:00:40. > :00:46.Good afternoon. Welcome to The Daily Politics. Following his
:00:46. > :00:52.speech on Europe yesterday and the prom of a referendum, the PM woke
:00:52. > :00:59.up so of of the best headlines he's ever enjoyed.
:00:59. > :01:05.What happens next? The IMF tells Boy George he should consider
:01:05. > :01:10.scaling back his austerity measures to promote growth. Is it just a
:01:10. > :01:17.dog's life being an MP? Are they paid too little or too much? Don't
:01:17. > :01:21.shout all at once, we will discuss it later. We will ask if an army of
:01:21. > :01:26.snowmen could be the answer to Britain's flood defences. All that
:01:26. > :01:31.in the next hour. With us for the duration former police minister,
:01:31. > :01:36.Nick Herbert. Welcome. According to reports I have read, he left
:01:36. > :01:43.Government not so long ago to spend more time on politics. Is that
:01:43. > :01:48.true? No. What are you doing here? I don't know. You asked me! Is that
:01:48. > :01:51.it!? First today, let's talk about gay marriage because the Government
:01:51. > :01:56.is introducing a Bill on the subject later today. We won't know
:01:56. > :01:58.what is in it until tomorrow when it will be published. It will be
:01:58. > :02:02.called Extension of Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Bill. It is
:02:02. > :02:07.expected to get a bit of a stormy ride through politics. Nick Herbert,
:02:07. > :02:10.why is it so important to legislate for same-sex marriage? I think
:02:10. > :02:15.attitudes have changed in society towards gay people. I think the
:02:15. > :02:20.introduction of civil partnerships with an incredibly important step
:02:20. > :02:26.forward which gave equality to a limited extent. It gave gay couples
:02:26. > :02:30.the same rights, but not a marriage. Civil partnership is different.
:02:30. > :02:33.Those who are saying they don't want to move to gay marriage
:02:33. > :02:39.understand that too. They are saying it is different. A majority
:02:39. > :02:42.of the public now are in favour of same-sex marriage. If we are to
:02:42. > :02:47.fully complete that journey of equality, so that gay people really
:02:47. > :02:53.are treated in the same way as others, that this is a very
:02:53. > :03:01.important, final step. Let's talk about unity within the yeerp. The
:03:01. > :03:06.bill is published tomorrow -- -- the bill is published tomorrow.
:03:06. > :03:12.These are issues of conscience. There'll be a free vote. I think it
:03:12. > :03:16.is clear that most Members of Parliament will vote for it.
:03:17. > :03:23.Conservative MPs will probably be divided roughly down the middle. We
:03:23. > :03:28.will see. I hope that a majority of Conservative MPs will vote for this
:03:28. > :03:36.legislation. I hope they will be reassured by the protections given
:03:36. > :03:41.to churches. That's very important. I set up an organisation called
:03:41. > :03:49.Freedom to Marry. People should be allowed to get married, if churches
:03:49. > :03:53.want to do that and organisations like the Quakers agree. Those
:03:53. > :03:58.churches who don't want to do it should have the freedom to say it
:03:58. > :04:02.is something they don't agree with and should not be forced to perform
:04:02. > :04:06.same-sex marriages. It will be save in terms of challenges from the
:04:06. > :04:14.European Court of Human Rights. I think that will reassure a lot of
:04:14. > :04:20.my colleagues, who are concerned to ensure that religious rights are
:04:20. > :04:25.protected too. Phillip Hammond has expressed concern to a constituent
:04:25. > :04:30.that actually the safeguards you describe will not be robust enough
:04:30. > :04:37.to protect the Church. I don't know when he wrote that letter. The
:04:37. > :04:44.Attorney General has been clear to say he considers there'll not be a
:04:44. > :04:48.challenge. Lord PanicQC said it was beyond argument, the protections
:04:48. > :04:53.are rock-solid. The European Convention of Human Rights protects
:04:53. > :04:58.religious liberty, specifically. Therefore, we are sure that there
:04:58. > :05:04.won't be a challenge. Look at Spain. It's had same-sex marriage in Spain,
:05:04. > :05:08.a Catholic country, for seven years. There's not been a challenge there.
:05:08. > :05:12.Why wouldn't you support the idea of same-sex marriage in the Church
:05:12. > :05:15.of England? There were many people who thought that was going to be
:05:15. > :05:19.enshrined in this principal, that you would be able to get married in
:05:19. > :05:23.the Church of England. If they collectively decided that's what
:05:23. > :05:27.they wanted to do. If individual churches want to do it, they can't.
:05:27. > :05:30.They are part of an organisation which takes a collective view. The
:05:30. > :05:33.Church is entitled to have its own view on these matters. I hope that
:05:33. > :05:39.one day hay will change their mind, but that should be a decision for
:05:39. > :05:43.them and, in my view, not for legislators to make. That is
:05:43. > :05:50.fundamental to the principal of religious freedom. I think the
:05:50. > :05:54.Church is entitled to exercise its conscience. It is dividing the
:05:54. > :05:59.Cabinet. It is a free vote, you are right. Other Conservative MPs have
:05:59. > :06:04.claimed their postbags are full of letters from angry constituencies -
:06:04. > :06:07.- constituents. Is it a priority? myself believe it should be a
:06:07. > :06:10.priority if you say something is not a priority because of situation
:06:10. > :06:13.with the economy and so on, the danger is you will never take a
:06:13. > :06:17.step like this, there'll always be a reason not to do this. It is not
:06:17. > :06:23.something which need to take up an enormous amount of time. I go back
:06:23. > :06:29.to the point I made before - public opinion is in favour of this by a
:06:29. > :06:33.substantial majority and it is strengthening. The Guardian poll
:06:33. > :06:36.shows three-fifths of the public are in favour. That is a
:06:36. > :06:39.considerable increase. It is moving across all western countries as
:06:39. > :06:43.well. This is something that I think a majority of the public now
:06:44. > :06:47.believe that we should do. It's also something we can reassure
:06:47. > :06:53.those who want to exercise their conscience that their own church
:06:53. > :06:58.can be protected. Thank you. Now, it seems David Cameron just can't
:06:58. > :07:02.make enough speeches. Fresh from his Europe speech in the City of
:07:02. > :07:05.London yesterday, the Prime Minister's hot footed it to the
:07:05. > :07:10.World Economic Forum in dave vas, Switzerland, to share his thoughts
:07:10. > :07:14.on the world economy. Some of the international people present may
:07:14. > :07:20.not have liked this part of his message. I believe in low taxes.
:07:20. > :07:28.That is why my Government is cutting the top rate of income tax.
