headquarters where
:10:40. > :10:43.their studios are. We have not seen that before! We also asked for the
:10:43. > :10:50.Government to come on but they refused, we are not hurt because we
:10:50. > :10:53.have these two guests. How is the BBC handling the crisis so far?
:10:53. > :11:00.Appallingly. What we are now seeing is the decisive action we hope to
:11:00. > :11:05.see a few weeks ago, -- a few days ago, if it had been taken and Mr
:11:05. > :11:11.Entwistle might be still in his job. It is getting a grip in a delayed
:11:11. > :11:16.fashion. I agreed. If you look back over the history of BBC crisis,
:11:16. > :11:24.there is a pattern. They are not good at handling crises. I think
:11:24. > :11:29.part of this is the BBC's culture all, at management level, and
:11:29. > :11:33.reactivity to the world outside. To whom they are accountable through
:11:33. > :11:41.the public money they spend from the licence-fee payer. Eight is it
:11:41. > :11:45.getting a grip this morning? -- is it getting a grip? Slowly, we are
:11:45. > :11:50.seeing people stepping aside and action against those involved in
:11:50. > :11:53.the most appalling behaviour. They fail to broadcast allocations they
:11:53. > :11:59.could stand up and broadcast it once they could not. After the
:11:59. > :12:04.Jimmy Savile thing, for them not to have been any edicts for anything
:12:04. > :12:08.to do with Newsnight and child abuse to end up on the Director-
:12:08. > :12:13.General's desk was terrible. has Chris Patten performed as
:12:13. > :12:18.chairman? I think Chris Patten has probably done the best job that he
:12:18. > :12:25.can, what I think he is critical for Chris Patten is what happens
:12:25. > :12:31.over the next six months. I hope we can see a new emerging assertive
:12:31. > :12:34.BBC Trust really standing up for the BBC licence fee payer,
:12:35. > :12:40.reminding everybody in the senior management at the BBC that the
:12:40. > :12:46.public pay their money. What is the role of the BBC Trust? Is it to
:12:46. > :12:50.stand up for the licence-fee payer or regulate the BBC? It is,
:12:50. > :12:55.constitutionally, to represent the interests of the licence fee payer,
:12:55. > :13:00.value-for-money, quality of programming collapse and oversee
:13:00. > :13:08.the executive decisions of the executive board of the BBC. It is a
:13:08. > :13:13.broken model? No. Is it a mess? It is not a broken model, it is a
:13:13. > :13:20.model which needs to be delivered with an awful lot more conviction
:13:20. > :13:26.than it has, but it very much reflects where public opinion is.
:13:26. > :13:30.The public, the pay the licence fee, wants to feel it is their BBC and
:13:30. > :13:36.they have some control. Are you telling me you think the British
:13:36. > :13:40.public have trust in the BBC Trust? I think the public definitely have
:13:40. > :13:46.trust and confidence, very resilient levels of confidence, in
:13:46. > :13:51.the BBC. I said in the BBC Trust. very much doubt that the average
:13:51. > :13:56.person watching at home tonight draws a distinction. It is meant to
:13:56. > :14:01.be regulating or representing them. People don't know that distinction.
:14:01. > :14:04.Is the model Brogan? I don't think so, I think it is up to Chris
:14:04. > :14:08.Patten to decide what he wants to do. I think he should see what the
:14:08. > :14:13.role of the next Director-General is. I wonder if there is an
:14:13. > :14:17.argument for splitting the role, having an editor in chief and a
:14:18. > :14:22.Director-General who runs the bureaucracy. Chris Patten needs to
:14:22. > :14:27.focus on the future of the BBC. The brand is globally recognised. Many
:14:27. > :14:33.of us, even Tories, are great fans of the BBC and we wanted the Trust
:14:33. > :14:37.restored. Great fans? I have always been. Any colleagues? I could name
:14:38. > :14:44.and number, but that would be unfair on them. You are not sure
:14:44. > :14:50.who they are? I am not sure they wish to be outed! Is it that
:14:51. > :14:57.embarrassing? Is Mr Entwistle's �450,000 pay-off justified? I don't
:14:57. > :15:03.know the contractual settlement. was six months. That is a year.
:15:03. > :15:08.What are these are the functions that he has been asked to assist
:15:08. > :15:13.with? We are all asked to assist with things... It is a simple
:15:13. > :15:16.answer, is it justified? Part of the problem with the BBC, I am no
:15:16. > :15:20.longer in government, his government trying to micromanage
:15:20. > :15:25.and intervene in the BBC when things go wrong. That should stop.
:15:25. > :15:28.I am asking for your view as a member of parliament and a
:15:28. > :15:33.representative of your constituents. It is our money, the licence payers
:15:33. > :15:40.money, is it justified? I think it sounds like a lot. You know that,
:15:41. > :15:47.it is. If he is going to persuade... It is not justified at all, but we
:15:47. > :15:52.must not get upset about this. -- we must not obsess about this. In
:15:52. > :15:57.the scale of the challenge... me ask you, not as a businessman
:15:57. > :16:07.but as a licence payer in this country, first of all, do you think
:16:07. > :16:09.
:16:09. > :16:15.the BBC Trust is doing its job Jay's senior appointment as
:16:15. > :16:18.Entwhistle to be vindicated after 55 days, for me that poses a bigger
:16:19. > :16:23.question about the decision-making had a very senior level about that
:16:23. > :16:27.decision in the first place. decision taken by Lord Patten.
:16:27. > :16:31.think that answers your first question. I don't answer my
:16:32. > :16:35.questions, you have to! Then I would say, to take the points that
:16:35. > :16:39.were made earlier, to be normal, average person such as myself
:16:39. > :16:43.watching television, the face of the BBC in which I am placing trust
:16:43. > :16:48.is based upon what I am watching. However, having read everything
:16:48. > :16:51.that has gone on recently, my biggest concern would be with the
:16:51. > :16:55.senior management at the BBC, and if that is the trust, that would be
:16:55. > :16:59.the trust. Do you believe Mr Entwistle should have had a
:16:59. > :17:02.�450,000 pay-off? I believe he should have had what he was
:17:02. > :17:08.entitled to within the terms of his contrasts -- contract. It is
:17:08. > :17:12.greater than that, there is a judgment? Over that. It is greater
:17:12. > :17:18.than that and there is no explanation, well, let's for him to
:17:18. > :17:28.go quickly... It is the chairman of the trust's job to say, this is why
:17:28. > :17:49.
