:00:43. > :00:47.Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. Much of England is
:00:47. > :00:51.under water, vast areas of the south-west and north-east are knee-
:00:51. > :00:55.deep in floods, and there are alerts in Scotland and Wales.
:00:55. > :00:57.Should we worry when we hear that talks between the government and
:00:57. > :01:01.insurers are on the brink of collapse?
:01:01. > :01:05.Nigel Farage will be talking about the decision in Rotherham to remove
:01:05. > :01:10.three children from a foster family because the parents were members of
:01:10. > :01:14.UKIP - he is not pleased, to put it mildly.
:01:14. > :01:20.And after the highs of the Olympics, are attempts to get us all doing
:01:20. > :01:24.more sport coming a cropper because of a lack of local facilities?
:01:24. > :01:28.All that in the next hour. With us today is the legendary athlete and
:01:28. > :01:31.member of the House of Lords Tanni Grey-Thompson, welcome. If you have
:01:31. > :01:36.any thoughts or comments on anything we are discussing you can
:01:36. > :01:43.send them to daily.politics@bbc.co.uk or tweets
:01:43. > :01:47.your, and using #bbcdp. -- tweeted your comments. There has
:01:47. > :01:51.been misery as flooding and torrential rain hit this weekend.
:01:51. > :01:56.More than 800 homes were deluged and more is under way as the rains
:01:56. > :01:59.keep coming. The Met Office has issued an amber warning for North
:01:59. > :02:04.Wales and the north-east of England. The Environment Agency says there
:02:04. > :02:07.are currently 204 flood warnings on their website. Scotland is at risk
:02:07. > :02:11.and it has emerged this morning that some people may find their
:02:11. > :02:14.homes uninsurable as talks between the government and the Association
:02:14. > :02:17.of British Insurers have failed to reach agreement.
:02:17. > :02:22.The Government is committed to improving flood defences and in
:02:22. > :02:26.return insurers are obliged to provide cover for high-risk
:02:26. > :02:29.properties. This morning Nick Starling of the ABI said it was not
:02:29. > :02:33.about tax payers footing the bill. We've had two years since the major
:02:33. > :02:37.flood summit held by the Government, two years to sort this out. The
:02:37. > :02:42.industry has put a lot of work and money into creating a model and it
:02:42. > :02:47.is not right to say it would burden the taxpayer. The model develops a
:02:47. > :02:50.fund, and into that front go a high risk premiums and the small levy.
:02:50. > :02:56.In circumstances where there is a major flood and not enough within
:02:56. > :03:01.the fund to pay the claims, we ask for a temporary overdraft to be
:03:01. > :03:05.paid the next year. It is wrong to say it is a burden on the taxpayer,
:03:05. > :03:10.it is an elegant solution enabling us to move on and it would be a
:03:10. > :03:14.world leader in flood insurance. We are joined now by Richard Benyon,
:03:14. > :03:17.the minister in charge of tackling floods. Can we pick up on that, has
:03:17. > :03:24.the Government rejected a deal that would ensure that those at high
:03:24. > :03:27.risk of flooding would continue to get affordable premiums? We are not
:03:27. > :03:32.in the deadlock position which some people are reporting. That is not
:03:32. > :03:36.what he says. There was a very good meeting towards the end of next
:03:36. > :03:40.week and -- last week and we expect more meetings in the next few days.
:03:40. > :03:44.I must register disappointment that it has been done and the backdrop
:03:44. > :03:48.of pretty tragic floods in large parts of the country. I don't think
:03:49. > :03:54.it is the time to raise it, although it is an important issue
:03:54. > :03:57.for households. Households want to have certainty, those people living
:03:57. > :04:01.in high-risk areas, that there is some sort of deal that means they
:04:01. > :04:05.can get affordable premiums. Whether you are in a deadlock, or
:04:05. > :04:11.you don't see it that way and the insurers do, is very deal that can
:04:11. > :04:19.be do in the next few months? -- is there a deal that can be done in
:04:19. > :04:23.the next few months? We want universal insurance for Flood Risk
:04:23. > :04:27.Homes, which is not done at the moment, and the key would be at an
:04:27. > :04:32.affordable level for households on low incomes. Premiums will have to
:04:32. > :04:37.go up? At the moment there is no measure in the current agreement
:04:37. > :04:41.that says anything about premiums or excess charges, which is a big
:04:41. > :04:45.worry for householders. We want to bring that into the arrangement
:04:45. > :04:50.that will follow one from the statement of principle which ends
:04:50. > :04:52.in June next year. We are representing the tax payer and it
:04:53. > :04:57.is really important we have a good deal for households who have many
:04:57. > :05:00.burdens on their incomes, we want something affordable, but most of
:05:00. > :05:03.all we want to concentrate at the moment on dealing with floods right
:05:03. > :05:09.up and down this country, in some cases they have had tragic
:05:09. > :05:13.consequences. Finally, there is a specific issue of a guaranteed
:05:13. > :05:17.overdraft which is what being so it -- the Association of British
:05:17. > :05:21.Insurers is talking about. Will you agree to provide a guaranteed
:05:21. > :05:26.overdraft to fund any emergencies in the first two or three years,
:05:26. > :05:31.while the scheme is being built? would be wrong for me or any
:05:31. > :05:35.minister to be negotiated over the airwaves. We have had good meetings,
:05:35. > :05:39.and will continue to have good meetings, with the insurance
:05:39. > :05:42.industry and I will simply not do that in public, it would be quite
:05:42. > :05:46.wrong. We are representing the hard-pressed taxpayer to make sure
:05:46. > :05:50.we are getting the best deal for them for households that are really
:05:50. > :05:54.worried about this as quickly as possible. Tanni Grey-Thompson, what
:05:54. > :05:58.do you think? It sounds as if the row was going on about whether a
:05:58. > :06:02.premium should go up, the insurers wanted to go up to cover these
:06:02. > :06:08.emergencies, do you think it should? They probably have to,
:06:08. > :06:14.which is quite unfortunate. For people trying to pump water out of
:06:14. > :06:17.their houses, it is almost impossible to associate. I think
:06:17. > :06:21.the public expect there to be support for these people
:06:21. > :06:24.experiencing really difficult times. One of the things are flood
:06:24. > :06:29.defences themselves, what do you say to residents in Worcestershire
:06:30. > :06:36.who were flooded despite a �1.7 million flood defence system which
:06:36. > :06:40.failed to work? I feel desperate for them. That money was wasted?