:07:28. > :07:33.We've cut corporation tax. I am a low-tax Conservative. I am not a
:07:33. > :07:35.companies should pay no tax Conservative. Individuals and
:07:35. > :07:40.businesses must pay their fair share. Businesses who think they
:07:40. > :07:45.can dodge that fair share or keep on selling to the UK and setting up
:07:45. > :07:49.ever more complex tax arrangements to squeeze their tax bills down,
:07:49. > :07:55.they need to wake up and smell the coffee, because the public who buy
:07:55. > :08:00.from them have had enough. Wake up and smell the coffee! Get it,
:08:00. > :08:09.Starbucks! Four people on this stage didn't like it, they loved it.
:08:09. > :08:15.There's been a walkout. There was no mention of reigning in austerity
:08:15. > :08:20.measures. Something the IMF told the Chancellor to consider. In his
:08:20. > :08:30.March bupblt, he said that today. With us is Nick Herbert and Rachel
:08:30. > :08:33.
:08:33. > :08:39.Reeve. The pound is sliding. It is the weakest kurstsy currency on the
:08:39. > :08:44.exchanges. We are looking to neg sieve growth in the fourth quarter
:08:44. > :08:49.of this year and the squeeze on living standards continues at its
:08:49. > :08:54.most severe since the 1920s. If that is success, what would a
:08:54. > :08:58.failed one look like? A couple of things you missed out. What was
:08:58. > :09:03.wrong? I am not challenging the things you were saying, but overall,
:09:03. > :09:06.let's look at the fact that the deficit has been reduced by a
:09:06. > :09:09.quarter. But is rising again. year, the deficit is being reduced
:09:09. > :09:14.by a quarter. There is a plan, which the Government is sticking to,
:09:14. > :09:20.to reduce the deficit over a period of years. That's the first thing.
:09:20. > :09:23.Let me interrupt you on that. First of all, it is true that in the last
:09:23. > :09:30.financial year you managed to cut the deficit by a quarter since you
:09:30. > :09:34.came into power, but the deficit is now rising again. It is now �7
:09:34. > :09:38.billion higher in this financial year, than it was in the same
:09:38. > :09:46.period the last financial year. The original plan by Mr Osborne was to
:09:46. > :09:51.cut the deficit by 75%, by 2015. The latest target is 40%. So,
:09:51. > :09:55.frankly, the plan is a mess! are right that the timetable for
:09:55. > :09:58.the reduction in the deficit has lengthened. That of course is
:09:59. > :10:05.related to the fact that growth and the recovery of growth has been
:10:05. > :10:13.slower for the reasons we know about, including sluggish growth in
:10:13. > :10:19.the eurozone. The revenues don't come in as fast. So plan A is in
:10:20. > :10:24.shreds. It's not in shreds. The timetable is longer. But the plan A
:10:24. > :10:29.involved a timetable. There was a timetable to reassure the markets
:10:29. > :10:37.and you've not done that. Since the timetable was a key part of plan A,
:10:37. > :10:42.plan A is in shreds. The timetable is longer. To say it is in shreds
:10:42. > :10:47.is-egging it. The second bit of economic news you missed out - you
:10:47. > :10:50.only read out neg sieve news - was significant reductions in
:10:50. > :10:55.ememployment, which I think are important. Important because job
:10:55. > :11:00.creation in this economy has actually been very strong, despite
:11:00. > :11:04.that downturn. So it is one million new jobs T job-creation figures we
:11:04. > :11:11.saw this week showed that actually a majority of those were not part-
:11:11. > :11:15.time jobs as is sometimes levelled, the abgsaig to us,. They were full-
:11:15. > :11:19.time jobs. We have more people in work than ever before. It's not
:11:19. > :11:22.sensible just to isolate the bits of economic news. I think the
:11:22. > :11:27.important thing for confidence in the economy, is that we have a
:11:27. > :11:31.credible plan to reduce the deficit, to get on top of public spending,
:11:31. > :11:36.to maintain low interest rates and we'll see what happens in relation
:11:36. > :11:44.to the next growth figures. In essence, the Government, not
:11:44. > :11:48.through its own will, is in a sense doing what you want it to. Gepbss
:11:48. > :11:55.its own will it is taking -- against its own will it is taking
:11:55. > :11:59.longer to cut the deficit. Government are borrowing because
:11:59. > :12:02.taxes are not coming in as they were supposed to and because the
:12:02. > :12:09.welfare bill is going up because we have more out of work than the
:12:09. > :12:12.Government an miss taited and more people in part-time -- anticipated
:12:12. > :12:22.and more people in part-time work. They are not borrowing more to
:12:22. > :12:23.
:12:23. > :12:26.invest. They are not borrowing more to protect police or nurses. The
:12:26. > :12:31.reason -- Nick says the reason is because of what is happening in the
:12:31. > :12:40.eurozone. Of course it is having an impact on the UK, but the German
:12:40. > :12:46.economy has grown by 2.5%. The US economy has grown by 4%. Our... If
:12:46. > :12:49.you look at the IMF... It came to a halt. In the last two years, these
:12:49. > :12:53.economies are growing. Our economy has flat-lined because of the
:12:53. > :12:58.decisions that George Osborne has made. First of all he blamed the
:12:58. > :13:03.snow, then the Royal Wedding, then the eurozone. At some point he has
:13:03. > :13:10.to take responsibility for his own actions. I don't think it is true
:13:10. > :13:16.that the deficit reduction has been the cause of slower growth. I think
:13:16. > :13:22.that most commentators would agree with that. Look at the IMF. They
:13:22. > :13:24.are saying the... The chief economist at the IMF, he's an
:13:25. > :13:30.important commentator. It would point to the collapse of confidence
:13:30. > :13:37.in the eurozone, which is our principal export market. Actually,
:13:37. > :13:42.the growth.... Please let me finish. It is not as high as we would like
:13:42. > :13:46.are not far off those of the United States. They are higher than most
:13:46. > :13:51.of the eurozone economies. Actually, I don't think it is right to say
:13:51. > :13:55.this is a plan that has failed. We know what your position is - your
:13:55. > :13:58.position has always been that actually we should spend more and
:13:58. > :14:04.borrow more. You are not therefore on strong grounds to attack this
:14:04. > :14:07.Government. You are the ones borrowing more - the cost of a
:14:07. > :14:11.failed plan. We employ more people at this time than in the country's
:14:11. > :14:21.history. That must cheer you up. Part of the reason is there are
:14:21. > :14:22.
:14:22. > :14:27.more people in the country. If you look at the numbers....
:14:27. > :14:31.Unemployment in Spain - lower in Britain. The only major economy
:14:31. > :14:35.where unemployment is lower than ours is Germany. The headline
:14:35. > :14:41.figures are good news, but there is a mixed bag there. Long-term
:14:41. > :14:45.unemployment is at the highest level since 1997. 500,000 people
:14:45. > :14:49.have been out of work for more than a year.