:17:49. > :17:53.we consider that this was justified. There was great resentment amongst
:17:53. > :17:58.a number of colleagues that certain presenters spat out the word, a
:17:58. > :18:02.senior figure from the Thatcher era. There was a sense that Newsnight
:18:02. > :18:07.wanted to seek to smear a senior Tory politician associated with
:18:07. > :18:11.Margaret Thatcher. You think it was politically motivated? Yes, and the
:18:11. > :18:15.way the phrase was spat out, a senior political figure from the
:18:15. > :18:19.Thatcher era, and that upset a number of us, we were very angry
:18:19. > :18:23.about that. The standards of journalism on that particular
:18:23. > :18:30.broadcast episodes were appalling. Were you angry enough to want to
:18:30. > :18:33.seek revenge? I hope Lord McAlpine will take legal action, and I think
:18:33. > :18:39.he will be successful. I don't think there is any doubt about
:18:39. > :18:42.that! I hope our committee will look at how on earth we regular
:18:42. > :18:46.Twitter, the internet, these appalling things that are said
:18:46. > :18:53.about people that you would never have got away with in the Sunday
:18:53. > :18:57.Times in your days. Where does this leave the child abuse story now? We
:18:57. > :19:02.have got two new inquiry set up in North Wales, including an inquiry
:19:02. > :19:07.into an inquiry. We have got the BBC's Savile inquiry, I think there
:19:07. > :19:11.is another one. To be honest, I have lost count! There are about
:19:11. > :19:16.six. What seems to be the case is that the number of people who have
:19:16. > :19:19.been accused because they are involved in one or another is
:19:19. > :19:23.destabilising the management at an absolutely critical time. -- Ricky
:19:23. > :19:27.used. I think those inquiries have got to continue to their
:19:27. > :19:32.conclusions, so that if they are people who did bad, evil, criminal
:19:32. > :19:36.things and they are still alive, that they are brought to book. But
:19:36. > :19:43.then there are also very important process points that the BBC has got
:19:43. > :19:51.to learn from. I was not just thinking of the BBC has tended to
:19:51. > :20:01.be lost in the media maelstrom. There are damaged adults who
:20:01. > :20:03.survived this who deserve retribution than and for those who
:20:03. > :20:06.assault them to be brought to account. There should be no
:20:06. > :20:11.deflection from that. Do you believe that there is a paedophile
:20:12. > :20:15.ring operating in Whitehall and Westminster? I do not believe that.
:20:15. > :20:19.At the very core of the whole child-abuse thing, if we look at
:20:19. > :20:23.the Savile thing, is that we have an evil man who is dead. There is
:20:23. > :20:27.no way of bringing him to justice, and that is at the core of the
:20:27. > :20:32.problem. We are setting up all sorts of inquiries... We may be
:20:32. > :20:35.able to bring to justice those who colluded. But we may never get to
:20:35. > :20:40.the portrait on all of these things because of time, because of death.
:20:40. > :20:45.Do believe there is a paedophile ring operating in the Westminster-
:20:45. > :20:49.Whitehall region? You are expressing that in the current
:20:49. > :20:56.tense, Andrew. I think if there is any suggestion of that, then such
:20:56. > :21:00.allegations... Well, has operated? I am not aware of that ever taking
:21:00. > :21:03.place. If there is any evidence, it should be passed to the police to
:21:03. > :21:06.be properly investigated. We could hardly do otherwise on something
:21:06. > :21:11.like that. Thank you both for joining us.
:21:11. > :21:14.Now, it is what is known in the business as a no-brainer, an
:21:14. > :21:17.economic downturn spells doom for high-street retailers, but while
:21:18. > :21:25.many small stores and big grants have gone to the wall in recent
:21:25. > :21:29.years, is it all doom and gloom? -- big brands.
:21:29. > :21:33.Take a high street, add the next five years, growing online retail,
:21:33. > :21:37.reduced budgets, a global economic downturn, a loss of spending money
:21:37. > :21:40.and a loss of faith in big-name brands, and you get a shopping
:21:41. > :21:44.experience that looks like this, pretty gloomy. But it is not
:21:44. > :21:48.necessarily terminal. There is no doubt a consumer revolution has
:21:48. > :21:52.taken place and it has hurt the high street, but many retail
:21:52. > :21:56.experts say from revolution comes evolution. If our high streets are
:21:56. > :22:01.going to be revived, they will not look like they used to, and that is
:22:01. > :22:04.because the ones that survive at the moment are the ones that we as
:22:05. > :22:09.human beings need to physically being, otherwise increasingly we
:22:09. > :22:13.shop with the click of a mouse. Nail bars were reported to double
:22:13. > :22:17.the numbers in the last two years, because you cannot get your nails
:22:17. > :22:21.done online. You may laugh, but it is true, you cannot meet your
:22:21. > :22:25.friends socially for a drink online. You might be able to Facebook each
:22:25. > :22:27.other, but you are in your own homes. The things that provide us
:22:27. > :22:31.with the connected environment that brings people together are the
:22:31. > :22:34.things that are still in existence, and what I think struggling
:22:34. > :22:38.retailers need to do is either recognise it is out of town and
:22:38. > :22:42.online and that is the only way to trade, all they need to bring the
:22:42. > :22:45.experience back to life and make its social, make it enjoyable, but
:22:46. > :22:52.that usually comes as a price. government has provided some money
:22:52. > :22:56.as part of the Mary Portas review, and a number of areas have one
:22:56. > :23:00.access to 100,000 all -- �100,000 or �10,000, but it is not enough to
:23:00. > :23:05.spruce up areas that need more than a makeover, and plenty of places
:23:05. > :23:08.got nothing. Mary Portas also hit on something else. The biggest
:23:08. > :23:12.recommendation of was that the government needs to re-evaluate
:23:12. > :23:16.rates, and that is massive. We are going to see more businesses
:23:16. > :23:19.struggling to pay, and in Baghdad the statistics that a 16% of
:23:19. > :23:27.independent retailers do not expect to make it through next year
:23:27. > :23:31.because they cannot pay their business rates. Before we give up
:23:31. > :23:35.our high street and retreat to a computer or a mega shopping centre,
:23:35. > :23:39.think honest. Whilst many shops have gone out of business,
:23:39. > :23:43.vacancies have been static, which means others are replacing them,
:23:43. > :23:49.and if entrepreneurs can bring the social experience to what they are
:23:49. > :23:53.offering, maybe we will return. Jonathan Lawson, the chief
:23:53. > :23:56.executive of Vision Express, is still with us, and we are joined by
