:00:38. > :00:42.Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. The Government says
:00:42. > :00:46.it wants cheaper childcare, but can you make it cheaper and better at
:00:46. > :00:50.the same time? Or is that, as every toddler knows, having your cake and
:00:50. > :00:56.eating it? Does British football desperately need reform?
:00:56. > :01:00.An influential group of MPs thinks so. But will it ever happen?
:01:00. > :01:07.Have you got a favourite political book? We will take a look at some
:01:07. > :01:13.of the best and worst of the last 12 months.
:01:13. > :01:16.How much do you propose to spend? A figure? Why don't politicians just
:01:16. > :01:21.answer the question? We will find out what turns people right off
:01:21. > :01:25.politics. All that in the next hour, and with
:01:25. > :01:29.us for the whole programme today is the political writer, publisher and
:01:29. > :01:32.LBC presenter Iain Dale. But first, we've had two apologies
:01:32. > :01:38.in the last 24 hours - the first from Rupert Murdoch about this
:01:38. > :01:41.cartoon in the Sunday Times. It is by Gerald Scarfe and it shows the
:01:41. > :01:46.Israeli Prime Minister building a wall out of the bodies of
:01:46. > :01:50.Palestinians. It was published on Holocaust Memorial Day.
:01:50. > :01:53.And the second apology has been made by the Lib Dem MP David Ward.
:01:54. > :01:56.He has been formally censured by the whips for saying he was
:01:56. > :01:59.saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of
:01:59. > :02:01.persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of
:02:01. > :02:11.liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on
:02:11. > :02:13.
:02:13. > :02:16.Palestinians. Iain Dale, should that cartoon by Gerald Scarfe have
:02:16. > :02:21.gone into the newspaper? I think we don't know the decision process
:02:21. > :02:25.that led to it. There is a new editor on the Sunday Times. I can't
:02:25. > :02:29.believe Gerald Scarfe didn't know it was Holocaust Memorial Day. I
:02:29. > :02:32.read this morning on Twitter that he says he had no idea, I am not
:02:32. > :02:37.sure it is an argument in his defence even if he didn't know,
:02:37. > :02:41.because it is a gratuitously offensive cartoon. But we have the
:02:41. > :02:45.right to offend in this country, it is not illegal to offend people.
:02:45. > :02:49.Similarly with the David Ward case, he has a perfect right to offend
:02:49. > :02:53.people but has to justify what he has done. I am not sure what people
:02:53. > :02:58.suggest should happen, just because people have been very offensive
:02:58. > :03:02.there should be punishment or not? You were more worried in terms of
:03:02. > :03:06.the cartoon by Gerald Scarfe with Binjamin Netanyahu at the top of
:03:06. > :03:10.the wall, the timing of that? If it was printed on another day you
:03:10. > :03:14.would have thought, well, that is just a Gerald Scarfe does his
:03:14. > :03:18.cartoons? I think cartoons are meant to be funny. There is nothing
:03:18. > :03:21.funny about that. It has a message that is certain group will probably
:03:21. > :03:26.agree with and say why does the Israeli lobby always cut rough on
:03:26. > :03:31.things like this, why are they offended so easily? I think if you
:03:31. > :03:35.got the history that Israel and the Jewish people have, I think you
:03:35. > :03:40.will understand it better. I am not saying the cartoon should not have
:03:40. > :03:45.been printed, that would have been censorship. It is very difficult.
:03:45. > :03:48.It is satirical. Where does satire end and political message start?
:03:48. > :03:52.The David Ward case is very different. It is very
:03:52. > :03:56.understandable why people thought that was wrong, and most of his Lib
:03:56. > :04:01.Dem colleagues thought it was wrong, to be fair, because he used the
:04:01. > :04:06.phrase, the Jews. If the have said that gays, blacks or the gypsies,
:04:06. > :04:11.everybody would have been outraged. He chose not to apologise initially,
:04:11. > :04:15.he stood by every word. He has apologised but not withdrawn the
:04:15. > :04:19.comments. I don't know how you can apologise without withdrawing them.
:04:19. > :04:29.And he won't use the phrase the Jews in future. How very graceless
:04:29. > :04:34.of him -- gracious of him(!) The cynics among us might think he is
:04:34. > :04:36.playing to a certain group in his constituency and it will go down
:04:36. > :04:40.very well. The Liberal Democrats did well on this, they condemned
:04:40. > :04:46.the comments, but they have done nothing about it. They have sent
:04:46. > :04:49.him a letter. What does that mean? It is a yellow card? Some people
:04:49. > :04:54.think it might ought to be a red card. We are talking about football
:04:54. > :04:58.later, we might as well -- might as well get the terminology. I think
:04:58. > :05:01.he should have had the whip withdrawn for a time. Far more
:05:02. > :05:08.serious than Nadine Dorries going into the jungle, and she had the
:05:08. > :05:11.whip withdrawn. Now it's time for our quiz. The
:05:11. > :05:15.question for today is which of these things has not been handed
:05:15. > :05:18.into the Houses of Parliament lost property office? Is it two jars of
:05:18. > :05:22.marmalade, a rucksack of bananas, a brace of pheasants or a plastic bag
:05:22. > :05:31.of peppers? At the end of the show, Iain will hopefully give us the
:05:31. > :05:35.correct answer. Last time I was on we did not have time! Are we milk -
:05:35. > :05:40.- we will make sure we have today. Well, the big parliamentary moment
:05:40. > :05:43.of the day will come in a couple of hours when MPs get to vote on
:05:43. > :05:47.whether to cut the number of MPs and change all the parliamentary
:05:47. > :05:50.boundaries before the next election to make them more equal in size.