:14:49. > :14:57.It is a mixed bag. That is what I am saying. They are always a mixed
:14:57. > :15:02.bag. Every Year of the Blair-Brown Governments I could show you the
:15:02. > :15:08.unemployment figures. We have a challenge of people out of work
:15:08. > :15:12.more r -- for more one or two years. We know from the recessions of the
:15:12. > :15:15.1980s and 1990s that short-term unemployment turns into long-term
:15:15. > :15:20.unemployment. If someone has been out of work for two years, they are
:15:20. > :15:26.offered a job, that they have to take that opportunity. They have to
:15:26. > :15:29.take the job. What happens if they don't? They forfeit their benefits.
:15:29. > :15:39.Six months at the minimum wage - that is fair to taxpayers and to
:15:39. > :15:44.
:15:44. > :15:51.What would happen to them? They would not get their benefits of
:15:51. > :15:57.stock with baby out on the street? They have got a choice. -- would
:15:57. > :16:01.they be out on the street? I know constituents of mine who are
:16:01. > :16:06.filling in job application after job application and not getting
:16:06. > :16:09.anywhere. They are desperate for jobs. This is a tough but fair plan
:16:09. > :16:15.that we have funded but the government on not doing it anything
:16:15. > :16:21.about it. When the IMF says you need to look again at your
:16:21. > :16:27.austerity plan, the IMF for most of my lifetime has been a shrine to
:16:27. > :16:32.austerity, has forced it on every country, including this one in 1976.
:16:32. > :16:38.When the IMF is telling you that, you are in trouble. That was
:16:38. > :16:42.looking ahead to the Budget and the Chancellor will announce what he is
:16:42. > :16:48.going to do and we will also by then have had the next round of
:16:48. > :16:53.growth forecasts, but what we must have regard to his confidence.
:16:53. > :16:59.Confidence in the economy that has resulted in very low interest rates,
:16:59. > :17:04.which have been incredibly important... �300 billion of
:17:04. > :17:11.quantitative easing has had quite an impact on low-interest rates!
:17:11. > :17:16.That lost... Confident is undermined by an economy that went
:17:16. > :17:22.into a double-dip recession and has flat lined for two years. We have
:17:22. > :17:31.to move on! We will leave it. Ritual, we have to let you go but
:17:31. > :17:34.we are sad about that. Nice to see you. -- Rachel. David Cameron set
:17:34. > :17:36.out his European policy yesterday in his long-awaited and much-
:17:36. > :17:39.delayed speech. He promised a straightforward in-out referendum
:17:39. > :17:43.after the next general election once he has had a chance to
:17:43. > :17:47.negotiate a new settlement with the EU. That of course is assuming he
:17:47. > :17:52.wins the next election. He said that the European Union is failing
:17:52. > :17:55.its citizens. It needs to reform to become more flexible and more
:17:55. > :17:58.democratically accountable. He also wants to see Britain's relationship
:17:58. > :18:03.with Europe change. David Cameron says he'll set up a
:18:03. > :18:06.band to take back powers from Europe. For years the EU has been
:18:06. > :18:09.working towards ever closer union, but everything changes and now
:18:09. > :18:12.Conservatives want to repatriate powers back to the UK. We'll have
:18:12. > :18:16.to wait for the 2015 manifesto to get the full details of exactly
:18:16. > :18:20.what powers they want back. But the Prime Minister mentioned the
:18:20. > :18:23.working time directive in his speech yesterday. Conservative MPs
:18:23. > :18:27.also pray to restore powers over crime, the environment, agriculture
:18:27. > :18:31.and fishing. If they win the next election they'll ask the British
:18:31. > :18:36.people how deep is your love for Europe in a referendum on the new
:18:36. > :18:40.settlement. If there's a yes vote, and David Cameron says this is what
:18:41. > :18:44.he wants, Britain will stay in the EU but with powers back for good.
:18:44. > :18:48.But if voters decide that love ain't here anymore, we'll be out of
:18:48. > :18:52.the EU once and for all. Well, as we saw earlier, David Cameron has
:18:52. > :18:58.been speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos. And of course he
:18:58. > :19:03.was asked about the issue of Europe. What I am proposing is not just
:19:03. > :19:10.change for Britain. I am proposing change for Europe. We have to be
:19:10. > :19:13.frank about our performance. We are falling behind in the world. We are
:19:13. > :19:17.earth over regulating businesses and leaving citizens behind. And
:19:17. > :19:22.that is why I said Europe too often has been a cause of cost to
:19:22. > :19:27.business and complaint to citizens. We need to deal with that for
:19:27. > :19:33.everybody's sake in the European Union. RM clear it is obvious that
:19:33. > :19:37.change is coming in Europe. -- I am very clear. There will be further
:19:37. > :19:42.changes as the single currency inevitably means changes in Europe.
:19:42. > :19:48.As that happens, Britain has got a choice. We can stand back and hope
:19:49. > :19:54.it will go away and the argument will settle down, or, my approach,
:19:54. > :19:59.say yes, the European Union needs to change to suit the euro but it
:19:59. > :20:03.also needs to change in order to suit all of us as well. Make the
:20:03. > :20:13.arguments about a flexible and open and competitive Europe, take it to
:20:13. > :20:14.
:20:14. > :20:17.the British people and seek their concern at in a referendum. -- seek
:20:18. > :20:20.their opinion in a referendum. With us now is Jack Straw, a former
:20:20. > :20:23.Foreign Secretary with experience of negotiating in Europe. And in
:20:23. > :20:25.Bielefeld in Germany is Elmar Brock, an MEP and Chair of the European
:20:25. > :20:34.Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee. Up I think we should
:20:34. > :20:41.look at a number of areas. A remind us. Common Agricultural Policy,
:20:41. > :20:46.Fisheries, employment and social legislation and then I think there
:20:46. > :20:51.are issues relating to the EU budget and putting in place
:20:51. > :20:56.measures to ensure there cannot be these constant increases in the
:20:56. > :21:00.cost of the administration. negotiation, you do not usually get
:21:00. > :21:06.everything you want. Do you have read lines, or what they call in
:21:06. > :21:10.Europe? An irreducible minimum that you would have to get before you
:21:10. > :21:17.could say, we should stay in Europe? The Prime Minister did not
:21:17. > :21:22.approach a bag way. He set up the principles. -- the Prime Minister
:21:22. > :21:27.did not approach it that way. know it. I am asking what do you
:21:27. > :21:32.think. We are looking at the areas of policy which could be more
:21:32. > :21:35.sensibly organised in our country. One of the more fundamental things
:21:35. > :21:40.the Prime Minister spoke about is really important, including
:21:40. > :21:44.challenging the idea that Britain has to subscribe to the idea of
:21:44. > :21:49.ever closer union... I understand that but as you know, it is not
:21:50. > :21:54.answering the question. I am not in a position to say, here is my
:21:54. > :21:59.shopping list. As far as I'm concerned, if we don't get that the
:21:59. > :22:04.negotiation is not a success. I think we should look at the areas I
:22:04. > :22:09.have set out and also look very closely at this driving principle
:22:09. > :22:15.of the EU, which is problematic for people in this country, that there
:22:15. > :22:19.has to be the constant ratchet of further integration... What is
:22:19. > :22:26.wrong with Britain wanting to repatriate some powers are back to
:22:26. > :22:30.Westminster? It looks like Britain wants to have special rights. The
:22:30. > :22:34.Prime Minister wants to use the internal market, someone who wants
:22:34. > :22:39.to use it has to fulfil all parts of the internal market and cannot
:22:39. > :22:43.make cherry-picking and if you talk of agricultural policy, a wish you
:22:43. > :22:53.good luck to them negotiate that with the French, and if you took a
:22:53. > :22:53.