:23:56. > :23:59.the Conservative MP and member of the Business Select Committee
:23:59. > :24:02.Nadhim Zahawi. Welcome to the programme, Jonathan Lawson, we keep
:24:02. > :24:06.hearing that the British high street is dying, your business is
:24:06. > :24:10.doing OK, is that because it is a vital service? Is that why it is
:24:11. > :24:15.surviving better? I hope it is also an part because we are doing a good
:24:15. > :24:19.job for our customers in terms of providing the right levels of value,
:24:19. > :24:22.service and quality, but there's no question that the high street is a
:24:22. > :24:27.tough place to operate on at the moment. Would you go into a high
:24:27. > :24:30.street like that and open a shop? We open in high streets and in
:24:30. > :24:34.shopping centres. One like that, though? I have got a number of
:24:34. > :24:40.stores operating in high street as tough as that, and in fairness to
:24:40. > :24:42.the team's there, they are managing to do OK. One of the key points
:24:42. > :24:47.that will programme raised is the issue of business rates, because
:24:47. > :24:50.that is a genuine and significant rate to our business, and it is
:24:50. > :24:55.going up higher than the growth in sales. Are you angry that the
:24:55. > :24:58.government has delayed plans to revalue business rates? I am more
:24:58. > :25:06.bemused, if I'm honest, because if you look at last year, where rates
:25:06. > :25:09.went up by 5.6%, this year 4.6%, and then a further �175 million of
:25:09. > :25:12.costs going into next year at a time when the government says they
:25:12. > :25:16.are listening to the needs of business, retail businesses are
:25:16. > :25:19.screaming that this is the wrong decision to have taken. Nadhim
:25:19. > :25:22.Zahawi, your government is supposed to be on the side of small
:25:23. > :25:26.businesses and retailers. Why are you shooting ourselves in the foot?
:25:26. > :25:30.The revaluation was done in 2008, at the height of the property
:25:30. > :25:35.bubble. That is damaging, and I think Jonathan is referring to that.
:25:35. > :25:40.The office that look that is, the agency said that if we re-evaluate
:25:40. > :25:45.in 2015, 800,000 more businesses will be paying more, 300,000 will
:25:45. > :25:47.be paying less, businesses like pubs, hotels, a lot of the leisure
:25:48. > :25:51.and entertainment sector will pay more. What we have tried to do is
:25:51. > :25:56.get some stability, five years where you will not get a real
:25:57. > :26:00.valuation. We have frozen small business rate relief for two and a
:26:00. > :26:04.half years. 300,000 small businesses do not pay business
:26:04. > :26:07.rates. The Localism Act allows councils to offer discounts to
:26:07. > :26:12.bring businesses into the high street. I could say to you that
:26:12. > :26:16.vision Express is in Stratford- upon-Avon, and a customer, and they
:26:16. > :26:19.are a fantastic service. I am a recent customer for my children,
:26:19. > :26:23.and it is a great service, and that is what you go to the high street
:26:23. > :26:26.for. But Jonathan says businesses are screaming about this, this is
:26:26. > :26:31.one of the biggest issues for them, and the government does not seem to
:26:31. > :26:35.be responding. We have tried to help those businesses at the lower
:26:35. > :26:40.end, and with the Mary Portas review, we have tried to make sure
:26:40. > :26:42.that we also create incentives, for example, or business improvement
:26:42. > :26:47.districts to become a superb business improvement districts, in
:26:47. > :26:50.the way that Stratford was looking up on doing. Are you convinced?
:26:50. > :26:54.There is something that does not stack up in the methodology,
:26:54. > :26:56.because if we are saying that we are delaying the revaluation of
:26:56. > :27:00.business rates is because of businesses seeing an increased
:27:00. > :27:05.costs, yet this is against a valuation that was taken in 2008,
:27:05. > :27:09.at the height of the property boom, so does not work in the way that it
:27:09. > :27:12.was partly to do the first place, which is why what we said is, let's
:27:12. > :27:16.hold the business rate increase for next day and freeze it, and then we
:27:16. > :27:21.can properly review how this is calculated in the first place,
:27:21. > :27:24.because its business rates have gone up further on the basis of an
:27:24. > :27:29.evaluation in 2015, that suggests that the system itself is flawed
:27:29. > :27:33.and is not driving the right level of value. What about rents?
:27:33. > :27:36.Obviously, they vary across the country. How big an issue are
:27:36. > :27:42.Wrens? Isn't that why we are seeing board above shops in parts of the
:27:42. > :27:45.country? Events are an issue, and we are an active discussions
:27:45. > :27:49.constantly with our landlords about arriving at the best possible
:27:49. > :27:52.compromise that we can find in terms of investing into high
:27:52. > :27:56.streets, and we are opening stores still on high streets where
:27:56. > :27:59.possible. But they need to provide value to us and reasons why we can
:27:59. > :28:02.sustain operating in those locations, such as the one that
:28:02. > :28:08.your programme featured, and at the same time opening new businesses as
:28:08. > :28:12.well. A lot of shops on the high street are owned by pension funds
:28:12. > :28:15.and banks, and one of the Porter's review recommendations is that
:28:15. > :28:20.unless they manage them properly, they ought to sell them, and that
:28:20. > :28:23.is one of the reasons you're not getting movement. In places like
:28:23. > :28:27.Stratford, some of those stores are remaining vacant because the
:28:27. > :28:31.landlord is refusing to drop the rent. Aside from the pilot projects,
:28:31. > :28:35.nothing much seems to be happening, why doesn't the Government
:28:35. > :28:40.implement those recommendations? Well, look, we are going to
:28:40. > :28:44.implement the recommendations... When? Well, Parliament's time has
:28:44. > :28:51.to be decided by the government, I cannot give you an answer to that
:28:51. > :28:58.question, but what we have done is we have got Phase 1 at two in place,
:28:58. > :29:02.and in my constituency, it has become a team town with �10,000
:29:02. > :29:05.help from experts. There's lots of work being done on the area. Nadhim
:29:05. > :29:10.Zahawi, thank you very much. Just to keep you abreast of the
:29:10. > :29:13.breaking news, for once nothing to do with the BBC, the Abu Qatada
:29:13. > :29:17.Court decision that he cannot be deported to Jordan, we have no just
:29:18. > :29:21.seen the BBC reporting that the Home Office strongly disagrees with
:29:21. > :29:26.this decision, so strongly it is going to seek leave to appeal
:29:26. > :29:30.against it. So the Abu Qatada saga continues.