:05:50. > :05:54.It's not one of those issues that regularly gets hearts racing
:05:54. > :05:58.amongst the general public, but it is an issue that is dear to the
:05:58. > :06:00.heart of the Conservatives as it will probably give them quite a few
:06:00. > :06:03.extra seats. Their coalition partners the Liberal Democrats,
:06:03. > :06:07.however, are refusing to back them up on this one because the Tories
:06:07. > :06:15.didn't let the Lib Dems reform the House of Lords. Our deputy
:06:15. > :06:18.political editor James Landale is with us now. I think the
:06:18. > :06:23.Conservatives are unlikely to win this. There is some uncertainty
:06:23. > :06:27.about how the DUP will boat, but Plaid Cymru and the SNP will vote
:06:28. > :06:32.with the Liberal Democrats and Labour. Unless there are changes,
:06:32. > :06:36.the likelihood is a conservative loss. This will be significant for
:06:36. > :06:41.two reasons, this is an arcane debate and many people might be
:06:41. > :06:45.stretching their heads, but there are two significant points. One is
:06:46. > :06:49.over short-term coalition relations. Lots of Lib Dems and Conservatives
:06:49. > :06:54.are getting very hot under the collar, talk of U-turns and
:06:54. > :06:58.betrayal. I think there will be anger this afternoon. Secondly and
:06:58. > :07:03.perhaps more importantly, as you mentioned, at stake potentially,
:07:03. > :07:07.the election experts say, are 20 seats the Conservatives might have
:07:07. > :07:10.gained at the next election under these boundary reforms. But will
:07:10. > :07:16.not now happen and that could possibly make the difference
:07:16. > :07:19.between a victory or defeat. Many Conservative MPs are worried about
:07:19. > :07:25.this. They think David Cameron should not have allowed this debate
:07:25. > :07:29.to get to this stage. However, it could. Arcane and, yes, it will be
:07:29. > :07:33.slightly parliamentary this afternoon, but today is one of
:07:33. > :07:38.those days that we could look back on in a few years and say, that was
:07:38. > :07:42.a costly mistake. Thank you. I am joined by the Lib Dem peer and
:07:42. > :07:46.expert on everything to do with political campaigning Chris Lennard,
:07:46. > :07:50.and the president of YouGov, Peter Kellner. Chris, if you always
:07:50. > :07:55.thought that reducing the number of MPs and equalising constituency
:07:56. > :07:59.sizes was so bad, why did you sign up to it? He it was part of a
:07:59. > :08:03.package. We did not mind a reduction in the number of MPs if
:08:03. > :08:07.we were making the House of Lords more legitimate. We see the all
:08:07. > :08:11.these things together. We believe the Government should be called to
:08:11. > :08:14.account by parliament. If you are reducing the number of MPs but not
:08:14. > :08:18.making the House of Lords more legitimate and effective than there
:08:18. > :08:23.is a problem. House of Lords reform was in the Conservative manifesto
:08:23. > :08:27.and the coalition agreement, and the Queen's Speech. I believe the
:08:27. > :08:31.Conservative Party had a whip on the House of Lords reform. Your
:08:31. > :08:34.whip this afternoon, as I understand it, is to oppose this
:08:34. > :08:40.measure. It was in your manifesto, you are voting against something
:08:40. > :08:44.you agree with? You say there was a whip in the Conservative Party, but
:08:44. > :08:49.almost exactly half of Conservative backbench MPs voted against House
:08:49. > :08:53.of Lords reform, that is why David Cameron was so angry that night. He
:08:53. > :08:57.knew when backbench Conservative MPs torpedoed the House of Lords
:08:57. > :09:01.reform that this would happen on boundaries, that is why he was so
:09:01. > :09:06.angry. Do you accept the Conservatives did not deliver are
:09:06. > :09:13.now part of the deal? Nick Clegg agreed with -- David Cameron agreed
:09:13. > :09:17.with Nick Clegg's package, but his package was a dog's breakfast. I
:09:17. > :09:21.think there would always have been Conservatives voting against it. I
:09:21. > :09:25.don't see what else David Cameron could have done. I think he will
:09:25. > :09:28.agree they tried to get as many Conservative backbenchers to
:09:29. > :09:34.support it as they could. Your whip is to oppose something that you
:09:34. > :09:37.agree with. The electorate, and James Landale said it was arcane,
:09:37. > :09:41.it is kind of arcane. But the electorate will thing, why are the
:09:41. > :09:45.Lib Dems voting again something they agree with? You agree that the
:09:45. > :09:50.House of Commons should be smaller, you agree with equal constituency
:09:50. > :09:54.boundaries? In the long run we want to see boundaries redrawn on
:09:54. > :09:57.roughly equal constituency size, but we know the date are now is not
:09:57. > :10:01.as we thought it would be. At the time of the Bill we thought that
:10:01. > :10:06.more than 90% of the people who should be on the register are, but
:10:06. > :10:10.now it is about 80%. Around 6 million people are missing from the
:10:10. > :10:16.voting register, and you can't redraw the boundaries until they
:10:16. > :10:22.are on the voting register. Is this about principles? Isn't it just
:10:22. > :10:27.about straightforward tit-for-tat? There are principles on pragmatism
:10:27. > :10:32.-- pragmatism. We wanted a package and if the Conservatives will not
:10:32. > :10:36.deliver, we will not deliver. We are against a reduction in MPs in
:10:36. > :10:40.the absence of House of Lords reform. And if you want the
:10:40. > :10:45.boundaries correct and drawn fairly, you need all the people who should
:10:45. > :10:49.be on the register on it. 6 million people are currently missing.
:10:49. > :10:54.is a view that says the Lib Dems have had to absorb quite a lot in
:10:54. > :11:01.terms of losing out on some of their key policies. Have they
:11:01. > :11:05.really? They would argue things like tuition fees, for example. It
:11:05. > :11:11.was a big line in the sand. And they could not give way on this
:11:11. > :11:15.issue? There is a website with all the Lib Dem achievements and the
:11:15. > :11:19.coalition listed. I think lots of Conservatives think the Lib Dems
:11:19. > :11:24.have to give more and have taken too much. Moving away from the give
:11:24. > :11:28.and take, who would lose the most under these proposed changes?
:11:28. > :11:32.Lib Dems would lose the most, Labour the next most, the
:11:32. > :11:36.Conservatives least of all. In crude numbers. At the last election,
:11:36. > :11:41.the Conservatives were nine or 10 seats short of the number needed
:11:41. > :11:46.for an overall majority. If that election had been fought on the new
:11:46. > :11:52.boundaries, the Conservatives would have been just two seats short. The
:11:52. > :11:58.other figure, this will be the last I give you, is my estimate is that
:11:58. > :12:01.for the Tories to win an outright majority, they need about half a
:12:01. > :12:05.million more boats operating under the old boundaries, the current
:12:05. > :12:09.boundaries, than if the boundaries were changed. If they are defeated
:12:09. > :12:14.this afternoon, Parliament is imposing a half million vote
:12:14. > :12:22.penalty, if you like, on the Conservatives will stop but it is
:12:22. > :12:27.half a million and the marginal constituencies... -- in the
:12:27. > :12:31.marginal constituencies. Every party is voting for their partisan
:12:31. > :12:34.interests, so why are you so upset with the Liberal Democrats? I am
:12:34. > :12:38.not, I think there are more important things to discuss than
:12:38. > :12:43.this. It seems clear that the election will be fought on existing
:12:43. > :12:47.boundaries, I don't understand why David Cameron has pushed this to a
:12:47. > :12:50.vote. I will look stupid if he does win it! It is like when interest
:12:50. > :12:56.rates are put up and then discounted by the markets. There
:12:56. > :13:02.will not be massive rows on the Conservative benches. They are
:13:02. > :13:07.terribly angry about it... anger was six months ago. It will
:13:07. > :13:12.not reignite? I would not have thought so. Do you think the
:13:12. > :13:16.Liberal Democrats' survival depends on the next election been fought on
:13:16. > :13:20.the existing boundaries? Parties have survived much tougher times
:13:20. > :13:27.than this. You are too young, when I was growing up in the 50s, 60s
:13:27. > :13:31.and 70s the Liberals were in a much worse state. They will survive. One
:13:31. > :13:35.of the reasons it will be tough with the new boundaries is a Lib
:13:35. > :13:40.Dem MPs, more than other parties, depend on personal reputation, the
:13:40. > :13:45.incumbency factor. A few radically redraw the boundaries, a Lib Dem
:13:45. > :13:49.MPs will lose a lot of voters who know them well and gain a lot who
:13:49. > :13:55.don't know them so well -- if you radically redraw the boundaries.