:22:53. > :22:58.bad European budget, it is so low, it is less than 1% of GDP and for
:22:58. > :23:04.the next seven years they will not be an increase in that so that will
:23:04. > :23:08.be another problem. We need common roots in the internal market. It is
:23:08. > :23:13.unequal playing field. What we can discuss is whether the rules should
:23:13. > :23:20.be high or low well. It is a question of normal legislation in
:23:20. > :23:28.the council and European parliament. You do not want to sit on the side
:23:28. > :23:35.bags without ever -- that banks without any influence. Ever-closer
:23:35. > :23:44.union it was the idea of John Major. It is from the treaty of Rome in
:23:44. > :23:49.1986. No. That is not true. Britain is now your biggest trading partner.
:23:49. > :23:56.No, with the ever-closer union, you are not right, it was not the
:23:56. > :23:59.treaty of Rome. I was there when it was signed! The last time I looked.
:23:59. > :24:06.Angela Merkel seems in a much more generous mood then you to help
:24:06. > :24:13.David Cameron? Angela Merkel has said there is no cherry-picking
:24:13. > :24:22.possible. What we can do is be to negotiate in the parliament and
:24:22. > :24:28.European Council better legislation. But it is not a question of
:24:28. > :24:32.repatriating powers but dealing with powers better. Germany has the
:24:32. > :24:37.highest social benefits and rights and it is very competitive and you
:24:37. > :24:47.talk about the working-time directive to 48 hours, this was
:24:47. > :24:55.introduced to Britain in 1908 in a from Christian Church also what is
:24:55. > :25:02.wrong with that? -- by Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill he is
:25:02. > :25:06.not right about everything. He was not right about India. I wish the
:25:06. > :25:12.Prime Minister luck. This is the wrong way to go about improvements
:25:12. > :25:16.in our position in Europe. One of the things that man just said that
:25:16. > :25:20.was passed by it was that David Cameron should get back his
:25:20. > :25:25.Conservative Party into the European People's Party, which is a
:25:25. > :25:30.centre right coalition in which the Conservative Party have for years
:25:30. > :25:33.and he's been part, and they would then have influence. The oddity
:25:33. > :25:37.about the leadership of the election for the Conservative Party
:25:37. > :25:41.five years ago was that David Cameron was actually in the centre
:25:41. > :25:47.of the Tory party to do trade with the Euro-sceptics and said if
:25:47. > :25:50.people like Bill Cash gave him their votes, he would withdraw the
:25:50. > :25:55.Conservative Party from the EPP and joined fringe groups with some real
:25:55. > :26:00.oddballs, whereas David Davies, the natural right-wing candidate, said
:26:00. > :26:05.I will not do something that daft. So you think changing that makes it
:26:06. > :26:10.more difficult for him? Certainly. But what I also suspect is David
:26:10. > :26:14.Cameron is in the same position as Harold Wilson 40 years ago, where
:26:14. > :26:19.Wilson decided he would go for a referendum about whether we stayed
:26:19. > :26:23.within Europe. He then dressed up a series of demands which were
:26:23. > :26:28.extremely easy to obtain because they were frankly cosmetic. He got
:26:28. > :26:32.them, declared victory and secured endorsement from our position in
:26:32. > :26:36.Europe. What has come up from the discussion you had with Nick
:26:36. > :26:41.Herbert a moment ago is once the euphoria of David Cameron's speech
:26:41. > :26:45.dies down, they will be a battle royal inside the Conservative Party
:26:45. > :26:50.about what exactly the demands are in that you cannot be inside the
:26:50. > :26:54.European Union if you do not accept some principle of the Common
:26:54. > :26:58.Agricultural Policy. Most of our farmers now accept that. There are
:26:58. > :27:02.some things over the working time directive, particularly as it
:27:02. > :27:06.affects junior doctors, are daft and we have been trying to get
:27:06. > :27:11.changes would Spain and Germany, but the idea that you can turn the
:27:11. > :27:19.whole thing upside down and say working 60 hours a week is OK is
:27:19. > :27:23.unattainable so detail will be critical. If your allies with the
:27:23. > :27:29.mainstream Conservative Party, if you allies, you would have a better
:27:29. > :27:33.chance of getting your way then? That is a side argument. Jack, I
:27:33. > :27:40.think you miss the two big points. First of all, the British people
:27:40. > :27:44.have not been given a say about our relationship with the EU since 1975.
:27:45. > :27:49.People want their say. They were promised it before over Lisbon and
:27:49. > :27:53.it was taken away from them. There is a strong feeling about that in
:27:53. > :27:57.the country and that has to be addressed. The important thing
:27:57. > :28:02.about now is that the British people will be involved in this
:28:02. > :28:07.situation and they will have the final say. Let me go back to
:28:07. > :28:12.Germany. The members of the eurozone, led by France and Germany,
:28:12. > :28:18.are going to come up with a number of proposals for a much more
:28:18. > :28:23.economic and monetary integration and with that, or possibly further
:28:23. > :28:28.political integration. Britain will not be part of that by choice. As
:28:28. > :28:34.you go to an ever-closer union in the eurozone, isn't it legitimate
:28:34. > :28:36.for Britain to say, we need to negotiate our opposition to a more
:28:36. > :28:42.semi-detached place while that eurozone is renegotiating its
:28:42. > :28:47.position to a much closer union? Look, the question to be negotiated
:28:47. > :28:53.is to have more competitiveness by structural changes, more
:28:53. > :28:59.possibilities to stop a bad Budget procedure, and site fiscal deficit.
:28:59. > :29:04.That is also the British position. This is not a question when it is
:29:04. > :29:09.debated between the 17th. The fiscal compact, which Britain
:29:09. > :29:16.refused to join us, was signed by 25 countries. 25 countries and
:29:16. > :29:19.Denmark is included, despite its opt in, and we have to see that
:29:19. > :29:23.this is a question for more or less all the European Union who wants to
:29:23. > :29:31.do with that and go forward with that and it is the question that
:29:31. > :29:35.Britain cannot then come and say, we want an internal market...