:06:40. > :06:45.it failed because a pump did not kick in. Somebody has been sitting
:06:45. > :06:49.overnight to make sure it did. I think it is a pity that people have
:06:49. > :06:53.concentrated on one scheme that failed, one of a 26,000 homes, as
:06:53. > :06:59.of last night, were protected by a recently built flood schemes that
:06:59. > :07:02.have worked. I feel desperate for those people. I think it is
:07:02. > :07:06.important that we concentrate on the many thousands of homes that
:07:06. > :07:10.have not bloody its because really good, well-thought-out schemes of
:07:10. > :07:14.taxpayers' money have been spent properly. Should there be more of
:07:14. > :07:22.them to prevent the people who have been flooded, who will be dishing
:07:22. > :07:27.the water out? We are spending �2.17 billion in this period on
:07:27. > :07:35.building new... Produced will see those endless images of people just
:07:35. > :07:39.being devastated. -- but you still see those endless images. There are
:07:39. > :07:42.5.2 million homes at some sort of bloodless, we want to concentrate
:07:42. > :07:49.on those most at blowed was, communities who get up every
:07:49. > :07:53.morning, they see it raining and they worry. We have got another �72
:07:53. > :07:59.million on what we are spending from other schemes, trying to get
:07:59. > :08:04.these up and built. Our insurers being a bit irresponsible
:08:04. > :08:08.discussing this in public? -- our insurers being? We are disappointed
:08:08. > :08:12.it has been discussed today when people are wading about in wet
:08:12. > :08:18.houses. We are working with them and we want a solution, that is
:08:18. > :08:22.what people want. This morning two of the main
:08:22. > :08:26.political stories concern UKIP. It emerged over the weekend that
:08:26. > :08:31.officials working for Rotherham council removed three children from
:08:31. > :08:34.foster parents because the parents were UKIP members. The director of
:08:34. > :08:39.Children's Services at the council, Joyce Thacker, said these children
:08:39. > :08:44.are from EU migrant backgrounds and UKIP has very clear statements on
:08:44. > :08:46.ending multiculturalism. Rotherham Council is Labour-controlled
:08:46. > :08:51.Lambeth council has ordered a report into the case, which
:08:51. > :08:58.apparently they are looking at as we speak. Joining me from Rotherham
:08:58. > :09:01.is the BBC Yorkshire political editor, Len Tingle. They are
:09:01. > :09:04.discussing Match report and I heard you say there has been a meeting
:09:04. > :09:09.between Joyce Thacker, the leader of the council, and the Chief
:09:09. > :09:15.Executive? That ended about half- an-hour ago. Literally two minutes
:09:15. > :09:19.ago, popping into my Inbox here was a statement from the council. Tries
:09:20. > :09:26.Back came out of this meeting, walked right past us, I asked if
:09:26. > :09:31.she felt under pressure, whether she thought she was still in a job.
:09:31. > :09:34.-- Joyce Thacker came out of this meeting. A couple of minutes later,
:09:35. > :09:38.the Labour leader of the council... You will probably hear behind me we
:09:38. > :09:43.are in the middle of a by-election, everything happening at once. I
:09:43. > :09:49.don't think it is entirely coincidental that Respect have
:09:49. > :09:53.pulled their truck up behind me. But as far as this particular she
:09:53. > :09:58.was concerned, we are hearing from the council in their statement that
:09:58. > :10:01.they have ordered a further inquiry, they are not talking about any
:10:01. > :10:07.disciplinary action against any members of the council. They want
:10:07. > :10:11.to know more. They say the interest of the children is paramount, they
:10:11. > :10:13.are sending a report to the Secretary of State and that is as
:10:13. > :10:19.far as they have got this morning. They are not expecting the council
:10:19. > :10:22.to give a statement. The leader of the council said this is probably
:10:22. > :10:27.one of the councils with more Labour councillors on it than any
:10:27. > :10:32.other in the country. I think there are only four councillors that are
:10:32. > :10:37.not Labour. The leader, a veteran leader, walked past us without
:10:37. > :10:43.making any statements are tall. sounds the nobody is talking at the
:10:43. > :10:47.moment. -- without making any statement at all.
:10:47. > :10:50.Thank you, Len Tingle. Elsewhere, the Conservative Party
:10:50. > :10:55.vice-chairman Michael Fabricant has called for an electoral pact with
:10:55. > :11:02.you coup. He thinks David Cameron should promise to hold them in-out
:11:02. > :11:05.referendum on the youth -- on the EU if UKIP promises not to stand
:11:05. > :11:10.against Conservative candidates and 2013. He said it could mark the
:11:10. > :11:13.final rapprochement between warring brothers. The UKIP leader tweeted
:11:13. > :11:18.in response, Olympic and Paralympic Games Task and Finish Group. We
:11:18. > :11:25.will hear from Michael Fabricant a little later, but I am joined by
:11:25. > :11:28.the UKIP leader Nigel Farage. You wants heads to roll? What has
:11:28. > :11:32.happened is an outrage, I think that is shared by the vast majority
:11:32. > :11:36.in the country. These couple have fostered for seven years and done
:11:37. > :11:40.an impeccable job. But on the basis of their views, that they support a
:11:40. > :11:44.party that thinks we should not be in the EU and we should control
:11:44. > :11:50.migration into Britain, this has been done to them. I want them to
:11:50. > :11:55.be pardoned, I want the children to be returned, and heads should roll.
:11:55. > :11:59.Whose heads? Joyce Thacker? Without a shadow of the doubt, she should
:11:59. > :12:04.go. This is not the first time that Rotherham have done badly in
:12:04. > :12:08.protecting children. What is the party policy on multiculturalism?
:12:08. > :12:13.We don't want to spend state money encouraging further division in
:12:13. > :12:16.society, which is what we did for 40 years in pursuing
:12:16. > :12:19.multiculturalism. Trevor Phillips on the Prime Minister now agreed.
:12:19. > :12:23.We think if people come here legally, we have to make sure they
:12:23. > :12:29.all speak English and integrate. You don't like councils promoting
:12:29. > :12:33.the idea of multiculturalism? As an observer, what is your reaction to
:12:33. > :12:35.the stir the -- story, looking at it from a human perspective? That
:12:35. > :12:40.the children were taken away apparently on the basis of them
:12:40. > :12:44.being members of UKIP. headlines are very stop and
:12:44. > :12:47.worrying. The children need to be protected. If there were concerns
:12:47. > :12:52.about the family, the children should not have been there in the
:12:52. > :12:55.first place, that is terribly disruptive. I don't think being a
:12:55. > :12:59.member of a party should be a bar to fostering, it should probably be
:12:59. > :13:03.encouraged because they are more understanding about society. I
:13:03. > :13:08.would like to see if there is any more behind it rather than just
:13:08. > :13:12.being a member of UKIP. Joyce Thacker, who defended their
:13:12. > :13:15.position at the weekend, has said that the children, who were from EU
:13:15. > :13:21.migrant backgrounds, had been removed to protect their cultural
:13:21. > :13:24.and ethnic needs from UKIP's strong views and apparent opposition to
:13:24. > :13:31.multiculturalism. She says she is legally obliged to fulfil that
:13:31. > :13:36.requirement. We don't buy that. What did you buy? She was
:13:36. > :13:40.backtracking. Initially the couple were told the children were being
:13:40. > :13:44.removed because UKIP was viewed as a racist party, that is what they
:13:44. > :13:49.were told and why the children were removed. Joyce Thacker is now
:13:49. > :13:52.backtracking slightly 4th of the truth of his it -- truth of it is
:13:52. > :13:55.these three children were singing nursery rhymes in their native
:13:55. > :14:01.language and doing the same in English, surely that shows they
:14:01. > :14:05.were in a very good environment indeed? Just that there,
:14:05. > :14:10.backtracking or not and rightly or wrongly, feels that she is only
:14:10. > :14:14.during what she proposed to do legally -- Joyce Thacker,
:14:14. > :14:19.backtracking or not. Judges in sit -- insist that children from ethnic
:14:19. > :14:23.minority backgrounds are placed in homes to promote ethnic and
:14:23. > :14:26.cultural minorities, which UKIP does not believe in. The children
:14:26. > :14:32.were not being told to forget their background or give up their
:14:32. > :14:37.language, far from it. But can you understand it Joyce Thacker's view?
:14:38. > :14:40.It might be wrong, as far as you see it, but a logical train of
:14:40. > :14:45.thought is this family were not right because they would not want
:14:45. > :14:48.to promote those things because it is not what UKIP believes in?
:14:48. > :14:53.and everyone has moved on it recognises that the way we were
:14:53. > :14:58.doing it was a mistake. -- virtually everyone has moved on and
:14:58. > :15:01.recognises. So what has Joyce Thacker done wrong? Sent officers
:15:01. > :15:08.in and removed three children from a loving environment on the basis
:15:08. > :15:14.that they were members of a racist party. She was wrong. You say you
:15:14. > :15:18.want the children removed -- disciplinary action will take place.