:29:30. > :29:37.Now, it is a difficult choice, the Australian jungle in the spring or
:29:37. > :29:42.a damp, dreich Westminster, I like that word, in November. I think a
:29:42. > :29:46.lot of us can see where Nadine is coming from, but not me, I was
:29:46. > :29:56.watching Homeland on Channel 4. Here she is on something called I'm
:29:56. > :29:57.
:29:57. > :30:01.I think it is possibly one of the worst nights of my life and I don't
:30:01. > :30:04.think I want to go through it again. I have never been so relieved to
:30:04. > :30:10.see the dawn come up, I don't normally want to see it. We have
:30:10. > :30:15.not slept all washed or change our clothes for 24 hours.
:30:15. > :30:21.Should MPs be allowed to court kangaroo testicles and big bugs? I
:30:21. > :30:30.never thought I would get to say that on the BBC on daytime! Or
:30:30. > :30:35.should all extra-curricular activity be curtailed? Here is Adam.
:30:35. > :30:41.There has been a disturbance in the Westminster undergrowth about the
:30:41. > :30:44.news that Nadine Dorries is entering ITV's celebrity jungle.
:30:44. > :30:49.Speaker, I sometimes think the Deputy Prime Minister would like to
:30:49. > :30:54.send me to a jungle in Australia for a month... Rats and snakes,
:30:55. > :30:57.that was even before she went to the jungle! You should be in
:30:58. > :31:04.Parliament or representing your constituents, so the Conservative
:31:04. > :31:08.whip was taken away from the Dean. And it has gone down like a mouldy
:31:08. > :31:14.which are to grow up with a Tory colleague Philip Lee, who spends
:31:14. > :31:19.his time continuing to practise as a GP. The workload by an MP, if you
:31:19. > :31:22.want to do we proper job, is more than a full-time job. I just don't
:31:22. > :31:26.think it is very helpful for someone to have somehow given the
:31:26. > :31:31.impression that we are part-timers and can just disappear to Australia
:31:31. > :31:35.and become a celebrity for four weeks, I think it is disgraceful.
:31:35. > :31:39.But he told me the wider issue of second jobbing MPs should not be a
:31:39. > :31:43.cause for high blood pressure. Politics is not just intellectual
:31:43. > :31:49.ability, it is wisdom and experience and bringing experience
:31:49. > :31:53.to bear from various sectors, be it law, medicine, business. I think
:31:53. > :32:00.Westminster is the better for having people who continue to keep
:32:00. > :32:05.a toe or maybe a foot in another world. So what exotic things to
:32:05. > :32:12.other MPs do when they are not at Parliament? The Conservative Sir
:32:12. > :32:16.Tony Baldry has earned as much as �25,000 a month doing legal work.
:32:16. > :32:20.Labour's David Miliband spent two weeks a year as Vice Chair of
:32:20. > :32:25.Sunderland Football Club. An extra �75,000 a year.
:32:25. > :32:30.Gordon Birtwistle of the Lib Dems is paid �225 a month working as a
:32:30. > :32:35.local councillor in tropical Burnley.
:32:35. > :32:39.You can find plenty of other examples, none of it is against the
:32:39. > :32:43.rules and it is all declared in the Register of Members' interests,
:32:43. > :32:47.which is available to the public. But there has been a rumble in the
:32:47. > :32:50.jungle. The parliamentary pay and expenses watchdog are looking into
:32:50. > :32:54.this whole area and one of the things they have suggested is that
:32:54. > :32:58.maybe MPs should have their pay docked if they do not stick to the
:32:58. > :33:05.day job. Are you sure this is not poisonous?!
:33:05. > :33:10.We are now looking for a new reporter...! Please send your
:33:10. > :33:16.applications. If anyone has seen, I think it was a tarantula, don't let
:33:16. > :33:19.us know! We are joined by former MP Ann Widdecombe, as we all remember
:33:19. > :33:24.she took part in Strictly Come Dancing on the BBC and other
:33:24. > :33:30.television shows after she stood down as an MP, and by the Telegraph
:33:30. > :33:34.blogger Dan Hodges. Welcome. Ann Widdecombe, should MPs just
:33:34. > :33:38.concentrate on the day job? I think it would be a very bad idea indeed
:33:38. > :33:43.if they were absolutely forbidden from having any outside interests.
:33:43. > :33:47.For example, you would wipeout all the professions. If you are a
:33:47. > :33:51.dentist you want to keep your hand in, so to speak, if you are a
:33:51. > :33:55.doctor you want to keep up with the latest developments. If you are a
:33:55. > :34:00.lawyer you will need to practise. You would wipeout the professions,
:34:00. > :34:05.you would wipeout serious people. Let me deal with that point, what
:34:05. > :34:10.would you say to that? There may be an argument for Barnet or public
:34:11. > :34:15.service, I Marsha going to Australia to eat kangaroo testicles
:34:15. > :34:21.counts. -- I am not sure going to Australia. I think given where MPs
:34:21. > :34:25.are now, I have argued for some time it is time to stop kicking MPs
:34:25. > :34:30.and they have to stop kicking themselves. The spectacle of Nadine
:34:30. > :34:33.Dorries going to the jungle raises a broader issue. My view, I think
:34:33. > :34:38.the time has come to pay them a competitive salary, give them a
:34:38. > :34:43.decent pension, do away with the perks, clever accounting of outside
:34:43. > :34:48.interests and say, this is your job, get on with it. I think that is how
:34:48. > :34:51.you can rebuild an element of public confidence. I want to come
:34:51. > :34:55.on to Nadine Dorries in a moment, we will have too much fun if we
:34:55. > :34:59.concentrate on her all the time. Let's deal with the broader issue,
:35:00. > :35:04.you had a second point? Serious people like to stay in touch with
:35:04. > :35:09.what they have been doing. Not everybody has a safe seat, some of
:35:09. > :35:14.them need to stay in touch. If you ban all outside interests, are you
:35:14. > :35:20.going to ban somebody writing? They produce a book and get it published,
:35:20. > :35:26.we are nearby matter? And we nearby and hobbies? I think MPs should be
:35:26. > :35:31.able to do things that do not conflict with their day-to-day job
:35:31. > :35:35.as an MP. I can see how it is possible to continue to write and
:35:35. > :35:44.be an MP, I don't see how it is possible to go to a jungle or spend
:35:44. > :35:48.weeks or even monks... -- weeks or even months... Lots of our MPs, let
:35:48. > :35:53.me put it this way, have other jobs, particularly on the Tory side but
:35:53. > :35:58.not exclusively. You think that is wrong, you think they should be
:35:58. > :36:01.paid a higher salary and do nothing else? That right. I think one can
:36:02. > :36:07.always find exceptions to the rule, and I think writing would be one,
:36:07. > :36:11.but in general terms I do not agree with Ann, I don't see how you can
:36:11. > :36:17.continue to be a full-time MP and be a practising physician.