:13:55. > :13:58.They could lose how many seats? For if you do the mechanistic uniform
:13:58. > :14:03.swing calculation they could lose on a current poll rating more than
:14:04. > :14:11.half of their MPs. I don't think they will. There will be some
:14:11. > :14:17.incumbency factor. But I would not be surprised if they are down 20 or
:14:17. > :14:21.25 seats. That would be pretty disastrous? I'd like to see a
:14:21. > :14:26.different system where have you got more votes you got more seats.
:14:26. > :14:30.was wondering how long that would take! You can't assume that there
:14:30. > :14:33.is a direct collision between opinion polls and bolts. Opinion
:14:33. > :14:37.polls and mid-term are very unlikely to be good indicators of a
:14:37. > :14:41.general election outcome. I have looked at the last eight
:14:41. > :14:51.parliaments, in seven of them the mid-term opposition has been
:14:51. > :14:59.
:14:59. > :15:03.completely different during the If you put together AV and the new
:15:03. > :15:08.boundaries, maybe lose a dozen seats on the boundary change, but
:15:08. > :15:13.gain 25 seats because of the alternative vote system. We have
:15:13. > :15:23.got the referendum, and it was lost, which I expected, but the Lib Dems
:15:23. > :15:24.
:15:24. > :15:30.didn't, and that is part of the beef. But that is democracy.
:15:30. > :15:35.Lib Dems made a judgment call and they lost. You got that in just
:15:35. > :15:41.about. What about prospects for the Conservatives under the existing
:15:41. > :15:47.boundaries? How difficult is it for David Cameron to get that overall
:15:47. > :15:52.majority? My judgment is, and it depends on how the Lib Dems of
:15:52. > :16:02.other parties fair, they probably need 41%, 42%, to get an overall
:16:02. > :16:04.
:16:04. > :16:09.majority, that is a five-point up lift. The when was the last time a
:16:09. > :16:15.governing party got a five-point up lift at the end of a Parliament?
:16:15. > :16:18.You have to go back to Lord Palmerston in the 1850s. It is a
:16:18. > :16:23.tough call. And that is why you come back to this question about
:16:23. > :16:27.anger? For I think it is impossible. Unless the Liberal Democrats to
:16:27. > :16:30.vote implodes at the next election, and most of it goes to the
:16:30. > :16:38.Conservatives, which is not the most likely repository for that
:16:39. > :16:48.vote, and if you kick implodes for some reason, then you could make an
:16:49. > :16:54.
:16:54. > :17:00.argument for it -- UKIP. So do you think there will be anger towards
:17:00. > :17:05.David Cameron for allowing the situation to come about? Yes, to an
:17:05. > :17:09.extent. That anger has been there for the last two years. Those who
:17:09. > :17:12.don't want a coalition will always be angry with David Cameron for
:17:12. > :17:19.going into one. Those who think you shouldn't have given an AV
:17:19. > :17:22.referendum to the Lib Dems will be angry come what may. But forget all
:17:22. > :17:27.these ridiculous stories, Cameron is in a stronger position now than
:17:27. > :17:32.he was this time last year. And that won't be changing. Thank you
:17:32. > :17:35.very much. This morning, the Education
:17:35. > :17:39.Minister Liz Truss is allowing a relaxation in the rules on how many
:17:39. > :17:44.children nurseries and childminders are allowed to look after. Child
:17:44. > :17:48.care costs in the UK are the second highest of the 34 countries in the
:17:48. > :17:53.OECD. For a couple where both parents than the average wage, they
:17:53. > :17:58.are 27% of net family income. Only Switzerland is higher. Other
:17:58. > :18:02.countries such as Highland, Australia, Slovenia and the
:18:02. > :18:05.Netherlands have higher fees, but lower net child care costs, due to
:18:05. > :18:10.more generous state support for childcare benefits and tax
:18:10. > :18:15.reductions. According to a study by the resolution Foundation, a family
:18:15. > :18:22.with both parents working full-time and two children aged two and four
:18:22. > :18:28.in full-time care will spend �13,529 per year on childcare. And
:18:28. > :18:32.in London, it can cost as much as �10,000 more. Proposals to help
:18:32. > :18:35.families with the costs of childcare are unlikely to emerge at
:18:36. > :18:45.the end of next month. Today's announcement would allow carers to
:18:46. > :18:55.
:18:55. > :18:59.look after four under two-year-olds, or six two-year-olds. The ratio
:18:59. > :19:02.issue is a big concern for everybody. The majority of day
:19:02. > :19:08.nurseries across the country deliver excellent care and support
:19:08. > :19:12.children and families. The issue of increasing the ratio is there costs
:19:12. > :19:16.will come down for parents, and it is also questionable, because
:19:16. > :19:19.nurseries are already struggling in terms of their day-to-day
:19:19. > :19:24.management and the financial situation. If there is more money
:19:24. > :19:29.available, then the staff need to be paid more, especially if you are
:19:30. > :19:35.expecting them to be better qualified. Labour's spokesperson on
:19:35. > :19:40.all of this is Sharon Hodgson. What is your response? Half of them we
:19:40. > :19:45.agree with. Those following the recommendations of the review into
:19:45. > :19:49.better qualifications for the staff and the status of the staff, the
:19:49. > :19:54.level three in English and maths, paying the staff more, totally
:19:54. > :20:01.agree with those. They are recommended and we agree with them.
:20:01. > :20:11.The ones we don't agree with other ratios, which seems to be
:20:11. > :20:17.
:20:17. > :20:21.recommending none of the sector's' No childcare centres that we have
:20:21. > :20:25.visited say that a plan to avail themselves of these ratios, and
:20:25. > :20:28.especially not childminders. thought childminders were keen to
:20:28. > :20:34.try to increase the money they would get by having more children,
:20:34. > :20:37.more parents paying, and be able to reduce the per parent cost. I am
:20:38. > :20:41.not saying they will not be one or more out there, but on the whole,
:20:41. > :20:48.they are not in favour of this. What you think of the Government's
:20:48. > :20:53.plans? Bear in mind they don't have children, so maybe I shouldn't have
:20:53. > :20:59.a voice in this, but they do have an opinion. I don't see the problem
:20:59. > :21:02.in slightly increasing the ratios. When I saw this originally, I
:21:02. > :21:06.thought they were talking about doubling them, but they are only
:21:07. > :21:13.going up by one or two children. If it were to be proved that this is
:21:13. > :21:16.unsafe, then it would be bad. But why it is imperative -- why is it
:21:16. > :21:20.imperative to have English and maths GCSEs? We have restricted
:21:20. > :21:23.nursing to people with the equivalent of degrees, cutting out
:21:23. > :21:26.a huge swathe of people who would probably make fantastic nurses but
:21:26. > :21:34.cannot become nurses because of the qualifications. Is the Government
:21:34. > :21:42.not doing the same here? That was explained in the recommendations.