:15:18. > :15:23.What are you going to do? children have been uprooted again,
:15:23. > :15:27.the couple are in limbo, heads will clearly not role. I am worried that
:15:27. > :15:31.the inquiry is just kicking the camp down the road. If we will not
:15:31. > :15:35.get redress from the council, we will have to consider other members
:15:35. > :15:40.like the legal route. On the basis... That they have been
:15:40. > :15:45.discriminated against. You could argue that whoever the official was
:15:45. > :15:50.in Rotherham is not the only person to be disparaging about UKIP. In
:15:50. > :15:55.2006, David Cameron said that members of UKIP, mostly, but not
:15:55. > :15:59.all, where fruit cake alone -- fruit cake and rubies and closet
:15:59. > :16:05.racists. On Saturday from Ed Miliband to Michael Gove we saw
:16:05. > :16:10.virtually every one say it was wrong because UKIP is not racist.
:16:10. > :16:15.Joyce Thacker said she thought UKIP was not a racist party on Radio 4,
:16:15. > :16:19.more backtracking. The only person that chose to abuse UKIP and imply
:16:19. > :16:25.that somehow it was racist was David Cameron again, and we are
:16:25. > :16:28.appalled. What would you say? What would you do? I think that links
:16:28. > :16:33.into the next story, Michael Fabricant has an idea that somehow
:16:34. > :16:38.they will buy us off by offering me a job and UKIP will pack up its
:16:38. > :16:43.tents and go wrong. The trouble is, Mr Fabricant, it is very difficult
:16:43. > :16:46.for us to believe anything David Cameron says, because he gave us a
:16:46. > :16:53.cast-iron guarantee, if you remember, that we would have a
:16:53. > :16:55.referendum, and it has not happened. I mentioned earlier that the
:16:55. > :16:59.Conservative Party vice-chairman Michael Fabricant had written a
:16:59. > :17:04.report calling for a pact between his party and UKIP at the next
:17:04. > :17:08.I spoke to Michael Fabricant earlier and I asked him about it.
:17:08. > :17:12.Apart from some action on Twitter last night, with Nigel Farage, I
:17:12. > :17:17.have had absolutely no dealings with UKIP. This is an internal
:17:17. > :17:20.discussion document. I have published it because I think it
:17:20. > :17:25.deserves full debate. If we ever chose to implement it, and that
:17:25. > :17:31.would not be my decision, that would be done in 24 months' time.
:17:31. > :17:35.Guess, but it would be an electoral pact. You are saying you would not
:17:35. > :17:40.put UKIP candidates up in areas where Tories are standing. That's
:17:40. > :17:43.right. We are living in an era of electoral pacts and coalitions. Who
:17:43. > :17:48.would have thought that the Conservatives would have entered
:17:48. > :17:52.into a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats? But they did
:17:52. > :17:56.that after the result, not as part of a packed beforehand. So, it
:17:56. > :18:00.looks as if you are worried about the result of the 2015 election,
:18:00. > :18:03.you do not think you will get an overall majority unless you get
:18:04. > :18:08.into a packed with UKIP. exactly. I do not know what the
:18:08. > :18:12.situation will be like in 24 months' time. It could be that we
:18:12. > :18:16.could win an election outright, and in fact I am pretty confident that
:18:16. > :18:20.we might do just that. What I am doing is saying, but we should have
:18:20. > :18:24.a number of strings to our bow, and this might be one of them. It all
:18:24. > :18:29.comes about because it was Nigel Farage who said in his party
:18:29. > :18:34.conference speech that he would entertain such a pact. I know that
:18:34. > :18:39.last night, on Twitter, he said, no, we are at war with the
:18:39. > :18:43.Conservatives. I gather this morning he was coming back from
:18:43. > :18:47.that a little bit. I understand that you have got him on the
:18:47. > :18:52.programme possibly, and you will ask that question. But this is not
:18:52. > :18:56.a bed -- this is not a debate that we will be having with UKIP until
:18:56. > :19:01.possibly 24 months from now, and that debate might not be necessary.
:19:01. > :19:05.But if he is saying, this is war, you are left with egg on your face.
:19:05. > :19:08.But he keeps changing his mind. He said he would do it at the party
:19:08. > :19:12.conference, then he said last night, this is war, and I gather this
:19:12. > :19:17.morning, he is saying, there is a possibility. At the end of the day,
:19:17. > :19:20.we should all keep our powder dry. I do not make up strategy. That
:19:21. > :19:25.will be the decision of Number Ten Downing Street in 24 months' time,
:19:25. > :19:30.or whatever, if they choose to explore this further. In the
:19:30. > :19:34.meantime, I just want to get a debate. What could you promise him,
:19:34. > :19:38.to entice him back? You say he is vulnerable to changing his mind, so
:19:38. > :19:43.what could you offer him in terms of government? It would not be me
:19:43. > :19:48.for a start.. But could you see Nigel Farage in Cabinet? It would
:19:48. > :19:52.be a decision for David Cameron. I think Nigel Farage has got a lot of
:19:52. > :19:56.talent. We bring in people from other parties to do things in
:19:56. > :20:01.government. But that will be a decision for David Cameron and
:20:01. > :20:05.George Osborne, and those who make up a strategy. I still say that if
:20:05. > :20:10.people want a good deal in Europe, they would be better off voting
:20:10. > :20:14.Conservative. The problem is, they do not always do so, they vote UKIP,
:20:14. > :20:17.and that can cost boat's. Do you agree with Nigel Farage that David
:20:17. > :20:24.Cameron has lost everybody down on the issue of a referendum on
:20:24. > :20:28.Europe? -- that can cost votes. Not at all. There has been a great deal
:20:28. > :20:33.of deception about this issue. David Cameron said that if the
:20:34. > :20:37.Lisbon Treaty were not put -- was not endorsed, was not made into a
:20:37. > :20:41.full treaty by the time of the last election, we would have a
:20:41. > :20:44.referendum on whether we signed it. A lot of your colleagues feel they
:20:44. > :20:48.have been marched to the top of the hill and then straight back down
:20:48. > :20:51.again. I don't think so at all. David Cameron made it very, very
:20:51. > :20:55.clear that if the Lisbon Treaty were already signed by the time we
:20:55. > :21:01.got in, it would be closing the stable door after the horse had
:21:01. > :21:04.bolted. What are you promising UKIP, if they did agree not to put
:21:04. > :21:08.candidates up against the Conservatives, what are you
:21:08. > :21:13.promising them? What I am saying is that we would have to give, and
:21:13. > :21:22.this is based on Nigel Farage's speech, a cast-iron guarantee that
:21:22. > :21:27.after the general election, there would be a straight referendum, in-
:21:27. > :21:32.and out, or Europe. Is that actually achievable, to give a
:21:32. > :21:37.cast-iron guarantee? Nigel Farage said it would have to be signed in
:21:37. > :21:41.blood. If we feel in 24 months' time that we want to deal with UKIP
:21:41. > :21:46.- and as I said, it may not be necessary, it may not be
:21:46. > :21:50.advantageous - I will donate a pint. Good for you. But Downing Street
:21:50. > :21:56.have distanced themselves from you today, having called for an
:21:56. > :22:00.electoral pact with UKIP. Number 10 Downing Street said, Michael
:22:00. > :22:05.Fabricant does not speak for the party on this issue. Quite right.