:36:17. > :36:21.suspect lots of viewers might agree. Fine. Then don't grumble about the
:36:21. > :36:25.quality of Parliament, don't say we don't have any representatives from
:36:25. > :36:29.the professions. When Parliament is discussing the NHS, don't say
:36:29. > :36:33.nobody knows what they are talking about. I understand why you are
:36:33. > :36:39.saying this, but if you are trying to say that there will be some
:36:39. > :36:44.exceptions, the arguments about the exceptions will become
:36:44. > :36:49.unsustainable. I think it is far better to say MPs answer to their
:36:49. > :36:52.electorate, the electorate knows if you're doing a good job or not. If
:36:52. > :36:55.you're doing a good job as a constituency MP it will not be
:36:55. > :37:00.worried that you have produced a bestseller. Leave that to the
:37:00. > :37:07.judgment of the constituents, I think. You wrote your book, you
:37:07. > :37:12.have already said, when you wear an MP. You took part in A celebrity
:37:12. > :37:19.Fit Club and Lewry through a film due at home when you were an MP.
:37:19. > :37:23.Was that the right thing to do? Fits Club was one Sunday every
:37:23. > :37:29.month. Probably good for you. Exceptionally good for me, gave me
:37:29. > :37:33.a lot more energy. But what I would never have done, and I turned down
:37:33. > :37:38.the opportunity, was the jungle. I would never have done Big Brother.
:37:38. > :37:44.There were things I would not do. Every year for five years before I
:37:44. > :37:47.retired, I turned down Strictly. I only did it when I retired.
:37:47. > :37:52.Nadine Dorries made a mistake in going to the jungle? If she asked
:37:52. > :37:56.me, which she did not, I would have advised her not to do that. I
:37:56. > :37:59.believe she has made a mistake. But it she pulls it off in that she
:37:59. > :38:03.connects with the section of the population which does boat in
:38:03. > :38:07.reality shows but not elections, she might be onto something, but I
:38:07. > :38:11.think it is a terrible gamble and a very strong outside chance. As I
:38:11. > :38:17.said before, I think it was a terrible mistake. And I actually
:38:17. > :38:21.quite like her and I had some respect for her independence of
:38:22. > :38:27.view, if you like. But I think she has really damaged herself and I
:38:27. > :38:32.think she has damaged parliaments. The reality, as you know, despite
:38:32. > :38:35.the caricature most MPs are very hard working on behalf of their
:38:35. > :38:40.constituents and I think it really does not help them in presenting
:38:40. > :38:44.the reality of what parliamentary life is like. You are a member of a
:38:44. > :38:49.public -- the public as well as a businessman, what do you make of
:38:49. > :38:55.it? When I vote for an MP I believe I am voting for somebody dedicating
:38:55. > :38:59.themselves full-time to the Sarries position as their role as an MP. I
:38:59. > :39:03.think the judgment was an error. I think where we talk about other
:39:03. > :39:08.activities, they are sadly lacking in the literature they publish at
:39:08. > :39:11.the time of any election coming around. I would suggest that those
:39:11. > :39:16.are significant salaries already been paid for MPs to do full-time
:39:16. > :39:20.roles. The idea that your electorate don't know if you have
:39:20. > :39:24.other interests, the register is well covered and the local press,
:39:24. > :39:29.you always getting headlines, they overestimated my earnings by about
:39:29. > :39:34.four times. The idea people that don't know you do other things is
:39:34. > :39:38.nonsense, but if you are a good MP they will vote on that basis.
:39:38. > :39:43.think many people will agree with you up until the phrase an MP
:39:43. > :39:48.should be paid a lot more, that might be a tougher sell?
:39:48. > :39:51.understand why people would blanche that, but I don't think �60,000 is
:39:51. > :39:56.a comparative salary compared to what MPs from other positions could
:39:56. > :40:03.do. Do we want good people and Parliament or not? If we do, we
:40:03. > :40:09.have to go by the principle that we would in any other field and pay a
:40:09. > :40:12.competitive rate, �60,000 is not. We have a situation where MPs are
:40:12. > :40:15.sleeping in their offices, good MPs are thinking of packing it in at
:40:15. > :40:20.the next election because they can't maintain themselves on their
:40:20. > :40:23.current salary. Ann Widdecombe, it has been a long time since you came
:40:23. > :40:30.to see us, don't leave it so long next time!
:40:30. > :40:34.Thank you for that. And Jonathan Lawson, thank you.
:40:34. > :40:38.As interesting as that story is, it is time to look at what will be
:40:38. > :40:42.making the rest of the news this week. This afternoon, MPs will vote
:40:42. > :40:47.on plans to increase fuel duty by three pence a litre in January.
:40:47. > :40:52.Labour have put down a motion to delay the increase until April.
:40:52. > :40:56.Hoping that Conservative MPs will rebel once again. Tonight, the
:40:56. > :40:59.Prime Minister delivers his annual foreign policy speech at the Lord
:40:59. > :41:04.Mayor's Banquet in the City. Tomorrow evening, Parliament goes
:41:04. > :41:07.into recess, with MPs returning to their constituencies until Monday.