:21:42. > :21:49.Why will it guarantee better childcare come --, having a GCSE
:21:49. > :21:54.grade in maths or English? If we are ever to close the gap with
:21:54. > :22:02.regard to entitlement for the most disadvantaged two-year-old, we need
:22:02. > :22:06.childcare delivered by competent people. But getting back to the
:22:06. > :22:11.recommendations with regard to the ratios, there are eminent people
:22:11. > :22:14.commissioned by the Government, professors, who have come out on
:22:14. > :22:18.record and have said that these ratios could damage quality and
:22:18. > :22:22.could even be dangerous. Even though they are only going up by
:22:22. > :22:25.one or two children? At a child minder, the number they can look
:22:25. > :22:35.after his 6, which is staying the same. But she is now saying they
:22:35. > :22:41.can have two babies, and four under five. You're saying that one person
:22:41. > :22:46.cannot look after two babies? could have to babies, two toddlers,
:22:46. > :22:52.a five-year-old and a six-year-old. You have a full-time job on your
:22:52. > :22:57.hand just keeping them all safe and fed. Where his early education?
:22:57. > :22:59.Where is the early years foundation stage been delivered? We will talk
:22:59. > :23:03.to the Education Minister in a moment. But what you think about
:23:03. > :23:07.the idea that childcare professionals should be paid more?
:23:07. > :23:10.That would help guarantee higher quality. We would all like to be
:23:10. > :23:15.paid more. We are to situation certainly where the Government
:23:15. > :23:18.doesn't have any money to pay them. You have just explained the cost of
:23:18. > :23:25.childcare. Parents are not getting wage rises either at the moment, so
:23:25. > :23:29.they won't be wanting to pay any extra. What worries me is we seem
:23:29. > :23:33.to be coming to a situation where it is regarded as the Government's
:23:33. > :23:37.job to provide childcare. I don't think we should be in that
:23:37. > :23:40.situation. If parents decide to have children, surely they think
:23:40. > :23:44.before they have children about the cost of the child care afterwards.
:23:44. > :23:49.It shouldn't be left to the taxpayer to pick up the Bill.
:23:49. > :23:53.every country in the world does take a responsibility to providing
:23:53. > :24:00.child care for women for the workforce, to get back out to work.
:24:00. > :24:03.There is the other side of it, it isn't just about looking after...
:24:03. > :24:07.We are restricting child benefit to people earning under �50,000 per
:24:07. > :24:09.year. I don't think we should be spending taxpayers' money on well-
:24:09. > :24:15.off middle-class parents who decide to have children and expect the
:24:15. > :24:19.state to pick up the Bill. So you agree that the child benefit, it
:24:19. > :24:23.was right to take it away? A think the way they did was wrong, but the
:24:23. > :24:26.principle was right. I would much rather that this money was giving
:24:26. > :24:31.to Louise Casey, who is going to these difficult families, give it
:24:31. > :24:34.to her to spend on children who really need it. But we were given
:24:35. > :24:38.money for early intervention, and that has been cut by this
:24:38. > :24:43.Government by 40%, as has the training budget for training these
:24:43. > :24:46.people that they now say need better qualifications. Let's just
:24:46. > :24:50.bring in Liz Truss, the Education Minister. He may have been able to
:24:50. > :24:53.hear some of the debate going on. How can you argue that the quality
:24:53. > :24:58.of care is going to increase when you were reducing the number of
:24:58. > :25:02.workers per child? What we are saying is that only nurseries who
:25:02. > :25:05.hire higher quality staff will be able to take advantage of those
:25:05. > :25:09.ratios, and those ratios bring us into line with countries like
:25:09. > :25:13.France and Denmark, which had really high quality childcare
:25:13. > :25:15.systems. The reason they are high quality is they have more focus on
:25:15. > :25:20.the qualifications of the staff rather than the numbers of the
:25:20. > :25:24.staff, and our regulations have focused on the wrong thing. All of
:25:24. > :25:27.the evidence suggests that having really high quality people,
:25:27. > :25:31.graduates in child care settings, improves the outcomes for children,
:25:31. > :25:34.not just in nursery but also in primary school and for the rest of
:25:34. > :25:38.their lives. We are giving more headroom to nurseries to be able to
:25:38. > :25:42.do that, to hire the high quality staff using the money they gained
:25:42. > :25:45.from being able to offer extra places. But what guarantee is there
:25:45. > :25:50.that having a few more qualifications necessarily make you
:25:50. > :26:00.better at looking after children? All of the evidence on longitudinal
:26:00. > :26:09.studies shows that having teachers in early-years, 3-and four--year-
:26:09. > :26:13.olds, increases the quality of education. Countries like France
:26:13. > :26:18.spent the same amount of money as we do, but get better qualified
:26:18. > :26:22.people and more highly paid people in their settings. Our salaries in
:26:22. > :26:32.early years as six Pan 60 per hour, barely more than minimum wage.
:26:32. > :26:33.
:26:33. > :26:38.you think they should be paid more? �6.60 per hour is not enough. They
:26:38. > :26:44.should have more say over how they operate. Lots of nurseries want
:26:44. > :26:48.this flexibility. But she says not. There are. The most popular nursery
:26:48. > :26:53.providers in England have said they want this flexibility. Who are
:26:53. > :26:59.they? Which once? Bright horizons, Busy Bees, all very highly
:26:59. > :27:02.respected Nurseries, want the opportunity. And they will look at
:27:02. > :27:06.it on a case-by-case basis. This isn't going to be an overnight
:27:06. > :27:11.change. What they want is more flexibility like they have in
:27:11. > :27:14.Ireland, Scotland, France, to be able to hire a really high quality
:27:15. > :27:19.people and make sure that they are doing a good job. You mentioned
:27:19. > :27:24.about the level of pay. When you're going to publish the report you
:27:24. > :27:27.Commission last year into increasing the ratios? That was
:27:27. > :27:34.part of the Child Care Commission, and we are going to be publishing
:27:34. > :27:37.that alongside the other evidence we collected. When? Very shortly.
:27:37. > :27:40.What we made clear in the mid-term review is that there will be a new
:27:40. > :27:43.offer for working parents, because we recognise that the cost of
:27:43. > :27:49.childcare are very high and it is stopping people going at work who
:27:49. > :27:54.want to. It is also stopping people getting the benefits of early
:27:54. > :27:58.education. The report contradict what you're saying. The one by
:27:58. > :28:05.Helen Penn and Professor Eva Lloyd. It is difficult to comment on it
:28:05. > :28:09.because we haven't released it yet. So why you announcing the
:28:09. > :28:12.proposals? I was on a debate this morning with Eva, and she said that
:28:12. > :28:20.changing ratios will enable people to be paid more, so she has made
:28:20. > :28:24.that point earlier this morning, and that is right. We are
:28:24. > :28:28.realigning our ratios to match countries with best practice and
:28:28. > :28:31.move away from the minimum wage culture that we have at the moment.