:22:05. > :22:09.They say really, you should shut up on this issue. Mine is a discussion
:22:10. > :22:14.document, and I wanted discussed. I do not want it discussed yet with
:22:14. > :22:19.UKIP, as I say, it is something which might have to be decided in
:22:19. > :22:22.24 months' time. That decision will be made not by me, but by David
:22:22. > :22:27.Cameron and George Osborne and their advisers. Should David
:22:27. > :22:32.Cameron retract his statement about some UKIP members being loonies and
:22:32. > :22:38.closet racists? I heard the interview yesterday on the BBC
:22:38. > :22:43.website. It was an interview which was done back in 2006. The truth is,
:22:43. > :22:47.some UKIP members are. I will be very controversial and say, I think
:22:47. > :22:52.some Conservative members might be, and some Labour members and some
:22:52. > :22:57.Lib Dem MPs. But David Cameron has not said it about Labour and Lib
:22:57. > :23:00.Dem MPs. He has specifically said it about some UKIP members - should
:23:00. > :23:07.he retract that? I heard the interview, I do not think it needs
:23:07. > :23:11.retraction at all. Nigel Farage is an intelligent man. He will do what
:23:11. > :23:14.he thinks is best for the country in its relationship with the
:23:14. > :23:22.European Union. Let's see what happens in two years' time, if it
:23:22. > :23:25.is necessary. In the meantime, I have got the debate going. Let's
:23:25. > :23:32.put it to Nigel Farage - are there any circumstances in which you
:23:32. > :23:34.would sign up to an electoral pact? I did say in our conference that if
:23:35. > :23:37.Ed Miliband or David Cameron were to make a clear promise that the
:23:37. > :23:41.country would have a full referendum about the continued
:23:41. > :23:43.membership of the European Union, and wanted to come and talk to us
:23:43. > :23:48.about that, and about how the election should be managed, we
:23:48. > :23:52.would sit and talk around the table. The difficulty of course is how we
:23:52. > :24:00.could trust any such promise. a good enough deal, I suppose, for
:24:00. > :24:03.you, that it might be worth trusting them. You could save
:24:03. > :24:06.yourselves all of those lost deposits. We would need to believe
:24:06. > :24:11.that it is actually going to happen. But what has changed over the
:24:11. > :24:14.course of this weekend is that it is all well and good speaking about
:24:14. > :24:19.the 2006 interview, in which Cameron was abusive about UKIP, but
:24:19. > :24:23.he did it again on Saturday. In the wake of this Rotherham scandal, he
:24:23. > :24:27.did it again. It is very difficult to see how you could do a deal with
:24:27. > :24:31.somebody who has consistently rude about you. Do you think they should
:24:31. > :24:35.be considering deals and contract like this? That is a really
:24:35. > :24:39.difficult one. I am not sure. I think for people interested in
:24:39. > :24:43.politics, this is all quite amusing. There was a bit of navel-gazing, to
:24:43. > :24:46.be honest. For people on the outside, they were just think this
:24:46. > :24:49.is politicians going on as they usually do. I do not see the point
:24:50. > :24:53.of having a discussion document when they are not actually
:24:53. > :24:59.discussing with UKIP. It seems like a bit of hot air, to be honest,
:24:59. > :25:02.delaying any decisions on Europe. He is sort of saying that they
:25:02. > :25:06.would offer me some kind of position, and the rest of the party
:25:06. > :25:09.would pack up its tent and go home. Is there something you would like
:25:10. > :25:13.in government? Yes, I would really like for there to be the most
:25:13. > :25:17.enormous all-night party, after we get the result, and Britain has
:25:17. > :25:21.left the European Union, and we are back governing our own country.
:25:21. > :25:27.That is what I am in politics full. You are cross with David Cameron,
:25:28. > :25:31.so which potential Conservative leader would you trust? Well, this
:25:31. > :25:37.means that Cameron would not be leader of the party. Because he is
:25:37. > :25:40.the major obstacle. If he went, who could you do business with?
:25:40. > :25:44.Cameron went, and somebody pragmatic, grown-up and sensible,
:25:44. > :25:48.like Michael Gove, was leader, then you might think, we could sit
:25:48. > :25:52.around the table and have a discussion. Have you spoken to
:25:52. > :25:57.Michael Gove privately about these things? No. But he would be the
:25:57. > :26:00.kind of person? Yes, open-minded, does not throw abuse around, thinks
:26:01. > :26:05.things through, he would be the right kind of person. Because there
:26:05. > :26:10.are things which you have in common, even beyond the question of the
:26:10. > :26:13.referendum? Not really. We support grammar-school, they do not.
:26:13. > :26:23.They're obsessed with covering the country with windmills, we are not.
:26:23. > :26:27.
:26:27. > :26:34.The list goes on. I did not say we would sit down, -- we would stand
:26:34. > :26:37.down, I said we would sit around a table and have a conversation.
:26:37. > :26:41.do you need in order to be persuaded that you could trust the
:26:41. > :26:43.Conservatives? It is going to be very difficult if David Cameron is
:26:43. > :26:51.still the Prime Minister, to believe that he would keep that
:26:51. > :26:55.promise. One issue which concerns me would be a referendum on Europe
:26:55. > :26:58.- do you feel it is something which the people would like to see?
:26:58. > :27:01.would be quite concerned about having a referendum, because I do
:27:01. > :27:06.not think most of the British public understand enough about
:27:06. > :27:09.Europe, about what it means to be there. I think a referendum at some
:27:09. > :27:14.point would be a good idea, but I think there needs to be an awful
:27:14. > :27:18.lot more education. Would you like a straight referendum on in or out,
:27:18. > :27:21.or would it be something else? think ultimately, it would have to
:27:21. > :27:26.be in or out, but at the moment I would not agree to have one,
:27:26. > :27:31.because people do not know enough. But it is not difficult - do you
:27:31. > :27:38.wish to govern your own country or be governed by Herman Van Rompuy?
:27:38. > :27:41.It is not difficult? You have a very firm stand point... That is
:27:41. > :27:45.the classic view that I here in Westminster. When we are canvassing
:27:45. > :27:49.and campaigning, every single small business in Britain knows exactly
:27:50. > :27:55.where their laws come from. based just saying they would like
:27:55. > :27:58.to have a look at the relationship? -- are they just saying? They
:27:58. > :28:02.understand that Europe is not just an economic debate, something which
:28:02. > :28:05.happens in Brussels - it is something which happens in this
:28:05. > :28:08.country and affects people's lives. Many people do not believe in it,
:28:08. > :28:12.but to say that people are not ready to have a referendum, I do
:28:12. > :28:19.not agree.. As we mentioned earlier, there is a by-election taking place
:28:19. > :28:23.in Rotherham this Thursday, and you can read a full list of the
:28:23. > :28:27.candidates on the BBC Sheffield and South Yorkshire website. It was
:28:27. > :28:31.quite a summer. The Olympics helped lift the gloom and made us all feel
:28:31. > :28:36.a bit proud to be British. But have we managed to turn that golden
:28:36. > :28:40.feeling into a lasting legacy, not just for sport, but also for that
:28:40. > :28:44.sense of community which we enjoyed just a few short months ago.
:28:44. > :28:49.Interest in sport is on the up, and this programme has learnt that the
:28:49. > :28:53.police are hoping that some of the volunteers who made the Olympic
:28:53. > :28:56.Games happen might become special constables. But long-term, are we
:28:56. > :29:06.doing enough to make sure the spirit survives? David Thompson
:29:06. > :29:11.
:29:11. > :29:15.An unforgettable summer. Quite simply, Britain at its best. The
:29:15. > :29:19.Olympics did not just change our view of London, it changed the way
:29:19. > :29:23.the whole country looks at itself. Some said it was a living example
:29:23. > :29:27.of the Big Society, with thousands of people coming together to make
:29:27. > :29:31.the Olympic Games work. It is the feel-good factor still with us, and
:29:31. > :29:36.has the enthusiasm for volunteering been harnessed? For many people,
:29:36. > :29:40.the real stars of the show were the Gamesmakers, an army of 70,000
:29:40. > :29:44.volunteers who made everything tick. In fact, they were such a striking
:29:44. > :29:47.example of public spirit that I understand the Metropolitan Police
:29:47. > :29:52.is considering trying to sign some of them up as special constables.