:41:07. > :41:12.Thursday is election day, with Police and Crime Commissioner
:41:12. > :41:15.elections taking place in 41 police force areas across England and
:41:15. > :41:19.Wales and three by-elections in Manchester Central, Cardiff South
:41:19. > :41:27.and Penarth and Corby. To discuss the week ahead we are joined from
:41:27. > :41:31.College Green outside to Parliament by a writer from the Spectator and
:41:31. > :41:38.one from the Independent. Your reaction to Abu Qatada winning his
:41:38. > :41:44.fight against deportation? It is incredibly depressing. The whole of
:41:44. > :41:49.Britain will be thoroughly depressed. What can we do if we
:41:49. > :41:54.cannot support these people? I have not read the full judgment yet but
:41:54. > :41:58.I really don't know where we go from here. Donald, the Home Office
:41:58. > :42:03.says it is seeking leave to appeal, that is hardly a surprise. But what
:42:03. > :42:08.happens? I think it is impossible to say what the Court of Appeal
:42:08. > :42:14.will do. The Home Office will certainly appeal the decision, and
:42:14. > :42:17.Melissa is right that it has taken an incredibly long time. It is a
:42:17. > :42:21.blow to the government in one sense, although I don't think any one
:42:21. > :42:30.could accuse the Government of not doing their best to get rid of Abu
:42:30. > :42:35.Qatada. There is one., it is important -- there is one point, it
:42:35. > :42:39.is important there is a review into how it has taken so long, but it is
:42:39. > :42:44.worth pointing out that it is worth it for our international reputation
:42:44. > :42:48.that the rule of law prevails. Obviously all the governments and
:42:48. > :42:53.most of the country will be hoping this decision is overturned by the
:42:53. > :42:58.Court of Appeal. Picking up one.'s point about how this plays out for
:42:58. > :43:01.the Government and Theresa May, do you think people will understand
:43:01. > :43:07.its, no doubt what the Government will say, which is they have tried
:43:07. > :43:10.their hardest? I think they will. I spoke to a Tory MP yesterday he was
:43:10. > :43:15.singing the praises of Theresa May and has said she has turned out to
:43:15. > :43:18.be an extremely good Home Secretary. She has kept a cool head and won
:43:18. > :43:23.plaudits for her handling of this. She has apparently tried as hard as
:43:23. > :43:27.you possibly can. I think the processes are to blame, it is not
:43:27. > :43:32.for want of trying on the part of this government that this has come
:43:32. > :43:35.to pass. Something different, the elections
:43:35. > :43:39.for Police and Crime Commissioners, Donald, one of the because
:43:39. > :43:41.complaints from viewers has been a lack of information and publicity.
:43:41. > :43:46.The Government has hardly been banging the drum for these
:43:46. > :43:52.elections? There is something slightly half-hearted about it,
:43:52. > :43:56.which I think is disappointing. Actually the police need to be
:43:56. > :44:01.democratically accountable, in my view. I think the pity of it is
:44:01. > :44:06.that this is such a halfway house. If we had a network of elected
:44:06. > :44:11.mayors, I think it would attract much more attention and secondly it
:44:11. > :44:15.would place some other institutions as vibes the police, no also need
:44:15. > :44:19.democratic accountability. -- some other institutions besides the
:44:19. > :44:23.police. I think the disappointment is the Government have not gone the
:44:23. > :44:28.whole hog. Whether publicity is an issue Walmart, I suspect the
:44:28. > :44:34.turnout will be low. -- whether publicity is an issue or not.
:44:34. > :44:39.has been poorly advertised as a whole and I think there is a danger
:44:39. > :44:45.it will become a career path for former MPs. There is an awful lot
:44:45. > :44:50.of former Labour and Tory MPs standing as police commissioners.
:44:50. > :44:55.What we don't want is this to become a kind of alternative career
:44:55. > :44:59.path. You get the car, the six- figure salary and if you are not an
:44:59. > :45:03.MP any more it is a nice job to have. What are they actually going
:45:03. > :45:10.to do? If it will engage the public more next time they need to show
:45:10. > :45:15.they have done something. Briefly, Donald, there seems to now be a
:45:15. > :45:20.political row will be Chris Patten's decision to award George
:45:21. > :45:24.Entwistle, the former Director- General, �450,000 pay-off, what is
:45:24. > :45:28.your response? I think it is a pretty big pay-off and a lot of
:45:28. > :45:32.people will be pretty baffled that it is so big, as they are baffled
:45:32. > :45:38.by some salaries paid by the BBC. I personally think it would be a
:45:38. > :45:42.shame if this resulted in Chris Patten's departure, because I think
:45:42. > :45:47.the BBC... It is very difficult to find people with character and
:45:47. > :45:51.judgment and independence of the nature of Chris Patten. It looks
:45:51. > :45:55.like Entwistle's appointment was a mistake and the pay-off is very
:45:55. > :46:04.difficult for the public to swallow, but I feared it would be very bad
:46:04. > :46:10.for the BBC's independence if We have just heard from Nick Higham,
:46:10. > :46:13.the BBC media correspondent, that Lord Patten, the chairman of the
:46:13. > :46:17.BBC, has written to John Whittingdale of the Commons culture
:46:17. > :46:20.committee about the pay-off to Mr Entwistle, and the letter makes
:46:21. > :46:25.clear that it is what the BBC would have had to pay if they had fired
:46:25. > :46:29.the director-general and that the trust was considering sacking him
:46:29. > :46:35.if he had not volunteered his resignation. That letter will soon
:46:35. > :46:37.be in the public domain, but in the public domain with us until the
:46:37. > :46:43.bitter end of the programme are three of Westminster's finest, well,
:46:43. > :46:47.the best we could get, James Morris, Luciana burger, and last, but not
:46:48. > :46:55.at all least in any way, even though he is a Liberal Democrat,
:46:55. > :46:59.Martin Horwood, welcome to all of you! Can we get your reaction to
:46:59. > :47:04.the appeals tribunal saying that we as a nation cannot deport Abu
:47:04. > :47:07.Qatada? Well, I think it is a very regrettable situation. The Home
:47:07. > :47:11.Secretary has been working extremely hard to make sure this
:47:11. > :47:16.man is deported from the UK to Jordan. Now, I think the Home
:47:16. > :47:19.Office is going to appeal. It is. Our I think the British public will
:47:19. > :47:24.be, frankly, outraged that yet again there is an obstacle in the
:47:24. > :47:29.way to removing this man from the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary
:47:29. > :47:34.has given assurances that he would not be tortured or evidence would
:47:34. > :47:39.not be used gained under torture in a trial against him in Jordan. The
:47:39. > :47:42.appeals commission clearly does not agree with that. Well, I support
:47:42. > :47:47.what James said, that the British government is absolutely correct in
:47:47. > :47:53.mounting an appeal. I have not had a chance to read the judgment, the
:47:53. > :48:00.story has just broken. It is very frustrating and very expensive, the
:48:00. > :48:03.whole exercise. The lawyers are the only gainers from this. I think the
:48:03. > :48:08.point is that you have to obey the rule of law, and sometimes you have
:48:08. > :48:13.to have a judgment you do not like. Back to the News of the morning,
:48:13. > :48:17.which is of course the BBC, and the acting director-general of the BBC,
:48:17. > :48:21.Tim Davey, has been doing some interviews this morning. He would
:48:21. > :48:26.not do one with the Daily Politics, but Chris Patten would not be one
:48:26. > :48:32.with the Sunday Politics yesterday, so we do not feel left out. This is
:48:32. > :48:36.what the new acting director looks like, let's see what he had to say.