:28:31. > :28:37.And I think that is all to the good. If nurseries don't like it, they
:28:37. > :28:40.don't have to do it. This is optional, and only for highly
:28:40. > :28:44.qualified staff. What about the view that says, it might be better
:28:44. > :28:46.to let parents decide or keep more of their money, for instance the
:28:46. > :28:49.childcare benefit that the Government is cutting for many
:28:49. > :28:53.families, so that they could stay at home and bring up their children
:28:53. > :28:58.themselves? That would be a traditional Conservative view.
:28:58. > :29:02.support people who make the choice to stay at home. Except you are
:29:02. > :29:05.spending money on nursery care and taking away child benefit. There is
:29:05. > :29:09.real evidence that nursery care is really beneficial for children and
:29:09. > :29:14.it helps them in later life, and we need to make sure it is high
:29:14. > :29:18.quality. My frustration is we are spending �5 billion per year, the
:29:18. > :29:22.same as France, but we are not getting the same quality from our
:29:22. > :29:26.system. I am reforming our system, making it simpler, so that parents
:29:26. > :29:30.can go out to work safe in the knowledge that their children are
:29:30. > :29:32.really benefiting from the nursery education. Do you think it would be
:29:32. > :29:35.better prepared to put their children into nurseries rather than
:29:35. > :29:41.letting them bring up their children? Is that what the
:29:41. > :29:44.Government is trying to do? I think it is up to parents. We need to
:29:44. > :29:47.give nursery's choice about how they operate. We have to give
:29:47. > :29:52.parents a choice about the best decision for their children. What
:29:52. > :29:55.we need to make sure is that our early education system is not seen
:29:55. > :30:00.as an add-on, but part of a programme of education where
:30:00. > :30:06.children are really learning. At age two, they are learning
:30:06. > :30:11.vocabulary, had to count. And that build up into school education. I
:30:11. > :30:15.went to a fantastic University yesterday at the Durham Academy,
:30:15. > :30:20.where qualified teachers with quite large classes were teaching young
:30:20. > :30:30.children, engaging, having a fantastic time. That is what I want
:30:30. > :30:37.
:30:37. > :30:41.every child. What about You need a Grade C in English and
:30:41. > :30:46.maths, that is for childminders, too. What about people who have
:30:46. > :30:50.come from abroad, will they need an equivalent qualification? At the
:30:50. > :30:53.moment there are no regulations on nannies, but that are on
:30:53. > :30:57.childminders. We have seen a halving in the number of
:30:57. > :31:00.childminders because it is quite difficult to jump through the hoops,
:31:00. > :31:05.so we are enabling childminder agencies to develop so that
:31:05. > :31:07.childminders have a one-stop-shop they can go to. This has been very
:31:07. > :31:10.effective in France and Holland in increasing the number of
:31:10. > :31:14.childminders. Childminders are great for parents who want more
:31:14. > :31:19.flexibility, they might work were long or irregular hours. We will
:31:19. > :31:25.see an increase in the number of childminders as well as good-
:31:25. > :31:30.quality nursery places, which I think is good news for parents.
:31:30. > :31:35.Our guest of the daily, Iain Dale, wrote to a blog worrying he is
:31:35. > :31:40.losing interest in politics. He had a great list of reasons including
:31:40. > :31:44.cynical journalism's and the great bugbear of many, partitions not
:31:44. > :31:50.giving a straight answer to a straight question. -- politicians
:31:50. > :31:57.not giving a straight answer. want to know how much you propose
:31:57. > :32:03.to spend on the Routemaster buses? A figure? Nor more all more or less
:32:03. > :32:11.-- no more or less than the... despair. It is a real blow to you
:32:11. > :32:17.if the deficit rises again. You are not answering the question. I am.
:32:17. > :32:21.Let's move on. Do you accept... urged both sides to put aside the
:32:21. > :32:24.rhetoric, get around the negotiating table and stop it
:32:24. > :32:28.happening again. Get round the negotiating table,
:32:28. > :32:31.put aside the rhetoric and sort the problem out.
:32:31. > :32:36.Get round the negotiating table, put aside the rhetoric and stop
:32:36. > :32:40.this kind of thing happening again. It is about living standards.
:32:40. > :32:46.understand that, but you are not answering my question. Could I have
:32:46. > :32:53.the answer to my question? My point is this, there are fiscal choices
:32:53. > :32:58.that the Chancellor could make. he a resident in Britain for tax
:32:58. > :33:03.purposes? I have no reason to think he has not complied. That is not
:33:03. > :33:10.saying that he is. Have you asked him? I have no reason to think that
:33:10. > :33:13.he has not complied. Had you asked him? Have you asked indirectly?
:33:13. > :33:18.have discussed it with him and I have no reason to think he did not
:33:18. > :33:24.comply. Did you say, are you residents in Britain for tax
:33:24. > :33:28.purposes? Our guest of the day, Iain Dale,
:33:28. > :33:33.wrote recently about his despair at the state of political discourse.
:33:33. > :33:37.Is that the type of thing you were talking about? Partly. We have a
:33:37. > :33:40.culture in this country where political programme produces think
:33:40. > :33:47.that the general public has the attention span of a flea and can
:33:47. > :33:51.only cope with two or three minute interviews. Not on this programme!
:33:51. > :33:55.This is the exception! But when you do that, as an interviewer you
:33:55. > :34:00.can't get to the nub of the problem, which encourages interviews to be
:34:00. > :34:04.very aggressive. If you shout at somebody, which is what's
:34:04. > :34:08.interviewers like Jeremy Paxman, John Humphrys and others do, you
:34:08. > :34:13.will not get anything out of them. But they don't answer a lot of that
:34:13. > :34:17.time. It is not just the thought -- fault of the interviewers, it is
:34:17. > :34:22.the fault of the politicians. We used to have programmes on a Sunday
:34:22. > :34:26.lunchtime where you would have a politician being grilled by Brian
:34:26. > :34:33.Walden or Jonathan Dimbleby for a whole hour. So you are calling for
:34:33. > :34:37.more political programming? Yes, and the BBC made a ridiculous
:34:38. > :34:44.decision to axe Straight Talk with Andrew Neil, a very cheap programme
:34:44. > :34:49.to produce, a black studio, one guest, gripping viewing, because
:34:49. > :34:53.Andrew is an excellent interviewer, and they axed its. Why has this put
:34:53. > :34:57.you off politics? It is the culmination of things. I watched
:34:57. > :35:03.Question Time last Thursday, and for the first time I thought, you
:35:03. > :35:09.know, I think I am seeing how the general public sees politicians. I
:35:09. > :35:12.have been involved in politics the 25 years, I have loved it, when I
:35:12. > :35:16.wrote the blog people said I was bitter because I failed to become
:35:16. > :35:22.an MP, rubbish. Maybe you have just had too much and you have become
:35:22. > :35:26.cynical? I think things has -- things have changed. Prime
:35:26. > :35:30.Minister's Questions have not changed. I think the cynical way
:35:30. > :35:34.that the media deals with politics and politicians is corrosive. When
:35:34. > :35:38.you have a story like Boris Johnson and David Cameron in a pizza
:35:38. > :35:42.restaurant in Davos, that is considered a real scandal. If
:35:42. > :35:46.politicians think that everything they do will be commented on,
:35:46. > :35:53.something fairly normal like having an evening meal with a couple of
:35:53. > :35:56.people like -- that you know, why would anybody go into politics?
