:00:43. > :00:46.Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. David Cameron warns
:00:46. > :00:51.Syria that use of chemical weapons is a red line that could lead to
:00:51. > :00:54.intervention but he does not want to see British troops on the ground.
:00:54. > :00:59.The PM is in a pickle over press regulation, after the newspaper
:00:59. > :01:06.industry tables a rival Royal Charter plan for self-regulation.
:01:06. > :01:09.We'll look at the details and ask what happens next. Should the
:01:09. > :01:12.Government back a ban on a widely- used pesticide, which campaigners
:01:12. > :01:21.say could be killing off our bees? As protesters swarm around
:01:21. > :01:26.Westminster, the Green Party and And, is this tanned man the richest
:01:26. > :01:36.politician in the land? We've got the lowdown on the Times' latest
:01:36. > :01:39.
:01:39. > :01:42.All that in the next hour. And with us for the whole programme today is
:01:42. > :01:44.Iain Martin, political commentator at the Telegraph, and the
:01:44. > :01:47.broadcaster, Anne Diamond. Welcome to you both. Let's start with the
:01:47. > :01:49.latest developments in Syria. Yesterday, the US administration
:01:49. > :01:55.said its intelligence agencies believed with varying degrees of
:01:55. > :01:58.confidence that Syria had used the nerve agent, sarin. This morning,
:01:58. > :02:08.both David Cameron and Ed Miliband reacted to this news that the
:02:08. > :02:08.
:02:08. > :02:13.Syrian regime could be using chemical weapons. This is extremely
:02:13. > :02:17.serious. But President Obama said it is right. They should form, for
:02:17. > :02:21.the international community, a red line for us to do more. I have
:02:22. > :02:24.always been keen to do that. We want our allies and partners to do
:02:24. > :02:29.more with us and shaped the opposition to make sure we are
:02:29. > :02:33.supporting people with good motives, who want a good outcome to put
:02:33. > :02:37.pressure on a regime so we can bring it to an end.
:02:37. > :02:42.international community needs to investigate. We need to find out
:02:42. > :02:46.what is going on in Syria. The most important thing for the
:02:47. > :02:52.international community, which so far it has failed to do, the show
:02:52. > :02:54.unity. We have Russia on one side and other countries on another. The
:02:54. > :02:59.needs some unity in the international community and see
:02:59. > :03:05.what action is possible in Syria. We can talk now to our world
:03:05. > :03:10.affairs correspondent, who joins us from Beirut, which borders Syria.
:03:10. > :03:16.Is there a feeling in the region that Syria has been using chemical
:03:16. > :03:21.weapons? It depends which country you speak to. The Israelis came to
:03:21. > :03:26.that few earlier this week. They said they had not just analysed the
:03:26. > :03:31.video but other evidence let them to believe that, on several
:03:31. > :03:38.occasions, the Assad regime had used chemical weapons. They had
:03:38. > :03:44.detailed sarin gas as a weapon which might have been used. They
:03:44. > :03:49.raise concern about the veracity of these reports. From Syria, the
:03:49. > :03:53.Assad regime has denied using any chemical weapons. It does not
:03:53. > :03:58.confirm it has stockpiles of chemical weapons. It says if there
:03:58. > :04:02.has been such an attack, it is at the hands of the opposition. A lot
:04:02. > :04:07.of speculation in the region. Could is the operative word. The
:04:07. > :04:11.Americans have been wrong before - famously 10 years ago in Iraq.
:04:11. > :04:15.Everyone wants to make sure the evidence is bang on correct before
:04:15. > :04:19.action is taken. Could it not be said that much more serious than
:04:19. > :04:24.the possible use of chemical weapons is the way events in Syria
:04:24. > :04:34.a destabilising the whole region? The Lebanon has suffered. Jordan
:04:34. > :04:36.
:04:36. > :04:41.has a major refugee crisis. You are right. 17,000 people have been
:04:41. > :04:45.killed and more than a million refugees have fled. In Lebanon, in
:04:45. > :04:50.particular, in the north of the country, the same sectarian
:04:50. > :04:54.divisions some battles that are going on in Syria are being
:04:54. > :04:59.replicated in Tripoli. Huge concern. The use of chemical weapons would
:04:59. > :05:03.add to that. If you look at the Israeli issue in particular, Israel
:05:03. > :05:07.is worried that these weapons will not be used against Israel in
:05:07. > :05:11.particular but those weapons and other conventional weapons will get
:05:11. > :05:21.out of Syria and end up in the hands of her and be used in the
:05:21. > :05:28.
:05:28. > :05:31.future against Israel. -- Hezbollah. Given what happened in Iraq,
:05:31. > :05:40.despite being assured by the mannequins and British intelligence
:05:40. > :05:46.that weapons of mass destruction mother, which you not want -- mass
:05:46. > :05:54.destruction were there, which you not want more than burying degrees
:05:54. > :05:58.of competence? We need to investigate. We will never get that.