:48:36. > :48:40.If the public are going to get journalism they trust from the BBC,
:48:40. > :48:45.I have to be, as director-general, very clear who is running the news
:48:45. > :48:50.operation and ensuring that the journalism that we puts out passes
:48:50. > :48:54.muster. The first decision I have made is to get a grip of that, take
:48:54. > :48:58.action and build trust by putting a clear line of command in.
:48:58. > :49:03.Separately, we are going to look at the individual processes, and there
:49:03. > :49:09.may be disciplinary action. Do you think the BBC is getting a grip of
:49:09. > :49:12.it? Well, I think there is a big issue here, isn't there, about the
:49:12. > :49:16.credibility of the BBC's news reporting? The fact that Newsnight
:49:16. > :49:19.produced that programme really raises a lot of questions about the
:49:19. > :49:24.credibility of news reporting in the UK. Does it? It is one
:49:24. > :49:28.programme. But what it has done is it has forced us into a situation
:49:28. > :49:32.where part of the process of holding the powerful to account,
:49:32. > :49:36.this programme has undermined the credibility of the media and their
:49:36. > :49:40.ability to do that, and I think it raises some very serious questions.
:49:40. > :49:45.Should it be externalised like that? This is about one programme
:49:45. > :49:48.which made two major mistakes, it has been on air for 30 years, the
:49:49. > :49:54.BBC puts at hundreds of hours of news programming every week,
:49:54. > :49:57.including this one. Newsnight made some disastrous mistakes. Should
:49:57. > :50:01.that tarnished the whole of the BBC? I do not think it should
:50:01. > :50:06.tarnish the whole of the BBC. There is a big job to be done in terms of
:50:06. > :50:11.restoring trust and the reputation of the BBC, and no doubt under the
:50:11. > :50:14.new leadership that is what he will be doing. You would not say that
:50:14. > :50:20.Denis McShane tarnishes the whole of the Labour Party. I agree with
:50:20. > :50:23.you! There are a number of different examples, phone-hacking,
:50:23. > :50:28.and now with a lack of control over a very serious allegation that was
:50:28. > :50:34.made by the BBC about an individual without actually a shred of
:50:34. > :50:39.evidence. We understand all of that, nobody is arguing with that. What I
:50:39. > :50:42.am putting forward as an argument, because that is my job, is that
:50:43. > :50:50.maybe too many people are determined to tarnish the whole of
:50:50. > :50:54.the BBC with the egregious mistakes made by one programme. Despite your
:50:54. > :50:59.day at the Lib Dems, I'm going to agree with you! It is very
:50:59. > :51:02.important that we remember that the BBC is overwhelmingly a world-class
:51:02. > :51:05.news organisation and remained a world-class news organisation in
:51:05. > :51:09.most of its output throughout his entire period. I think there are
:51:09. > :51:12.some people in the Conservative Party with an agenda about the BBC,
:51:13. > :51:17.and I do not think we should give that kind of argument a leg up on
:51:17. > :51:21.the back of something which was a rare lapse of judgment. I have no
:51:21. > :51:25.agenda against the BBC. My point is that over a period of time in
:51:25. > :51:29.Britain there has been a collapse in trust in a number of different
:51:29. > :51:33.media organisations, whether it is tabloid newspapers, phone-hacking,
:51:33. > :51:39.and now with the BBC over a report which had the effect of making it
:51:39. > :51:43.impossible to have a credible conversation about very serious
:51:43. > :51:46.allegations about a senior figure, and I think that really does go to
:51:46. > :51:53.the heart of things to do with the responsible media in Britain that
:51:53. > :51:57.we need to address. Of course, part of this has also been happening in
:51:57. > :52:03.Parliament with Tom Watson's allegations. Have these helped or
:52:03. > :52:06.hindered the proper investigation of child abuse? Understand that Tom
:52:06. > :52:10.Watson's allegations have been passed to the police, and that is
:52:10. > :52:13.where they belong. We do not know what they are, but I have no doubt
:52:13. > :52:18.the police will very seriously investigate them. They will have to
:52:18. > :52:22.now. With phone-hacking, the police did not do its job. Where are you
:52:22. > :52:26.honest? Tom Watson chose not to pass what he knew to the police but
:52:26. > :52:29.raise it in a rather sensational way in Prime Minister's questions,
:52:29. > :52:38.and he posed a question that the Prime Minister could not possibly
:52:38. > :52:43.answer. Very briefly, how upset or otherwise will your MP colleagues
:52:43. > :52:49.be about the size of Gestede was a's pay-off? It is more about what
:52:49. > :52:52.our constituents think, it is a massive amount of money, and I
:52:52. > :52:56.think they will be very upset. We await to see the detail of the
:52:56. > :53:01.letter you referred to. It seems like an awful lot of money to mere
:53:01. > :53:05.mortals like you and me, but if it was in his contract, the trust is
:53:05. > :53:09.probably obliged to pay. I broadly agree that it is a lot of money,
:53:09. > :53:12.there was a serious failure in our senior management, and I think the
:53:12. > :53:18.public will be very sceptical about such a large pay-off. All right,
:53:18. > :53:21.let's move on, Jo. As we heard earlier, MPs will later today vote
:53:21. > :53:31.on whether to delay the increase in fuel duty due in January. It is a
:53:31. > :53:35.Labour opposition Day motion, and they want to postpone the increased.