:35:57. > :36:01.are people covering it? Because people are interested. You
:36:01. > :36:06.mentioned the story about the pizza and the guys going out on a boys'
:36:06. > :36:12.night out, or something along those lines, isn't that also a case of
:36:12. > :36:17.the digital age that you so strongly support and tweets about?
:36:17. > :36:22.That is how it is? The internet plays a big party and his cynical
:36:22. > :36:26.view of politics and add to it. I'm not sure anything can be done. The
:36:26. > :36:30.internet is very democratising, people can get involved in politics,
:36:30. > :36:34.we see that on your programme. have to take the rough with the
:36:34. > :36:38.smooth. Yes, but you should feel free to comment on the fact that
:36:38. > :36:42.this will end up in a very bad place, because in 10 years' time we
:36:42. > :36:46.will have even more... All the leaders of the political parties
:36:46. > :36:50.have the same background, they have been in politics all their lives,
:36:50. > :36:54.that will continue. We will have a very elite group of politicians far
:36:54. > :36:59.removed from the general public. The current politicians say, yes,
:36:59. > :37:04.we have surgeries and get letters, we are in touch, but nobody out
:37:04. > :37:08.there believes that. I am not sure I can cheer you up. I will drive.
:37:08. > :37:14.Moving on to football, the national game. The football Association, the
:37:14. > :37:18.governing body running football in England, marks its 150th
:37:18. > :37:21.anniversary this year. They're all sorts of celebrations, including a
:37:21. > :37:25.game against five times world champions Brazil at Wembley next
:37:25. > :37:29.week. But English football has received a kicking this morning
:37:29. > :37:35.from MPs on the Culture, Media and Sports Committee. They have warned
:37:35. > :37:38.that the sports needs to reform within 12 months or face possible
:37:38. > :37:43.legislation. The BBC Sports Editor David Bond joins me. Welcome. What
:37:43. > :37:50.did you make of the report? It was not much good news for football,
:37:50. > :37:55.nothing to smile about at the FA. It was a pretty withering attack on
:37:55. > :38:00.the way that the game is run. In a nutshell, it was saying that the FA
:38:00. > :38:05.needed to show much more leadership. It highlighted a few areas where it
:38:05. > :38:08.was particularly concerned, this conflict of interest which keeps
:38:08. > :38:12.coming up between the professional game, the Premier League, the
:38:12. > :38:15.Football League and the grass roots, saying it is weighed too much in
:38:15. > :38:20.favour of the Premier League clubs, who have all the money from the
:38:20. > :38:26.television deals with Sky and elsewhere. Effectively that many
:38:26. > :38:29.needs to be redistributed for the good of the game through to the low
:38:30. > :38:34.levels and a much more efficient way. It talked about supporter
:38:34. > :38:39.representation needing to be much better, fans not having enough say.
:38:39. > :38:43.It talked about the lack of transparency and the ownership of
:38:43. > :38:47.the country's big clubs and so on. Lots of these things have been
:38:47. > :38:50.around for a long time and we have heard lots of talk about the FA and
:38:50. > :38:56.Football needing to reform, and it is not a sport which has been too
:38:56. > :39:01.keen to do that. What grounds do you think MPs feel they have for
:39:01. > :39:05.having a say in how football is run? MPs know it is a big vote-
:39:05. > :39:10.winner to talk about football, there is clearly political interest
:39:10. > :39:14.in seeming to side with the people in the stance. Effectively the
:39:14. > :39:17.select committee does not have any power, it is saying that within 12
:39:17. > :39:22.months it would call on the Government to introduce legislation.
:39:22. > :39:28.As you know, it has no power to do that. The Government is reluctant
:39:28. > :39:32.to introduce legislation. It is an empty threat? Yes, really. They
:39:32. > :39:35.have no power to do it. This Government has no interest in
:39:35. > :39:40.trying to regulate any industry, let alone a sports industry where
:39:40. > :39:43.they think the FA needs to take a stronger lead. In a statement they
:39:43. > :39:48.have said that they will look at introducing regulation, but from
:39:48. > :39:54.people I have spoken to there is no stomach. If you go back even
:39:54. > :39:58.further up to 10 or 15 years, David Mellor's Football Task Force, there
:39:58. > :40:02.was need for a statutory regulator, it has never happened. The
:40:02. > :40:07.Government is not interested in doing this. There is a will and
:40:07. > :40:11.determination from politicians to get that all to change its culture.
:40:11. > :40:15.Football has made some steps in the right direction, independent
:40:15. > :40:20.directors on the FA Board, for example, but it still has a lot to
:40:20. > :40:25.do. Thank you. David Davies is the former executive director of the
:40:25. > :40:30.Football Association, how do you rate the chances of MPs getting
:40:30. > :40:34.football to change dramatically? am a sceptic, I regret to say, or
:40:34. > :40:39.at least in his generation. The reality is that in this generation
:40:39. > :40:45.the leadership of football, which is dysfunctional because of the
:40:45. > :40:49.structure that some mothers inherited's some of us inherited,
:40:49. > :40:53.we have failed to come together and agreed one list of priorities for
:40:53. > :40:57.the whole game -- because of the structure which some of us
:40:57. > :41:01.inherited, we have failed to come together and agree one list of
:41:01. > :41:06.priorities for the whole game. It has proved virtually impossible.
:41:06. > :41:11.Yes, there have been small reforms, and some huge successes. The one
:41:11. > :41:16.thing David did not mention is that some 25 years ago the professional
:41:16. > :41:20.game most certainly was committing suicide. We have had Hillsborough,
:41:20. > :41:25.the Heysel Stadium disaster, attendances were going down the
:41:25. > :41:30.chute. Something radical had to be done. That included the Premier
:41:30. > :41:34.League, which has been a huge success commercially, but has it
:41:34. > :41:38.been in terms of governance? Another issue. You don't believe
:41:38. > :41:46.there will be wholesale change until this current generation is
:41:46. > :41:51.swept away and a new groom has brought in? Rightly or wrongly
:41:51. > :41:55.there will be a new leader of the Football Association. The chairman
:41:56. > :42:01.is 70. However good he has been, and in many eyes he has been very
:42:01. > :42:06.good, and people and the media think he has been good, there will
:42:06. > :42:12.be a new chairman of the Premier League. The change is coming but
:42:12. > :42:19.not fast enough. I do not disagree with that finding of the select
:42:19. > :42:29.committee. They have given football as dead mother given Football 12
:42:29. > :42:37.months. Do you see it as an empty threat? -- they have given Football
:42:37. > :42:40.12 months. David Bond talked about David Mellor's task force. I go
:42:40. > :42:45.back to the time when I discussed with Alastair Campbell this very
:42:45. > :42:51.idea, should there be a regulator for football? This would have been
:42:51. > :42:55.the late 1990s. He put it very clearly, why on earth with any
:42:55. > :43:01.governments, a Labour or Conservative government, he did not
:43:02. > :43:09.mention a coalition government, he hadn't seen it coming, one of
:43:09. > :43:13.football's problems as well as its own! It is not an idle threat?