:29:52. > :29:56.But has it really inspired others? The Olympics has had a significant
:29:56. > :30:00.effect on volunteering for our organisation. We have had the
:30:00. > :30:04.numbers of inquiries more than doubling, since the Olympics, up to
:30:04. > :30:07.the current day, and it seems to be holding up. I think the reason is
:30:07. > :30:11.that it has suddenly raised volunteering into consciousness..
:30:11. > :30:16.And it looks as if our summer triumphs have given sport a boost
:30:16. > :30:20.as well. British Cycling say their membership is up 50% since the
:30:21. > :30:25.heroics of the summer. Bookings for beginners' courses have doubled in
:30:25. > :30:32.fencing, and in archery, novice classes are also booked up into the
:30:32. > :30:36.new year. But it is not all good news. Research found that while the
:30:36. > :30:39.Olympics had inspired almost 80% of young people questioned to take up
:30:40. > :30:48.some kind of exercise, less than a quarter had actually been able to
:30:48. > :30:53.In disadvantaged areas there are not enough sports opportunities,
:30:53. > :30:56.and where there are they are often at the wrong style, praise or
:30:56. > :31:01.location to suits need. So there is a problem about a lack of
:31:01. > :31:05.opportunity. The sports and recreational
:31:06. > :31:10.alliance surveyed almost 500 clubs in the UK and found many were
:31:10. > :31:13.expecting more people to take up some form of exercise as a direct
:31:13. > :31:18.result of the Games, but almost three-quarters said the Government
:31:18. > :31:24.had not done enough to create a sporting legacy for the public.
:31:24. > :31:27.In a time of austerity, how should ministers keep the flame burning?
:31:27. > :31:34.Up and down the country there are really good quality local delivery
:31:34. > :31:37.projects for sports at the right time, place, style, price. They are
:31:37. > :31:42.on the doorstep of youngsters who say they want to get involved but
:31:42. > :31:47.don't know how. I think it is finding ways to invest in them and
:31:47. > :31:50.empower them and that then take forward to the legacy spirit.
:31:50. > :31:54.are pretty good of closing ceremonies, too. The trick now is
:31:54. > :32:03.to make sure this was the end of the games and not the end of the
:32:03. > :32:07.dream. -- the end of the Games. Councillor Stephen Castle from the
:32:07. > :32:10.Local Government Association joins me, he is chairman of the Olympic
:32:10. > :32:14.and Paralympic Games Task and Finish Group. And Paralympic gold
:32:14. > :32:17.medallist Tanni Grey-Thompson is still here. You said and our
:32:17. > :32:21.programme at one stage that you were worried that the fairy dust of
:32:22. > :32:26.the Olympics and Paralympics might disappear. I don't think it has
:32:26. > :32:30.gone but it has definitely pushed back. Everybody talking to each
:32:30. > :32:34.other on the true bad games time has disappeared, but it was never
:32:34. > :32:38.going to completely change the culture of participation. It has
:32:38. > :32:42.encouraged people to go to sports clubs, which we expected, but we
:32:43. > :32:48.have to do more. There are some issues with local sports provision,
:32:48. > :32:50.it is a postcode lottery. Local authorities are under pressure,
:32:50. > :32:57.some are closing sports facilities because it is not seen as a
:32:57. > :33:01.priority. We have to come back to physical education in schools,
:33:01. > :33:04.sport is a perfect opportunity to signpost young people into being
:33:04. > :33:09.physically active and unless we get it right we have missed a huge
:33:09. > :33:12.opportunity. Taking the point about the schools,
:33:12. > :33:19.do you think the Olympic dream has not really harnessed a generation
:33:19. > :33:23.in that sense? It was there and it has gone? It was never going to.
:33:23. > :33:26.Many politicians felt it would undid should. All the statistics
:33:26. > :33:31.from previous games have shown it is like the Wimbledon effect, you
:33:31. > :33:37.get a spiking participation but there has to be something behind it.
:33:37. > :33:41.For me, we could look at women. 80% of women don't do enough physical
:33:41. > :33:45.activity to be healthy, which has massive implications on society.
:33:45. > :33:51.Mums are much more likely to encourage their sons to play sport
:33:51. > :33:55.than their daughters. What would encourage women to do more sport?
:33:55. > :34:01.If having of local, accessible, not making it frightening going into a
:34:01. > :34:06.gym. -- having it local, accessible. A is it possible when there are
:34:06. > :34:13.cuts? Local government has had a tough time, as has the entire
:34:13. > :34:17.public sector. But I think the Government has taken the magic dust
:34:17. > :34:21.of the game's end used it to build partnerships, to get new
:34:21. > :34:24.organisations involved in supporting sport and delivering
:34:24. > :34:29.opportunities that tied together clubs and local authorities and
:34:29. > :34:33.schools. The health agenda is an important one in bringing funding
:34:33. > :34:38.into sport. With a new public health responsibility given to
:34:38. > :34:44.local government there is a huge opportunity to tire that into
:34:44. > :34:47.delivering sporting opportunities. Jessica Ennis's home town of
:34:47. > :34:52.Sheffield is looking for a 20% reduction in the swimming pool and
:34:52. > :34:57.leisure budget. Sheffield has some of the best sporting facilities in
:34:57. > :35:01.the country. In places like Essex, where historically we did not have
:35:01. > :35:05.had... Did not have, we have used the magic dust of the Games to bend
:35:05. > :35:10.budgets to make things happen. Seven to local authorities have
:35:10. > :35:17.closed at least one sporting facility and 126 have reduced
:35:17. > :35:21.provision. Looking at Basildon, they have close two or three very
:35:21. > :35:24.ageing sports facilities and invested money in a world class
:35:24. > :35:28.pool and gymnastics centre up. Basildon is one of the most
:35:28. > :35:32.deprived parts of Essex and participation is going up. I get
:35:32. > :35:36.the impression that money is being put into sport but these are big,
:35:36. > :35:41.showcasing Olympic arenas or stadiums that are not going to
:35:41. > :35:45.persuade women who live in the local area to go to be gym? They
:35:45. > :35:49.are part of what is going on in Essex. We did not have world-class
:35:49. > :35:53.sporting facilities. Now we are seeing the athletes who got medals
:35:53. > :35:59.in the Olympic Games From Basildon gymnastics club are inspiring
:35:59. > :36:02.youngsters in Basildon to see what they could achieve. Lord Moynihan
:36:02. > :36:08.said he wants new laws to force councils to ring-fence money for
:36:08. > :36:12.leisure provision, do you agree? Yes, because it is that just about
:36:12. > :36:15.elite sport, which looks after itself, but having a fitter and
:36:15. > :36:19.healthier nation. If we don't do something now, we will spend more
:36:19. > :36:22.on the health budget. I would like to see the Department of Health,
:36:22. > :36:27.DCMS and the Department of Education get together and work
:36:27. > :36:31.closely. I don't think council budgets should be ring-fenced. What
:36:31. > :36:35.councils are really good at is working out what is good for their
:36:35. > :36:39.locality. Dame Tanni is right, the big spenders are local government,
:36:39. > :36:44.education and potentially health. If the Government can send a clear
:36:44. > :36:49.message, diving Jeremy Hunt in health, there was a big supporter
:36:49. > :36:53.of the Games and the School Games, could get investment in sport and
:36:53. > :37:00.physical activity. We do a great job with Sport England, working at
:37:00. > :37:06.the DCMS, but the departments of health and education, we could do
:37:06. > :37:10.more with them locally. The austerity era could last until
:37:10. > :37:14.2018 if the economy does not pick up soon, according to a leading
:37:14. > :37:17.think-tank. The Institute of Fiscal Studies warns that the Government
:37:17. > :37:22.may miss its target of starting to reduce the national debt by the
:37:22. > :37:28.time of the next election. Gemma Tetlow is from the IFS. Thank you
:37:28. > :37:32.for joining us. Why is this important? It is very important
:37:32. > :37:36.that the UK gets its public finances back into balance over the
:37:36. > :37:39.medium term. At the moment we spend far more than be raised in tax
:37:39. > :37:44.revenue and can't continue with that indefinitely because we would
:37:44. > :37:47.be left with debt rising inexorably. Over the medium term we need to get
:37:47. > :37:52.back to a position where tax revenues are sufficient to cover
:37:52. > :37:56.spending needs. Over the last few months since the Budget, the
:37:56. > :37:59.outlook for economic growth has become somewhat worse than was
:37:59. > :38:03.thought in March and tax revenues are coming in more weekly than the
:38:03. > :38:06.OBR expected in March. If these are permanent rather than temporary,
:38:06. > :38:11.that could mean the Chancellor would need to announce further
:38:11. > :38:16.fiscal austerity, possibly in the next Parliament, to get the public
:38:16. > :38:22.finances back into balance. What sort of figures are you putting on
:38:22. > :38:31.that? If the weakness we have seen over the last six months or so is
:38:31. > :38:37.permanent, and that is one possible scenario, he could require around
:38:37. > :38:42.�23 billion of tax increases and spending cuts to come in by 2017/18.