:29:35. > :29:40.would be grateful if you are dressed my question. It is a
:29:40. > :29:45.project we did five countries. the proposals that Francois
:29:45. > :29:48.Hollande and Angela Merkel will make in May this year for the June
:29:48. > :29:52.council in 2013 are fundamentally to do with that eurozone and the
:29:52. > :29:56.eurozone will get closer and closer together, and Britain will not be
:29:56. > :30:00.part of that. We will not be at the heart of Europe so what is wrong
:30:00. > :30:10.with renegotiating a more semi- detached relationship, given we
:30:10. > :30:11.
:30:11. > :30:21.will not be in the core? Co you have silenced him altogether!
:30:21. > :30:28.
:30:28. > :30:34.I think UKIP got a hold of the This is a distraction. We're not
:30:34. > :30:39.saying, never have a referendum. Certainly not. I read what Nick
:30:39. > :30:45.Clegg wrote this morning, thinking, I agree with Nick. Also I agree
:30:45. > :30:51.with Michael Heseltine. This is a distraction. It reminds me of
:30:51. > :30:55.budgets. If it is well received on the day, they are hanging out
:30:55. > :31:02.afterwards. Let's be clear, Ed Miliband at Prime Minister's
:31:02. > :31:06.Questions was explicit in ruling out a referendum, an in-out
:31:06. > :31:10.referendum. Douglas Alexander had to explain that is not what he
:31:10. > :31:20.really meant. It is a mess. It is not. It is clear he was talking
:31:20. > :31:24.about them. He mis-spoke. You could put it that way. What should
:31:24. > :31:30.Labour's position be in the referendum? My position is, if
:31:30. > :31:35.there were a referendum tomorrow, I would strongly say and advice my
:31:35. > :31:38.constituents to vote yes. I would do that, either without a
:31:38. > :31:45.renegotiation. Having started off sceptically about Europe, my own
:31:45. > :31:51.belief is that after four year -- after years in the European Union,
:31:51. > :31:57.it depends on our membership of the referendum. Should there be one or
:31:57. > :32:02.not? It is academic at the moment. Five years, you are talking about,
:32:02. > :32:10.who knows what will happen in five years. I will not say we'll never
:32:10. > :32:15.have one. There's a prom there! As clear as mud! We couldn't hear you
:32:15. > :32:24.- I apologise. We'll come back to you one day soon and hear what you
:32:24. > :32:32.have to say. Our apology from London. He looks as if he's sitting
:32:32. > :32:38.outside Glasgow University union. It is interesting to listen to
:32:38. > :32:43.British arguments. We got him in the end. Don't all shout at your
:32:43. > :32:48.television sets at once. How much is your MP worth? I can't hear the
:32:48. > :32:52.shouting yet! A survey revealed the majority of people questioned felt
:32:52. > :32:56.Members of Parliament deserved a 32% pay increase. Perhaps
:32:56. > :33:01.unsurprisingly though it was a survey of MPs. Do they have a
:33:01. > :33:04.point? An MP earns just over �65,000 a year. In a survey
:33:04. > :33:11.conducted by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority,
:33:11. > :33:17.our politicians said this ought to be increased to more than �86,000.
:33:17. > :33:26.That compares to the average UK salary of �26,500. The chief
:33:26. > :33:36.executive of a medium-sized company earns �99,046. MEPs recently
:33:36. > :33:41.
:33:41. > :33:46.We are joined by John Mann. Before we go - Scotland viewers are with
:33:46. > :33:51.us as well. They have been watching First Minister's first question.
:33:51. > :33:58.Why should you be worth three times the average salary? I am being paid
:33:58. > :34:01.twice as much as an MP for the past 15 years. As an MP? MPs are worth a
:34:01. > :34:05.reasonable salary. This is about relativetys. We have a situation,
:34:05. > :34:10.where British MPs are not particularly well paid compared to
:34:10. > :34:15.other MPs. They are paid a lot less than BBC political journlithss, who
:34:15. > :34:21.may or may not -- journalists who may or may not want to say how much
:34:21. > :34:25.you are paid, paid for by the taxpayer. One interesting thing is
:34:25. > :34:30.journalists making comments about MPs' pay are on the whole much
:34:30. > :34:35.better paid than MPs. Tell me what a reasonable salary is? I will not
:34:35. > :34:39.give you that, because we have now decided, as a Parliament, to
:34:39. > :34:43.happened this decision over to the Independent Parliamentary Standards
:34:43. > :34:47.Authority. What I think is sensible is rather than us going for an
:34:47. > :34:52.auction about all this, to say we had years and years of struggling
:34:52. > :34:57.to set a proper pay level for MPs ourselves. It was unseemly. It led
:34:57. > :35:02.to the development of the expenses system, increases by the backdoor,
:35:02. > :35:07.which was unacceptable. Better to hand it over and for them to decide.
:35:07. > :35:13.Meanwhile, I hope we will not get people coming out with these
:35:13. > :35:18.approaches. As I say, to repeat my point, I am not making a plea for
:35:18. > :35:24.myself. I enjoy a very high standard of living. My concern is
:35:25. > :35:30.younger MPs. Let's see what their salary is comparable to. Is the
:35:30. > :35:35.work you do less important of than than a CEO of a medium-sized
:35:35. > :35:41.business. It does not compare to anything else. There must be in
:35:41. > :35:44.terms of responsibility and status. We are representatives. We are
:35:44. > :35:48.representatives of the community of society. That is what we're meant
:35:48. > :35:52.to be. Therefore you cannot do those comparisons. Are we paid
:35:52. > :35:56.enough at the moment? �65,000, with the current recession, I say that
:35:56. > :36:01.we are. Do you agree with that? There is
:36:01. > :36:08.not a comparison to be made with other responsible jobs like a head
:36:08. > :36:16.teacher of a secondary school who could get paid between �79,000-
:36:16. > :36:22.�112,000 a year. There are comparisons to be made. You do set
:36:22. > :36:26.salaries which are comparable. By the way, Jo mentioned trade union
:36:26. > :36:32.General Secretaries. They would be paid six-figure salaries. These
:36:32. > :36:38.things are out there. My concern is this; the intake in 2010 of new MPs
:36:38. > :36:46.I thought was a higher level of intellectualal lapbt on both sides
:36:46. > :36:51.than anything I -- intellectual talent on both sides. My concern is
:36:51. > :36:54.it does not put off people in the future. You should be concerned
:36:54. > :36:59.about that, John Mann, the types you would like to see, they will
:36:59. > :37:08.not necessarily be bankers and barristers. If you want to
:37:08. > :37:14.encourage somebody who wants to own a mebg oak ker Sally they will not
:37:14. > :37:17.come into the -- salary, they will not come into the House of Commons.
:37:17. > :37:22.It is a nonsense to suggest that MPs come in for the pay and that
:37:22. > :37:26.what we need to do is attract greater people. It's for the
:37:26. > :37:31.electorate to decide. There's no shortage of competition. In fact,
:37:31. > :37:37.the problem in Parliament is we don't have enough people from
:37:37. > :37:42.enough walks of live. We don't have enough people in ordinary
:37:42. > :37:46.professions. What has happened is parliamentary intake - 90%
:37:46. > :37:51.graduates. A lot of people on both sides being subsidised either by
:37:51. > :37:56.their spouses or by family income. I don't think that is sensible.