:43:13. > :43:18.believe you is genuine and that, I believe he is fed up with this
:43:18. > :43:24.problem, the issue and the governments of football. But does
:43:24. > :43:28.the Government at the top believe it? Football is a private business,
:43:28. > :43:33.should the government interfere? it should stay well clear of
:43:33. > :43:38.regulating any sport. Remember when Mrs Thatcher brought in legislation
:43:38. > :43:41.by identity cards? It was a disaster, because not many people
:43:41. > :43:49.and that governments understood football, and I am not sure that
:43:49. > :43:52.many in this Government to event. If there was not enough money going
:43:52. > :43:57.into grass roots from the Premier League, there should be a levy on
:43:57. > :44:01.transfers of over �5 million or something. They are financial
:44:01. > :44:06.issues across the game. Do you accept the Premier League has far
:44:06. > :44:11.too much influence? The way it has emerged, unquestionably there needs
:44:11. > :44:18.to be a rebalancing. The big question arising from this report
:44:18. > :44:23.is the FA should be, is written down as, the governing body of that
:44:23. > :44:26.Paul. But is it able to be the governing body with this
:44:26. > :44:31.extraordinary representation it has? Two-thirds of the council are
:44:31. > :44:35.over 64, there is one female for -- of the Mel board director. Until it
:44:35. > :44:41.is a more representative group running again, it will remain like
:44:41. > :44:50.that. It is too complicated, there is too much for them to represent?
:44:50. > :44:56.I am a big fan of many of Iain's view as... Really?! But I have to
:44:56. > :45:02.say that before you dismiss everybody obeys certain age...
:45:02. > :45:06.not dismissing them all. -- before you dismiss everybody over a
:45:06. > :45:10.certain age... Some of these so- called amateurs are more
:45:11. > :45:20.professional than the professionals? They have been on a
:45:21. > :45:28.
:45:28. > :45:32.The short list for the Paddy Power and total politics Book Awards have
:45:33. > :45:42.been drawn up, with the winners to announce next month. We asked some
:45:43. > :45:45.
:45:45. > :45:50.of the judges what they like and The thoughts and deeds of the great,
:45:50. > :45:54.for better or worse, or political life is here for your browsing
:45:54. > :45:59.delectation. There are more than a thousand books on politics here.
:45:59. > :46:03.This one is a personal favourite of mine. Others are frankly not so
:46:03. > :46:06.good. But what makes a great political book, and what should be
:46:06. > :46:14.remaindered? If these are some of the contenders
:46:14. > :46:19.for the title of political book of the year. I want it to be well
:46:19. > :46:23.written, compelling. If it is funny, that is also handy. But I want
:46:23. > :46:28.there to be some thought behind it, not taking perceived wisdom from
:46:28. > :46:32.the past but really try to make original connections about how we
:46:32. > :46:36.organise ourselves as people. breaking news, this is what goes
:46:37. > :46:41.straight into the bargain bucket. The bog-standard memoir which
:46:41. > :46:46.starts with your parents and goes through university friends and the
:46:46. > :46:51.various postings which you had is probably going to be a clunker.
:46:51. > :46:55.Even if you have been prime Minister, we tend to look at those
:46:55. > :47:00.books more active duty than anything else. If only someone
:47:00. > :47:04.could give us an example for the -- of the type of thing he is on about.
:47:04. > :47:09.The challenge always is that those who get to the top of politics are
:47:09. > :47:14.not always the most successful writers. Michael Heseltine, a
:47:14. > :47:18.fascinating man, but absolutely terrible writer, and his
:47:18. > :47:24.autobiography was a very dull book. So those with the most interesting
:47:24. > :47:28.things to tell are not always those who were the most suited to tell it.
:47:28. > :47:36.So historically, what is hot? favourite book is the essays of
:47:36. > :47:42.George Orwell. And a lot of the work of American revolutionaries,
:47:42. > :47:49.Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson. They have a lot
:47:49. > :47:54.to say about politics that is still relevant. And what's not? Somebody
:47:54. > :47:59.writing about what it was like to be in power. I think somebody like
:47:59. > :48:06.Bill Clinton did a better man while than, say, Tony Blair. I felt there
:48:06. > :48:11.was a humbleness to it that he didn't get from Blair.
:48:11. > :48:19.Thatcher's Hmam ones are pretty disappointing. Oddly enough, I
:48:19. > :48:27.think Laura Bush's memoirs are more interesting -- Mrs Thatcher's
:48:27. > :48:37.memoirs. Which perhaps shows it is better to be feared than to write.
:48:37. > :48:38.
:48:38. > :48:42.And with us now is Keith Simpson, Conservative MP for Mid Norfolk, a
:48:42. > :48:47.well-known political bookworm. He always puts together a great summer
:48:47. > :48:51.reading list of his great -- favourite titles each year. He has
:48:51. > :48:56.also one of the judges of the Book Awards. What makes them good
:48:56. > :49:02.political read? First of all, that it is readable. There are a lot of
:49:02. > :49:04.political books that are worthy, but not readable. Secondly, is the
:49:04. > :49:09.author saying something new and something interesting and
:49:09. > :49:16.challenging? I like to think that, even if it is one that is a
:49:16. > :49:21.historical book, it has some form of contemporaneous relevance. So do
:49:21. > :49:28.you feel it has to reveal something new? Something that we didn't know,
:49:28. > :49:32.in order for it to grab the interest up not just us? Ideally,
:49:32. > :49:38.and I speak as a voracious book read and publisher. As a publisher,
:49:38. > :49:42.I always want a book I take on the have something new to say. It
:49:42. > :49:52.doesn't necessarily have to... I spent most of my life reading
:49:52. > :49:56.political diaries. They are contemporaneous, so they cannot
:49:56. > :50:02.necessarily reveal anything new. They often reveal a lot about the
:50:02. > :50:06.person was thinking and their emotions at the time, but not
:50:06. > :50:12.necessarily... Alastair Campbell's diaries didn't reveal anything we
:50:12. > :50:20.didn't know about the Iraq war, but it was gripping. The trouble with
:50:20. > :50:24.Alistair Darling -- Alastair Campbell's diaries, they have been
:50:24. > :50:31.in different versions as he has been able to add more. So you're
:50:31. > :50:36.never sure with diaries, they are all edited. 2 million words, they
:50:37. > :50:42.think he has there. A Book of diaries is maybe 150,000,
:50:42. > :50:47.so it relies on the skill of the editor. Some of them work well
:50:47. > :50:52.because of the editing rather than necessarily the writing. Some of
:50:52. > :50:58.them make money, because I presume books by a people everyone knows
:50:58. > :51:04.will sell. But what about the others? The short list for the Book
:51:04. > :51:13.Awards, there are loads and loads. Look at Jack Straw's book. We will
:51:13. > :51:18.offer that to publish, and I turned it down I regard him as slightly on
:51:18. > :51:22.the dull side, but it is not a dull book. It is excellent. I gave it
:51:22. > :51:30.great praise, I thought it was good. Jack came through. He ducked and
:51:30. > :51:36.weaved and a bit about some of the political decisions. If you are a
:51:36. > :51:40.big name, or you have shock revelations, if you tie it up with
:51:40. > :51:44.a serialisation in something like the Daily Mail, you might get an
:51:44. > :51:50.advance of �5,000, and then the Daily Mail or the Mirror or whoever
:51:50. > :51:53.might give you 25,000. Unless you were a big name politician, the
:51:53. > :51:58.only way to make money is to get a newspaper serialisation, otherwise
:51:58. > :52:04.you get a few thousand copies sold. But there are other main -- reasons
:52:04. > :52:12.for writing such a book. Is there a sense that people have to do these
:52:12. > :52:22.things for the Careers? A little. I have published one or two books by
:52:22. > :52:22.