:38:42. > :38:45.That is a very big figure. Do you say that the Government has not get
:38:45. > :38:50.a credible plan to deal with the public finances, the deterioration
:38:50. > :38:55.of them? Buyers of the March Budget, the Chancellor has set out a plan
:38:55. > :38:59.consistent with meeting both fiscal targets. He has won fiscal mandate
:38:59. > :39:02.requiring up by the end of the forecast to rise in taxes should be
:39:02. > :39:06.sufficient to cover non investment spending after adjusting for
:39:06. > :39:10.temporary ups and downs of the economic cycle. His supplementary
:39:10. > :39:17.target requires that there should be falling as a share of income
:39:17. > :39:22.between 2014/15 and 2015/16. 0 last few months, we have seen it looks
:39:22. > :39:26.like borrowing this year will be higher than forecast in March. That
:39:26. > :39:31.could be sufficient to mean that, without further action, he could
:39:31. > :39:36.miss his supplementary target. However, the supplementary target
:39:36. > :39:38.in itself is not particularly good at insuring public finances are
:39:39. > :39:43.Roma sustainable course in the medium term, so the Chancellor
:39:43. > :39:47.might be better advised to abandon that target rather than employment
:39:47. > :39:50.policy to continue meeting it. I've been joined by the rest of the
:39:50. > :39:54.show by the Labour MP and a Reynolds, Liberal Democrat Stephen
:39:54. > :40:03.Lloyd and the Conservative Crispin Chubb. Welcome to you all, a pretty
:40:03. > :40:07.grim precursor to the auction's the Autumn Statement? The IFS is a
:40:07. > :40:12.respected body but like the rest of us it does not have a crystal ball
:40:12. > :40:15.or know what is in the forecast. But it is clear that we face
:40:15. > :40:19.difficult economic times. The eurozone challenge means export
:40:19. > :40:22.markets are not as good as they could be, so we have to deal with
:40:23. > :40:29.that. But the fundamental that people who lend us money every day
:40:29. > :40:33.will look at is the direction of travel. International creditors are
:40:33. > :40:36.prepared to lend us money at a low rate of interest, meaning the man
:40:36. > :40:41.in the street, the mortgage holder or small businessman, has to pay
:40:41. > :40:46.less in mortgages and loans. By the end of the air, borrowing may be
:40:46. > :40:50.higher than this time last year and the Chancellor should maybe just
:40:51. > :40:56.admit he will miss his target for debt to fall as a share of national
:40:56. > :41:01.income between 2014 and 2015. Should he do that? We have reduced
:41:01. > :41:07.the deficit by a quarter in two years under difficult circumstances.
:41:07. > :41:10.But should he abandon it? Let's see what he says in a week or so.
:41:10. > :41:14.The IFS report says that if the current tax receipts are permanent
:41:14. > :41:20.the chance there will need another �23 billion of tax rises or
:41:20. > :41:24.spending cuts. Which would Labour choose? We are not agreed with the
:41:24. > :41:27.overall debt targets set out, but he is clearly missing his own
:41:27. > :41:33.targets. It is very worrying that the reason they are missing the
:41:33. > :41:37.debt target over the longer term is because the economy is not growing.
:41:37. > :41:41.Successive business organisations have said that the Government need
:41:41. > :41:46.real policies to get the economy back on track. That should be the
:41:46. > :41:50.priority. The IFS says even if there is growth, it is likely to be
:41:50. > :41:55.weak, it would still lead to at least �11 billion worth of by the
:41:55. > :41:59.tax rises or spending cuts. What would you rather Labour went for?
:42:00. > :42:03.If there were to be that rise, we would rather that those with a
:42:03. > :42:07.broader shoulders bear the heaviest burden, but this Government is
:42:07. > :42:11.doing the opposite. The cuts are falling on the lowest and middle-
:42:11. > :42:19.income earners harder than anyone else at the same time as they are
:42:19. > :42:22.giving a tax cut to the millionaires in the country of
:42:22. > :42:27.about �40,000 next year, they are making it harder for pensioners and
:42:27. > :42:31.those on low incomes to make ends meet. The IFS says if you take the
:42:31. > :42:37.amount that needs to be cut it would be equivalent to increasing
:42:37. > :42:41.the main rate of VAT from 20% to 25%. Already standards of living
:42:41. > :42:45.are dropping because of the rise in the cost of living, so why do not
:42:45. > :42:50.think we would advocate that. you agree that at the moment lots
:42:50. > :42:54.of the costs of -- cuts are falling on those who can't afford to pay?
:42:54. > :42:57.It is nonsense. The middle and lower incomes are best protected,
:42:57. > :43:01.more money has been taken from the rich by this Government than the
:43:01. > :43:06.previous. I checked the bond markets when I was coming up this
:43:06. > :43:10.morning. We are the second lowest bond interest rates in the EU after
:43:10. > :43:14.Germany. It is difficult and the IMF conclusions are disappointing,
:43:14. > :43:17.but even their report says there is a worst case and a best-case
:43:17. > :43:22.scenario, we have to see what the numbers are in the next few days.
:43:22. > :43:26.Do you think the policy has been too narrowly focused unsatisfying
:43:26. > :43:31.credit rating agencies? If we did not satisfy the bond markets and
:43:31. > :43:36.credit rating agencies, people would be paying more. If we don't
:43:37. > :43:40.keep interest rates low, we would fall off a cliff, no doubt. Even if
:43:40. > :43:44.the IFS has said the deterioration in public finances may mean that
:43:44. > :43:48.you will have to go into the next election saying there will be
:43:48. > :43:54.austerity to the tune of �23 billion to 20 a team? If that
:43:54. > :43:58.happens, because we have had the worst recession since the late 20s,
:43:58. > :44:04.if that is the reality then so be it. We have a million new jobs, the
:44:04. > :44:07.lowest interest rates, highest employment since 1971. The path is
:44:07. > :44:11.working and the people out there know that. The IMF has said that
:44:11. > :44:16.the reason interest rates are low is primarily because growth
:44:16. > :44:20.expectations are so low. The idea they have created low interest
:44:20. > :44:25.rates is farcical. The OECD also say that unless we are prepared to
:44:25. > :44:28.take our medicine early, we will have to swallow a bigger and harder
:44:28. > :44:33.pill later. The Labour policy is still to borrow more and more and
:44:33. > :44:37.more. You have not learned from your mistakes between 1997 and 2010.