:37:56. > :37:59.That's why I say, let's try and take the emotion out of this and
:37:59. > :38:04.leave it to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority,
:38:04. > :38:08.which is for the first time ever, we have said we will not set our
:38:08. > :38:13.own pay. It is a really tricky issue. There's never a good time
:38:13. > :38:18.for it to be discussed. I think for the health of our democracy, just
:38:18. > :38:22.as - and I say again, this is an important issue - journalists who
:38:22. > :38:28.monitor us are paid considerably more than MPs. That's a decision
:38:28. > :38:33.which has been made by the.... all journalists. Certainly the ones
:38:33. > :38:37.who monitor us. And so what? It is about the attractiveness of
:38:37. > :38:42.people's careers. What is your view on this? Should MPs be paid more?
:38:42. > :38:47.No. I just think at the moment... What about attracting people from
:38:47. > :38:51.all walks of life. If you don't pay a reasonable salary all the smart
:38:51. > :38:55.people will go into other industries. That might be a wider
:38:55. > :38:59.issue about politics and the nature of the job. I think it is a bigger
:38:59. > :39:05.question about the sort of things that an MP now does. I think just
:39:05. > :39:09.at the moment when we have a downturn, where we have had pay
:39:09. > :39:16.freezes in the public sector, pay freezes in large parts of the
:39:16. > :39:18.public sector for a time.... This is historical, isn't it? Yes. To be
:39:18. > :39:24.talking about a substantial pay increase now could not be a worse
:39:24. > :39:32.time to be doing so. It is still in... Would you like to see it?
:39:32. > :39:39.Maybe this is something which could be looked at at a different moment.
:39:39. > :39:43.We're not properly recovered from the expenses scandal there a is a
:39:43. > :39:51.matter of confidence. To raise this issue now is extremely damaging. We
:39:51. > :39:56.have to look at the wider economy. They are not just having pay
:39:56. > :40:00.freezes, they are having falls in their incomes. It is not saying
:40:01. > :40:04.let's take a decision tomorrow. They are looking to not before the
:40:05. > :40:11.next Parliament. At some stage, this issue does need to be termed.
:40:11. > :40:14.You, as much as anybody else in the House of Commons, and John, as well
:40:14. > :40:18.other MPs agreed that the decision should be taken out of the hands of
:40:18. > :40:22.MPs and passed over to the authorities. You are out of step
:40:22. > :40:29.with most of your parliamentary colleagues? I probably am. It never
:40:29. > :40:32.stopped him before! Find me the care assistant... What about the
:40:32. > :40:37.General Secretary of the union? There are millions of industrial
:40:37. > :40:42.workers. Loads of care assistants, people like that. None of them are
:40:42. > :40:47.saying to me, oh, we have become an MP if you paid us more than �65,000.
:40:47. > :40:53.That is not the problem. They are paid a fair whack. Should members
:40:53. > :40:58.of a union be paid a six-figure salary. If it was my union I would
:40:58. > :41:03.get it reduced. Thank you. The union General Secretary is a
:41:03. > :41:07.worried man! Thanks. Come back and see us again. To
:41:07. > :41:11.immigration, because the chief inspector has condemned as
:41:11. > :41:14.unacceptable the discovery of backlogs of more than 16,000 cases
:41:15. > :41:18.at the UK Border Agency. Some of the unprocessed
:41:18. > :41:22.applications from people wanting to set until Britain, because their
:41:22. > :41:27.husbands and wives, that is a natural thing to do. They date back
:41:27. > :41:31.to more than a decade. Here is what the chief inspector said earlier
:41:31. > :41:37.and the minister for immigration, Mark Harper. In the cases that have
:41:37. > :41:40.been put into archive, for reasons either because people can't be
:41:41. > :41:45.traced, for example. We've looked at the checks that have been made
:41:45. > :41:50.and found that assurances that they have given to Parliament about
:41:50. > :41:54.regular checks being made have not actually been made. Clearly we
:41:54. > :41:58.inherited an agency with a lot of problems. We've a new chief
:41:58. > :42:01.executive, new management team. He is getting a grip of the agency. We
:42:01. > :42:04.are also very clear we would not be able to turn it around overnight.
:42:04. > :42:09.We are going through, working through these issues. I am
:42:09. > :42:13.confident that by the time we get through this Parliament, the agency
:42:13. > :42:18.will be in good shape. It is not an overnight fix. We are going in the
:42:18. > :42:21.right direction. We are getting a grip of these things and sorting
:42:21. > :42:26.them out. The Shadow Minister joins us now.
:42:26. > :42:33.Let me come to you first. You wrote in your local paper two years ago
:42:33. > :42:36.that the UK BA was close to clearing the backlog of almost
:42:36. > :42:43.500,000 cases and that things were getting better. What do you say
:42:43. > :42:47.now? It is a shambles, isn't it? is infuriating. It has been to
:42:47. > :42:53.successive Governments. Last week, I took part in a debate with Johm
:42:53. > :42:57.Reid about Civil Service reform and the machine -- Mr Read reetd about
:42:57. > :43:02.the Civil Service reform and the machinery and to bring people in to
:43:02. > :43:05.sort out the way it is run. John Reid said, not at all if you have a
:43:05. > :43:09.minister like me I can sort departments out and implied
:43:09. > :43:14.everything has been sorted out in the Home Office. That is not what
:43:14. > :43:19.we found. There have been systemic problems with UK BA, which Theresa
:43:19. > :43:23.May has been dealing with. She has made a big structural change by
:43:23. > :43:26.splitting that off with Border Force. We have new management in.
:43:26. > :43:31.There have been continuing problems. You heard Mark Harper. He is
:43:31. > :43:37.determined to tackle it. The UK BA, it is clearly in something of a
:43:37. > :43:43.mess. It is a dealing an historic backlog.
:43:43. > :43:49.It is growing... Cases date from 2003. The majority comes from since
:43:49. > :43:55.2010 and indeed the report makes clear that the backlog is growing
:43:55. > :44:00.by 700 a month and that it's the one category of the backlog stood
:44:00. > :44:05.at 14,000 last zep. If it is still grow -- last September. If it is
:44:05. > :44:11.still growing it is higher than that now. By the time you left
:44:11. > :44:18.office you sorted out Border Force? It didn't exist but UK BA was not a
:44:18. > :44:22.perfect organisation, to put it mildly! It is what we call "a
:44:23. > :44:27.British understatement." I am being very British here. You need
:44:27. > :44:31.intervenalist ministers. What the British public will get fed up with
:44:31. > :44:35.is endless speeches about immigration and remarkably very
:44:35. > :44:39.little dealing the nitty-gritty. There are other worrying things in
:44:39. > :44:44.the paper that was produced today, for instance saying there is
:44:44. > :44:49.inconsistentsy between the way that staff based in the UK from UKBA
:44:49. > :44:54.deal with a case, from the way they are dealt with overseas. That must
:44:54. > :44:58.be wrong. Would this not be an issue, in which you should put
:44:58. > :45:03.aside party differences, because neither of you have a great reortd
:45:03. > :45:09.in this and you share -- record in this and you share your experiences
:45:09. > :45:14.and have an agreed programme to put it right? Yes, but in the end you
:45:14. > :45:22.still need intervenalist ministers. That is the case I am making, thank
:45:22. > :45:32.you. My worry is that I don't think Theresa May has been sufficiently...