:52:22. > :52:27.journalists, one on George Osborne, and part of the reason that the
:52:27. > :52:35.author is getting there is because he has written a book which has had
:52:35. > :52:41.good reviews. The old Bernard Montgomery thing, what makes him
:52:41. > :52:44.tick, or what makes her tick? Some of the best books and diaries are
:52:45. > :52:51.not have written by the people at the top. Alan Clark and Chris
:52:51. > :52:59.Mullin, middle-ranking Ministers, who saw the absurdities of life as
:52:59. > :53:06.well. And completely different characters. Alan was very much the
:53:06. > :53:14.louche, risque stuff. Chris was self-deprecating, and a man with
:53:14. > :53:19.some very serious political ideas. When the winner is announced, do
:53:19. > :53:27.you think they are a good idea? do, very much. He is chief judge,
:53:27. > :53:31.what is he going to say? You think they are well worth it? I have not
:53:31. > :53:36.received any financial reward for doing this. He doesn't have to
:53:36. > :53:41.declare it. Her you are a cynic SMAC we will have them back here on
:53:41. > :53:44.5th February. Within the last hour, Downing
:53:44. > :53:48.Street has announced that Britain is to send several hundred troops
:53:48. > :53:52.to North Africa as part of an EU- wide mission. They are not likely
:53:52. > :53:57.to get involved with the fighting in Mali, that is being left to the
:53:57. > :53:59.French. There are reports in this morning's papers that we could be
:53:59. > :54:03.sending a few hundred to the surrounding countries to help with
:54:03. > :54:05.some of the training and logistics. Within the last few minutes in the
:54:05. > :54:11.House of Commons, there has been an urgent question on the likelihood
:54:11. > :54:14.of a British deployment. The UK is also prepared to offer up to 200
:54:14. > :54:24.personnel to provide training to troops from Anglophone West
:54:24. > :54:25.
:54:25. > :54:29.Anglican countries -- West African countries contributing. To
:54:29. > :54:33.establish those requirements, we have deployed a small number of
:54:33. > :54:36.advisers to Anglophone West African countries who are likely to
:54:36. > :54:43.contribute to the mission to assess their needs and to gain situation
:54:43. > :54:48.or awareness. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond there. Let's just
:54:48. > :54:52.clear up the first thing. David Cameron, I understood, a few days
:54:52. > :54:57.ago said, we would not be sending combat troops to Mali, and yet we
:54:57. > :55:01.are sending troops to the region. The difference here is, when he
:55:01. > :55:08.said combat troops, he meant formed units who were going to participate
:55:08. > :55:12.with the French in physically fighting the opponents of the
:55:12. > :55:16.Malian government. What he's talking about is sending troops, a
:55:16. > :55:21.mixture of combat and support troops, as part of an EU military
:55:21. > :55:24.training mission, and he was quite open about that. The big questions
:55:24. > :55:28.are, should we do it? Some colleagues raised that. And
:55:28. > :55:38.secondly, the size of it and whether we are going to have our
:55:38. > :55:39.
:55:39. > :55:42.fingers drawn into some form of it. Mission creep. I am not sure about
:55:42. > :55:47.how this mission is constituted. I would like to see the figures on it.
:55:47. > :55:51.Are we providing 80% of the troops? I would be wholly against sending
:55:51. > :55:56.combat troops in. We have all sorts of defence cuts going on. The
:55:56. > :56:01.military are already stretched. I'm sure they can spare some advisers,
:56:01. > :56:04.but I wonder what they are doing. Remember when the Soviet Union
:56:04. > :56:10.provided advises in Afghanistan, and that worked out well, didn't
:56:10. > :56:15.it?! Who will protect the advisers? I don't know exactly where they
:56:15. > :56:19.will be deployed. The majority will be deployed to those nations who
:56:19. > :56:22.are going to be contributing to what is effectively a support
:56:22. > :56:26.military unit from the surrounding African countries for the Malian
:56:26. > :56:32.government. That has been constituted under a United Nations
:56:32. > :56:35.resolution. Doesn't that make them targets? I don't think it does. I
:56:35. > :56:42.can understand the concern, but from what I understand, talking
:56:42. > :56:48.with both Ministers and the military, this is pretty low down
:56:48. > :56:51.on the party listing. The example we used here is the fact that David
:56:51. > :56:55.Cameron became convinced that, for example, our decision to intervene
:56:55. > :57:03.in Libya was the right one, and was pretty much at a lower level,
:57:03. > :57:08.actually. The military do for such -- forces destroyed -- the military
:57:08. > :57:14.forces deployed were at a safe distance. And we helped to return
:57:14. > :57:24.Somalia to a country that hopefully will be stable. Are you not worried
:57:24. > :57:24.
:57:24. > :57:28.that David Cameron talked about the existence of Islamist militants in
:57:28. > :57:33.this region, and what might happen if they were not contained? I think
:57:33. > :57:39.the French should be capable of doing this themselves. Do we not
:57:39. > :57:42.have an interest? We have a number of interests. We are supporting the
:57:42. > :57:49.French just as they have supported us, and we have been doing it at a
:57:49. > :57:54.low level throw out this part of Africa for several years. Also we
:57:54. > :57:59.have an interest in terms of making sure that Al-Qaeda is stopped.
:57:59. > :58:03.Thirdly, there is a UK national interest in making certain that the
:58:03. > :58:07.whole of West Africa is and destabilised. There are big
:58:07. > :58:12.countries like Ghana and Nigeria that are absolutely crucial to the
:58:12. > :58:17.UK, both in a political and economic sense. Thank you very much,
:58:17. > :58:20.Keith Simpson, for staying with us. And there is just time to find out
:58:20. > :58:23.the answer to our quiz. The question was, which of these things
:58:23. > :58:30.has not been handed in to the Houses of Parliament lost property
:58:30. > :58:40.office? Two jars of Mahmood, a rucksack of bananas, a plastic bag
:58:40. > :58:41.
:58:41. > :58:46.of peppers, a brace of pheasants? Peppers. You are wrong. Peppers
:58:46. > :58:49.have been handed in, but pheasants have not. I thought it would be