:44:37. > :44:44.We have seen by the failure of this Government that without growth you
:44:44. > :44:45.cannot bring the deficit down anyway.
:44:45. > :44:49.look at the political stories on the radar over the next week.
:44:49. > :44:53.After washing all his own shirts, I'm sure, the Prime Minister faces
:44:54. > :44:57.Commons to report back on the EU summit. And the failure to agree a
:44:57. > :45:01.seven-year budget. On Tuesday a new clause is expected
:45:01. > :45:05.to be introduced into the Crown Court Bill to fulfil the Justice
:45:05. > :45:07.Secretary's promise to give householders the right to deploy a
:45:07. > :45:12.disproportionate force in defending their homes.
:45:12. > :45:15.On Wednesday consultation paper will be launched to give a
:45:15. > :45:20.framework about introducing a minimum unit price for alcohol.
:45:20. > :45:22.On Thursday, Lord Leveson finally publishes his report on the role of
:45:22. > :45:27.the press and the police in the phone hacking scandal.
:45:27. > :45:29.And on Saturday there is the final of I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of
:45:29. > :45:33.Here, but we have just learned that Nadine Dorries, the MP, who was
:45:33. > :45:43.voted off first, has already packed her bikini and arrived back at
:45:43. > :45:44.
:45:44. > :45:48.Heathrow, no doubt to be welcomed We can speak now to Isabel Hardman
:45:48. > :45:53.from the Spectator, and Kevin Maguire, from the Daily Mirror.
:45:53. > :45:56.Kevin Maguire, David Cameron is in a tight spot, as everybody
:45:56. > :46:02.positions themselves, before Lord Leveson publishes his
:46:02. > :46:05.recommendations, and he has said he will accept those proposals? Yes,
:46:06. > :46:10.he is certainly in a tight spot, caught between a rock and a hard
:46:10. > :46:13.place. A sizable proportion of his party is against any statutory
:46:13. > :46:18.regulation of newspapers. Michael Gove and William Hague has spoken
:46:18. > :46:22.out publicly, and David Cameron has got Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg on
:46:22. > :46:25.the other side of the argument, seeming to want to embrace whatever
:46:25. > :46:29.Leveson comes up with, so it is really difficult for the Prime
:46:29. > :46:33.Minister. The only set that inquiry up because he was in a very
:46:33. > :46:40.difficult position, with Andy Coulson having been his press
:46:40. > :46:44.secretary. But he must regret creating the hearing now. What can
:46:44. > :46:48.David Cameron do on this? I think this is the most difficult issue
:46:48. > :46:52.which David Cameron is facing at the moment. It does not denigrate
:46:52. > :46:58.the other issues, it just shows how difficult Leveson is. The main
:46:58. > :47:02.problem is that his party is split. There is actually 70 MPs who are in
:47:02. > :47:06.favour of some kind of independent regulation. They would join Labour-
:47:06. > :47:11.run the Lib Dems in any vote. So, it could be extremely difficult for
:47:11. > :47:16.him if the House votes in favour of statutory regulation. I suppose the
:47:16. > :47:21.option for him defeat to maybe backed the proposals from Lord Hunt,
:47:21. > :47:24.the chairman of the PCC, a kind of beefed-up self-regulation, with
:47:24. > :47:28.powers to investigate some of the areas which the PCC did not have
:47:28. > :47:32.before. So, he could go for that, with the threat of statutory
:47:32. > :47:37.regulation hanging over the newspapers if they do not clean up
:47:37. > :47:40.their act. What do you say to that, Kevin Maguire? This idea that the
:47:40. > :47:45.papers cannot be trusted, or the industry cannot be trusted to
:47:45. > :47:49.regulate itself, however much it protests otherwise, and actually,
:47:49. > :47:54.the problem with the Press Complaints Commission was that it
:47:54. > :47:58.and therefore did not have to abide by the code? Yes, Richard Desmond
:47:58. > :48:02.did not sign up to it. As an investigator with body, it failed
:48:02. > :48:07.abysmally, when it did not really look into what happened at News
:48:08. > :48:10.International, and phone hacking. You get even newspapers like The
:48:10. > :48:14.Guardian and the Independent, which have been exposing the phone
:48:14. > :48:18.hacking, warning against a statutory control, because it is
:48:18. > :48:21.the thin end of a big wedge, but there is a huge argument to be had,
:48:21. > :48:26.and David Cameron knows it will be tricky for him. We are told he will
:48:26. > :48:31.make a statement to the House of Commons at about 2:30pm on Thursday,
:48:31. > :48:35.after the Leveson report is published. You cannot keep playing
:48:35. > :48:40.for time. Harriet Harman, the Labour Deputy Leader, is looking
:48:40. > :48:43.for statutory regulation. She has spoken about tabling an amendment
:48:43. > :48:53.to the communications bill as a way of forcing the issue. It will end
:48:53. > :48:59.up as one hell of a political fight. On her -- on a fight of the
:48:59. > :49:02.difficult nature, Nadine Dorries, who has arrived back at Heathrow.
:49:02. > :49:05.think the problem for Nadine Dorries, and for the leadership, is
:49:05. > :49:09.that there is a lot of personal tension between Nadine Dorries and
:49:09. > :49:12.Cameron. Even though there could be a very good case for disciplining
:49:13. > :49:16.her, in the same way that you discipline a naughty child in a
:49:16. > :49:20.class to stop the rest of the children going back, actually, they
:49:20. > :49:24.need to be very careful. This could look like a personal backlash from
:49:24. > :49:28.Cameron. Is that not the point? You have got to be pretty sensitive,
:49:28. > :49:32.because it could backfire quite badly, couldn't it, on the
:49:32. > :49:37.leadership, not just because of the history which but -- which Isabel
:49:37. > :49:42.Hardman is talking about, but also, in not wanting to be inconsistent
:49:42. > :49:46.in the way you deal with naughty MPs? Absolutely, I'm sure the Home
:49:46. > :49:50.Secretary, to Reyes a May, will be sacked for allowing her back into
:49:50. > :49:55.the country, and not having the border staff turn her away! Some
:49:55. > :50:00.MPs get longer to go on business trips, to do legal cases, people
:50:00. > :50:04.who are lawyers and so on. She will make that case very hard. If she is
:50:04. > :50:07.going to be disciplined, I suspect Downing Street will wanted to be
:50:07. > :50:12.done by her local party in Bedfordshire. If she is going to be
:50:12. > :50:19.kicked out of parliament, she will want -- they will want them to
:50:19. > :50:27.disown her. But you could not even discussed the possibility of her
:50:27. > :50:32.tottering off to UKIP. What do you think Nadine Dorries will do when
:50:32. > :50:37.she gets back? She has already started tweeting a list of MPs who
:50:37. > :50:40.have spend more time away from the Commons then she has, to go on I'm
:50:40. > :50:43.A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here!. I think we will probably see lots of
:50:43. > :50:48.newspaper and television interviews, and she has already given a radio
:50:48. > :50:52.interview about why she went on the programme. I think if they come
:50:52. > :50:56.down to her than her -- too hard on her, from the point of view of the
:50:56. > :50:59.leadership, it could become quite unpleasant. She has got friends in
:50:59. > :51:03.Parliament who could support her and who could say some
:51:04. > :51:12.uncomfortable things for Guess the Year. Thank you both of you. We
:51:12. > :51:16.will be feeling that this afternoon. -- uncomfortable things for Cameron.