:45:32. > :45:42.
:45:42. > :45:45.You don't know Theresa! The British people want to see
:45:45. > :45:49.their borders properly controlled and they have a view that both your
:45:49. > :45:55.parties in government have failed to do so so should you not put your
:45:55. > :45:59.differences aside and tried to sort it out on a consensual basis?
:45:59. > :46:05.Sharing the experience is important because these are management issues.
:46:05. > :46:09.They are not Dudu political decisions. There have been big
:46:09. > :46:17.management and systemic problems in his agency -- they are not down to
:46:17. > :46:25.political decisions. Accountability also needs to be addressed. Their
:46:25. > :46:29.numbers have come down very substantially actually. We could
:46:29. > :46:36.throw rocks but one particular one that I will throw, which is a
:46:36. > :46:42.bolder, is the fact they have cut the number of staff by 6,000! It is
:46:42. > :46:48.a fact! That is about allocation of resources, no. Allocation of
:46:48. > :46:51.resources by your lot, yes. I had dinner with codes CNN last week. I
:46:51. > :46:56.hope some of his diplomatic skills had rubbed off on May but clearly
:46:56. > :47:05.not -- Kofi Annan. A work you manage to avoid how much you were
:47:05. > :47:09.paid. Nobody asked. How much are you paid? Not enough! Not nearly
:47:09. > :47:13.enough! Thank you, Chris Bryant, it is time
:47:13. > :47:17.you left. It is an allocation of resources issue.
:47:17. > :47:21.There used to be a time when many thought of it as "the copper's
:47:21. > :47:24.party". Strong on law and order. Keen on getting "bobbies on the
:47:24. > :47:27.beat". But now this party is the senior partner in a coalition
:47:27. > :47:30.austerity government. And we have 20% cuts, massive changes to pay
:47:30. > :47:33.and conditions, plus the loss of 12,000 officers. The relationship
:47:33. > :47:37.between police and this party, the Conservative party, is no longer a
:47:37. > :47:40.happy one. David Cameron has always been
:47:40. > :47:42.supportive of the dedication and sacrifice of the police but equally
:47:42. > :47:47.that they are the last great unreformed public service, and that
:47:47. > :47:52.changing that was something personal. He had been right there
:47:52. > :47:55.when the Tories last tried it, and were faced down by police pressure.
:47:55. > :47:57.Now, the government is forging ahead with scale of reform not seen
:47:57. > :48:02.before, affecting pay, conditions, roles, the private sector, police
:48:02. > :48:09.and crime commissioners and cuts. All police pride themselves they
:48:09. > :48:12.are managing this process but it's been tough. It is always difficult
:48:12. > :48:16.when you see such a substantial reform programme because not only
:48:16. > :48:22.do we have to manage that and restructure and reorganise and cut
:48:22. > :48:27.20% out of the Budget all at once, without any of really clear
:48:27. > :48:30.overarching plan, and we also have to deliver the service. We cannot
:48:30. > :48:35.stop while we we organise. The private sector, which we are told
:48:35. > :48:42.we should look at more, tell me it is A-level and scale of change
:48:42. > :48:47.which many have absolutely no experience of -- it is at a level
:48:47. > :48:57.of change. They are doing it to the police service and not with the
:48:57. > :48:59.
:48:59. > :49:02.police service. They need to engage. Policemen are suspicious of the
:49:02. > :49:07.reforms themselves, suspicious of the motives behind them and
:49:07. > :49:11.suspicious that at the end of this process they will not be a better
:49:11. > :49:16.service as a result. And there is the feeling that the government has
:49:17. > :49:20.made this a lot harder than it needed to be. Yes, it has left
:49:20. > :49:23.police officers feeling particularly not listen to and
:49:23. > :49:27.undervalued extent that this government does not particularly
:49:27. > :49:31.like the police service. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.
:49:31. > :49:34.That is the perception as a result of the current implementation of
:49:34. > :49:39.the reforms. It's not hear-say some officers are
:49:39. > :49:43.angry as we all heard them say it. Home Secretary, you may not like
:49:43. > :49:47.this, but we in the police service and no longer trust you, end of
:49:47. > :49:49.story. And if it wasn't the Police
:49:49. > :49:53.Federation conference, it was a march by off-duty police that
:49:53. > :49:58.displayed a dismay we had not seen so publicly before. Inevitable, say
:49:58. > :50:02.the government's opponents. government thought they had
:50:02. > :50:06.developed policy but they didn't, it was it cliche, the last
:50:06. > :50:10.unreformed element of the public sector. To to the ignoring the
:50:10. > :50:14.reform that had been before and ignoring the fact that to do
:50:14. > :50:18.policing properly, they had to reform to keep up. You cannot have
:50:18. > :50:21.the technology of ten years ago used for policing today, so they
:50:21. > :50:24.are fundamental cliche was wrong and it just has got worse ever
:50:24. > :50:28.since. Government argue their changes will
:50:28. > :50:31.finally deliver a better service better suited to the modern UK.
:50:31. > :50:38.Both ACPO, the PSA and the Fed say their people will deliver because
:50:38. > :50:42."that's what they do". But... is a question around the tipping
:50:42. > :50:47.point. How much more can you drive out of policing before it becomes a
:50:47. > :50:52.direct impact on frontline service delivery? We are close but at the
:50:52. > :50:55.moment we have maintained that service. But no question, frontline
:50:55. > :50:58.officers are working under more pressure and harder than ever
:50:58. > :51:04.before and that is why the salary has to match the demanding nature
:51:04. > :51:09.of the job. For Sir Hugh Aldous says that the reforms are pushing
:51:09. > :51:13.the police service to do tipping point -- so Hugh Orde. Perilously
:51:13. > :51:18.close to affecting frontline services. What do you say?
:51:18. > :51:21.course you have to ensure there are sufficient resources but we were
:51:21. > :51:25.told two-and-a-half years ago but the budget reductions for the
:51:25. > :51:29.police would have a catastrophic effect. You remember their
:51:29. > :51:38.campaigning, the Labour Party were doing it Bob le Brocq the says it
:51:39. > :51:43.is close to tipping point. -- were doing it... He says it is close to
:51:43. > :51:47.tipping point. Is he wrong? Crime has fallen substantially under this
:51:47. > :51:52.government and that is a credit to the police. They have actually been
:51:52. > :51:57.able to deal with this reduction in resources which is essential. The
:51:57. > :52:02.police cannot be exempt from the at. Is that essential to a massive
:52:02. > :52:08.restructuring of pay and conditions, police and crime commissioners,
:52:08. > :52:13.whilst simultaneously removing 20% of central funding from police?