:53:35. > :53:38.This is what Rachel Reeves said earlier. We have said that the
:53:38. > :53:43.government should close down the loopholes which means that many
:53:43. > :53:47.employment agencies are avoiding tax on a massive scale by setting
:53:47. > :53:50.up umbrella companies to employ people, avoiding national insurance
:53:50. > :53:56.and tax. If you close down that loophole, the Treasury reckon that
:53:56. > :54:00.they could bring in about �650 million, which would more than pay
:54:00. > :54:05.for this postponement of the fuel duty. Do you agree that the
:54:05. > :54:08.proposed rise in petrol duty should be postponed? Well, I think this is
:54:08. > :54:13.an absurd situation with this rather absurd notion which has been
:54:13. > :54:17.put by the Labour Party today... Fine, should the rise be postponed?
:54:17. > :54:21.I think it needs to be looked at in the Autumn Statement, in the right
:54:21. > :54:25.kind of way. This is a completely opportunistic motion from Labour.
:54:25. > :54:29.They are asking us to pay through a tax relief that they introduced for
:54:29. > :54:33.a fuel duty increase which they legislated for. It is an absurd
:54:33. > :54:37.opportunistic opposition Day motion. But you are not sure whether you
:54:37. > :54:41.support the idea. If you were talking to your constituents, would
:54:41. > :54:47.you be agreeing with the rise being postponed? We have already removed
:54:47. > :54:52.the fuel duty escalator, cancelled at least two of the proposed rises,
:54:52. > :54:57.saving �158 for ordinary consumers. We need to see what comes into the
:54:57. > :55:00.autumn statement. I would like to see it considered, but it has cost
:55:00. > :55:05.4.5 billion so far to get rid of these rises, and that has got to
:55:05. > :55:08.come from somewhere. If we do see the increase in January, the
:55:08. > :55:13.average household will see an increase in their fuel bill, just
:55:13. > :55:18.the tax going up �200 per year. Since the election, we have seen
:55:18. > :55:21.fuel prices rise by 12%. You only have to look at the Which? report
:55:21. > :55:25.which says 6 million people are really struggling at have to dip
:55:25. > :55:30.into their savings. Measures brought in by the previous Labour
:55:30. > :55:35.government, it is absurd. Labour plans six fuel duty rises. When we
:55:35. > :55:39.were in government, at the height of the financial crisis, we
:55:39. > :55:44.postponed increases in the fuel duty escalator. Cannot really be
:55:44. > :55:48.paid for by closing tax loopholes? -- can it. The government will not
:55:48. > :55:53.actually released the figures of how much is being evaded by these
:55:53. > :55:57.umbrella companies. It estimates that it is 650 million, but it
:55:57. > :56:02.could be as high as 1 billion, and we are saying, let's use a
:56:02. > :56:07.proportion of that. Introduced by the previous government. Should it
:56:07. > :56:11.be postponed? Having cited Which? organisation, people dipping into
:56:11. > :56:15.their savings to cover the cost of petrol, it is the number one
:56:15. > :56:19.concern. We generally like green taxes, but it would be nice if
:56:19. > :56:24.there was a way to work something out that was not automatic, in the
:56:24. > :56:28.way that Labour legislator for it, but which was sensitive to the
:56:28. > :56:30.situation that people are in. you be voting for the motion
:56:30. > :56:35.question market is purely opportunistic, they have done what
:56:35. > :56:37.they did in the previous week on the EU budget, trying to get
:56:37. > :56:43.parliament to vote for something it cannot decide. It worked quite
:56:43. > :56:49.well! How many e-mails to get from constituents who are feeling the
:56:49. > :56:53.cost-of-living increases? I am sure the same kind of proportion as you,
:56:53. > :56:57.and we blame Labour for leaving us in that situation. You legislated
:56:57. > :57:02.for this increase, let's not forget, you should have thought about this
:57:02. > :57:07.when you were in government. constituents are writing to their
:57:07. > :57:10.MPs... It is clearly an issue, but it is not an issue that needs to be
:57:10. > :57:15.resolved by a totally opportunistic Labour amendment to a motion today.
:57:15. > :57:19.Briefly, before we go, why are reductions in the price of crude
:57:19. > :57:23.oil not reflected in fuel prices? Why can't we see the breakdown in
:57:23. > :57:26.the price of petrol and the duty that is pushed on it? We need to
:57:26. > :57:31.move towards a system where there is a greater correlation, but it is
:57:31. > :57:35.not going to be achieved by this kind of motion in parliament today.
:57:36. > :57:43.Before we say goodbye, we know you want to find that the answer to our
:57:43. > :57:48.quiz. What trialled did Nadine Dorries have to undergo on the
:57:48. > :57:52.programme I'm A Celebrity? Being buried alive with insects, being
:57:52. > :57:59.buried alive with constituents, and it took John Humphrys of taming a
:57:59. > :58:03.coma? It is being buried with insects, I think. That is the
:58:03. > :58:09.correct answer. Put up your hands if he watched the programme last
:58:09. > :58:13.night! None of you watched it last night? Are you not curious? Are you
:58:13. > :58:18.going to watch its tonight? I am told it is on tonight. We have got
:58:18. > :58:23.an important vote in Parliament tonight! I don't, but I will not be
:58:23. > :58:28.watching either. We have to go now, because having seen the acting DG,
:58:28. > :58:33.we are going to have a whip-round to buy him a tie. It is called
:58:33. > :58:37.being casual! That is all for today, the One O'Clock News is starting on
:58:37. > :58:40.BBC One now, plenty more news, particularly the failure of the
:58:40. > :58:44.government to deport Abu Qatada, leading the news for a change,
:58:44. > :58:47.rather than the BBC, and we will be here at noon tomorrow with all the