:51:16. > :51:19.This is going to be very difficult for Jaffa. Having spent vast sums
:51:20. > :51:23.of public money on the Leveson Inquiry, surely the Prime Minister
:51:23. > :51:26.has got to accept the recommendations? Let's see what he
:51:26. > :51:30.says. There have been suggestions that it will be a monster report,
:51:30. > :51:35.which will take quite a bit of reading. But on that point, having
:51:35. > :51:38.set it up, having responded to questions that unless it is bonkers,
:51:38. > :51:42.he will accept those recommendations, does he not have
:51:42. > :51:46.to do exactly that? Well, he has to read it and then make a decision.
:51:46. > :51:50.He set up the inquiry and he will look at its conclusions. My
:51:50. > :51:53.personal view is that I am uncomfortable with any form of
:51:53. > :51:58.statutory regulation. We have not had that in this country for the
:51:58. > :52:03.press for about 300 years. It seems to me, what we really need to do is
:52:03. > :52:07.to beef up the PCC, which everybody accepts has failed. We need to give
:52:08. > :52:13.it powers to fine, which is what Lord Hunt recommended. It needs to
:52:13. > :52:16.be able to impose real penalties on newspapers.. Is that really going
:52:16. > :52:20.to do it? We have heard time and time again, when you look at the
:52:21. > :52:24.stories, like the McCann family, or Christopher Jefferies, is this
:52:24. > :52:27.really going to prevent that happening again? No, I do not think
:52:27. > :52:31.it will make the slightest bit of difference. It is interesting about
:52:32. > :52:36.the statutory regulation. The press have gone crazy about it, loss of
:52:36. > :52:40.freedom and all of this. In Denmark, they have an independent regulatory
:52:40. > :52:43.framework, and it works perfectly well, and nobody has told me that
:52:43. > :52:48.Denmark has been taken over by the politicians. The politicians are
:52:48. > :52:52.not the issue. The problem is that sections of the press have behaved
:52:52. > :52:55.disgracefully. Nearly Dowling, the John Obi Mikel family, the list is
:52:56. > :53:05.endless. It will keep going on unless there is some proper,
:53:06. > :53:19.
:53:19. > :53:27.independent regulation. -- Milly Dowler in, -- Milly Dowling and the
:53:27. > :53:31.McCann family. There are already laws about hacking, about driving
:53:31. > :53:34.public officials, but that is why senior journalists now find
:53:34. > :53:37.themselves inside police stations more often than they would like. I
:53:37. > :53:41.do not think going down the route of regulating the press, inhibiting
:53:41. > :53:47.its freedom to do proper, investigative journalism, which
:53:47. > :53:51.could be the outcome... This is not what we want. You could put in a
:53:51. > :53:54.particular cover, which says, investigative journalism in the
:53:54. > :53:58.public interest should be allowed under any circumstances. It is very
:53:58. > :54:01.important that we really look closely at what the people opposing
:54:01. > :54:05.this are the same, and what the press are saying. There is no
:54:05. > :54:09.reason we cannot have an independent regulatory framework,
:54:09. > :54:12.with a particular clause written in, which says, if it is for the good
:54:12. > :54:17.of the nation or of the public, then it can be done. It is terribly
:54:17. > :54:22.important. Do you agree that if there is some kind of statutory
:54:22. > :54:28.regulation, there is a risk that content could be interfered with,
:54:28. > :54:32.that there will be that pressure on newspapers? Not necessary. If you
:54:32. > :54:36.have an independent regulator, like you have in many other professions
:54:36. > :54:40.- lawyers, doctors - that does not mean that there will be political
:54:40. > :54:45.interference. I think the truth is that the Press Complaints
:54:45. > :54:48.Commission has failed spectacularly to stop the hacking scandal, to
:54:48. > :54:53.prevent the media intrusion which we still see in some people's lives.
:54:53. > :54:57.So, we need a much better system, which is mandatory and independent.
:54:57. > :55:01.It is hard to see how we would have that without some kind of statutory
:55:01. > :55:08.underpinning. So Labour's position is too wholeheartedly accept the
:55:08. > :55:12.Leveson recommendations, if he proposes an statutory underpinning?
:55:12. > :55:21.Yes, and if his proposals, as Ed Miliband has said in The Guardian
:55:21. > :55:27.today, are reasonable and proportion. -- proportionate. If
:55:27. > :55:31.that is the case, then, yes, we want to work on a cross-party basis.
:55:31. > :55:36.We do not want this to be a political issue. But you have got
:55:36. > :55:41.Michael Gove, Eric Pickles and others are saying, they must not be
:55:41. > :55:44.any statutory regulation of the press. We will only have cross-
:55:44. > :55:48.party agreement if we are on the same lines. You cannot set up an
:55:48. > :55:51.inquiry like this and then ignore its recommendations. There is
:55:51. > :55:56.cross-party agreement that regulation may be the wrong way to
:55:56. > :56:04.go. David Blunkett is leading up to 50 members of parliament across the
:56:04. > :56:08.divide in Westminster, saying that regulation is not the way to go.
:56:08. > :56:13.They are saying that the proposals of Lord black and Lord Hunt are the
:56:13. > :56:18.best way to go. What about regional media, do you think they will be
:56:18. > :56:21.affected? I do not think they should be. The newspaper in the
:56:21. > :56:24.West Midlands did not do anything wrong. They did not have anything
:56:24. > :56:28.to do with giving the police backhanders. West Midlands police
:56:28. > :56:31.did not doing anything wrong. -- did not do anything wrong. These
:56:31. > :56:38.are lessons which need to be learned by the national press, and
:56:38. > :56:41.it has nothing to do with the regional press. Are you pleased
:56:41. > :56:45.that Nadine Dorries is back from the jungle? I will not be rushing
:56:45. > :56:49.to Heathrow to pick up her bags, because she is capable of doing
:56:49. > :56:53.that by herself. She is a force of nature. She certainly is, by going
:56:53. > :56:58.to the jungle. She did not last that long, but was it a good idea
:56:59. > :57:04.for her to go? I would not have done it myself, but as Kevin said,
:57:04. > :57:07.I agree with the Daily Mirror on this issue, it is a matter for her
:57:07. > :57:11.local association to decide what should be done. Should she not have
:57:11. > :57:15.gone? I would not have gone and I do not think she should have gone.
:57:15. > :57:20.It is a matter for her local association to decide the best of
:57:20. > :57:23.the action. Lots of MPs go on lovely trips to the Maldives, paid
:57:23. > :57:28.for by the taxpayer - what is wrong with this? It is an absolute
:57:28. > :57:33.disgrace. She showed contempt for her constituents. And I would say
:57:33. > :57:38.that whatever party she was from. But Kevin is right that the Prime
:57:38. > :57:42.Minister probably needs this like a hole in the head, so I do have
:57:42. > :57:47.sympathy for David Cameron. But her behaviour was disgraceful. Was it,
:57:47. > :57:53.really? What about the idea that she would be broadcasting to people
:57:53. > :57:59.who would never be interested in politics? What about the people who
:57:59. > :58:03.elected her? This was not a visit in which she was doing any politics
:58:03. > :58:07.or representing her constituents in any way. She was on some celebrity
:58:07. > :58:10.programme which had nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with
:58:10. > :58:15.representing her constituency. Two of her neighbouring MPs had to take
:58:15. > :58:19.her surgeries for her. And now she is bragging that she was not a way
:58:19. > :58:22.that long, but it is only because she was kicked off early. It is
:58:22. > :58:27.ridiculous. She will have made lots of your colleagues very angry, I
:58:27. > :58:34.think. MPs across the board think this is not the way for MPs to
:58:34. > :58:44.behave. She did get permission from the then Chief Whip. But I gather
:58:44. > :58:45.