:52:13. > :52:18.Isn't that too much? Central funding has not been reduced by 20%.
:52:18. > :52:23.Central funding has been reduced but the budget implication that is
:52:23. > :52:29.not 20%... I am saying their package? It is important to say it
:52:29. > :52:33.is not 20% funding reduction. Accountability is very important in
:52:33. > :52:36.public services. There was a feeling that there was danger of
:52:36. > :52:42.disconnection between the police and the public and greater
:52:42. > :52:45.accountability is valuable and what we sought to do was to end the
:52:45. > :52:49.decade of bureaucratic management of the police from the centre,
:52:49. > :52:52.which resulted in a lot of bureaucracy and targets, and
:52:52. > :52:57.substitute that for a local and democratic accountability, which
:52:57. > :53:01.has been a success in London because the mayor's responsibility
:53:01. > :53:06.for policing in London is welcome in London I think. A even though
:53:06. > :53:11.the turnout for the commissioners was appalling. Yeah, I think it
:53:11. > :53:15.will be a success. We have set up an independent review into pay and
:53:15. > :53:19.conditions. Police officers must continue to be well remunerated but
:53:19. > :53:24.there were issues about an 0 fashion system of pay and
:53:24. > :53:28.allowances that had to be addressed -- old-fashioned system. He tries
:53:28. > :53:32.to produce a system that will match pay according to skills rather than
:53:32. > :53:37.a system where you pay simply goes up every year regardless of your
:53:37. > :53:42.skills. Have you won the hearts and minds of police officers? It is
:53:42. > :53:48.tough. These are tough times and these are demanding reforms and
:53:48. > :53:53.they affect police officers' pay packets. As people across public
:53:53. > :53:58.services have been affected. The police are not alone in that. It is
:53:58. > :54:03.important we continue to say that the government continues to say how
:54:03. > :54:07.important the police are, that we do value the police, they do an
:54:07. > :54:12.important job... A but they have not heard that. They clearly said
:54:12. > :54:18.they think the government do not like them, so whatever you have
:54:18. > :54:22.said, it has not worked, has it? The perception from the police and
:54:22. > :54:25.the difficulty with making those reforms has not succeeded because
:54:25. > :54:31.they feel you do not like them, that you have put too much on them
:54:31. > :54:33.in one go and you have not won hearts and minds? There is an
:54:33. > :54:38.element within the police service and the Police Federation in
:54:38. > :54:44.particular that regarded everything as not challengeable and therefore
:54:44. > :54:49.any challenge was escalated into "this is an attack" and if you look
:54:49. > :54:52.back over the years, successive governments faced protests from the
:54:52. > :54:56.Police Federation, allegations that morale had never been so low and
:54:56. > :55:00.that this was an attack on policing and what the federation has had to
:55:00. > :55:05.realise is that the economic situation, the necessity to ensure
:55:05. > :55:08.that public services can be today's challenges, the importance of
:55:08. > :55:12.ensuring a strong relationship between the police and the public
:55:12. > :55:17.meant that these changes had to be made and I strongly believe that
:55:17. > :55:21.they are in interest of policing. You speak very passionately about
:55:21. > :55:26.this. Surprising you walk away from this. There are other reasons for
:55:26. > :55:29.that which I have spoken about before. But I will continue to
:55:29. > :55:32.support the government programme of police reform.
:55:32. > :55:36.With a big thaw on the cards, fear not my friends about melting snow
:55:36. > :55:44.and floods. We have on hand apparently a sophisticated flood
:55:44. > :55:47.defence system. And here it is. # Sleigh bells ring. Are you
:55:47. > :55:48.listening? # In the lane, snow is glistening.
:55:48. > :55:52.# A beautiful sight, we're happy tonight.
:55:52. > :55:56.# Walking in a winter wonderland. # Gone away is the bluebird.
:55:56. > :56:06.# Here to stay is a new bird. # He's singing a song, as we go
:56:06. > :56:06.
:56:07. > :56:09.along. # In the meadow we can build a
:56:09. > :56:13.snowman. # Then pretend that he is Parson
:56:13. > :56:18.Brown. # He'll say: Are you married? We'll
:56:18. > :56:26.say: No, man. # But you can do the job when
:56:26. > :56:31.you're in town #. According to reports in today's newspapers,
:56:31. > :56:34.snowmen are the answer. Joining me now from the not very snowy slopes
:56:34. > :56:40.of Westminster is Phil Rothwell, flood risk manager from the
:56:40. > :56:47.Environment Agency. Can this be true? Should we be out buildings no
:56:47. > :56:53.men? I feel as cold as a snowman. I do not think they are the answer
:56:53. > :56:58.for stockholding snow back is a good thing. Snow holds a lot of
:56:58. > :57:02.water. But when the snow melts and goes into the river systems, it
:57:02. > :57:07.does cause some problems, particularly at the moment with
:57:07. > :57:16.lots of saturated ground. River levels are already responding to
:57:16. > :57:22.the snow melting. With heavy rain forecast, we could be imposed more
:57:22. > :57:28.flooding so building snowmen is not the answer. There is a bit of
:57:28. > :57:32.science behind this. If you compact snow, it is a lot slower to melt. A
:57:32. > :57:36.snowman on your lawn is the last thing to go when the snow
:57:37. > :57:41.disappears so yes, it does hold back the water, but you need a very,
:57:41. > :57:48.very, very great many of them before it makes any difference.
:57:48. > :57:55.are looking at one in the north, 17 ft tall. That is a public-spirited
:57:55. > :57:59.attempt! Can be papped of the country with a 17 ft snow men? --
:57:59. > :58:03.could we have pepper? It would be a spectacular sight but it would not
:58:03. > :58:08.do a great deal to reduce your flood risk. The better thing to do
:58:08. > :58:14.is to look at the agency's flood website to really assess the risk.
:58:14. > :58:21.So we do have some risk coming up? Yes, it is a series point. Rivers
:58:21. > :58:24.are very high and grunt is saturated -- series point. The
:58:24. > :58:29.ground is saturated. We are looking at river levels very carefully and
:58:29. > :58:33.if you are at all worried MPs look at the environment agency's website,
:58:33. > :58:38.where there is lots of useful website.
:58:38. > :58:41.That's it, folks. If you can't get enough Europe chat, then join me
:58:41. > :58:43.tonight on BBC One with Neil Hamilton, Laura Kuenssberg, Lowri
:58:43. > :58:48.Turner, Katherine Ryan, Shirley Williams, Michael Portillo and Alan