:05:58. > :06:02.We are playing with so many uncertainties. We are still
:06:02. > :06:07.comfortable in our seats, watching Syria destroyed itself and watching
:06:07. > :06:15.the regime in the most appalling way destroy its own people. We
:06:15. > :06:19.cannot stand by on the sidelines any longer. To take one further
:06:19. > :06:24.step, it is all very well to say this is the red line and they have
:06:24. > :06:32.gone over it, we need to figure out what it is we are going to do.
:06:32. > :06:37.do we have to do something? It is immoral not to. Destabilising is
:06:37. > :06:46.very dangerous. We did not do anything, for example, in south
:06:46. > :06:51.Sudan. We did not do anything in Rwanda or in Chechnya. Why do we
:06:51. > :06:57.have to do something? What makes this case different and will mean
:06:57. > :07:04.there is action is the Israeli situation. The West is loosely
:07:04. > :07:10.backing the rebels. The West Trust the rebels. The last thing they
:07:10. > :07:13.want is those weapons, as latest reports from the region suggest
:07:13. > :07:22.they are, the last thing the Israelis want is those weapons
:07:22. > :07:27.falling into the hands of rebels and used against Israel. I can
:07:27. > :07:32.understand these weapons falling into the wrong hands. Nothing can
:07:32. > :07:36.really happened without the Americans. The only sound I hear
:07:36. > :07:42.from Washington is the Obama administration rolling back like
:07:42. > :07:50.mad after having said it would be a red line. This is a defining test
:07:50. > :07:56.for the Obama administration. He is running away from it rapidly.
:07:56. > :08:02.Tehran is watching best. If it is not a red line, they will carry on.
:08:02. > :08:08.It is also tricky for the Brits. William Hague and the FCO had been
:08:08. > :08:10.at the forefront. If the Americans do take some action - which I think
:08:10. > :08:16.their wealth - at that point, the Americans will be looking for more
:08:16. > :08:20.than just rhetorical support from the UK, they will be looking at
:08:20. > :08:26.military and intelligence backing, even if it is not beads on the
:08:26. > :08:36.ground. We can use one of power aircraft carriers that we do not
:08:36. > :08:36.
:08:36. > :08:43.have! -- groups on the ground. We will watch with interest. We did
:08:43. > :08:48.feel that chemical weapons would become of watershed in the whole
:08:48. > :08:55.conflict. -- at a watershed. Now it is time for our daily quiz. The
:08:55. > :09:05.question for today is: The Bank of England has said the new �5 note
:09:05. > :09:09.
:09:10. > :09:12.will feature a famous person. Who At the end of the show, our panel
:09:12. > :09:16.will give us the correct answer. Yesterday, newspapers launched
:09:16. > :09:19.their own, rival plan to regulate themselves - one in the eye for the
:09:19. > :09:22.government and for the opposition - who thought they had done a deal to
:09:22. > :09:25.tame the press. One newspaper said this morning that the few people
:09:25. > :09:30.who still understand the arguments about the post-Leveson royal
:09:30. > :09:38.charter are dead, mad or past caring. Well, folks, we might be
:09:38. > :09:42.mad but we're still here and we still care. Let's take a look at
:09:42. > :09:46.where we are. It was two years ago that phone hacking led to the
:09:46. > :09:48.closure of the News of the World and a year-long inquiry into the
:09:48. > :09:51.ethics, culture and practices of the press. Lord Justice Leveson
:09:51. > :09:54.came up with a 2,000-page report and recommended a new press
:09:54. > :09:59.regulator, which would be able to fine and direct newspapers to print
:09:59. > :10:02.apologies and corrections. In a deal done in the middle of the
:10:02. > :10:05.night in Ed Miliband's office, the three main parties and campaigners
:10:05. > :10:11.came up with proposals for a new regulator, which would be set up
:10:11. > :10:14.through a Royal Charter. But, yesterday, proprietors and editors
:10:14. > :10:18.launched their own rival charter. This would remove parliament's
:10:18. > :10:20.power to change the regulator, lift a ban on the involvement of former
:10:20. > :10:23.editors, make it more difficult to bring group complaints, and change
:10:23. > :10:33.the powers of the regulator to require apologies or corrections
:10:33. > :10:34.
:10:34. > :10:37.rather than direct them. Still with us? Joining us to make sense of all
:10:37. > :10:46.that is Sir Christopher Meyer, who chaired the now defunct Press
:10:46. > :10:49.Complaints Commission. Also Evan Harris. Still with us are Anne
:10:49. > :10:57.Diamond, who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry and the journalist,
:10:57. > :11:01.Iain Martin. Evan, you cannot be surprised by this. You did a
:11:01. > :11:07.stitch-up in the middle of the nights with the politicians. They
:11:07. > :11:12.were bound to do something different, went there? It is not a
:11:12. > :11:17.stitch up and it is not a setback. This is the press saying, we do not
:11:17. > :11:23.want to lose the power we have at the moment or have any form of
:11:23. > :11:29.effective regulation. Even the voluntary self-regulation that has
:11:29. > :11:36.been proposed. They accepted the leather some principles, didn't
:11:36. > :11:41.they? They have rejected ending the practice of apologies on page 94.
:11:41. > :11:50.They are following what he said. In the middle of the night, you beefed
:11:50. > :11:54.up the bid. He did not say direct. He did. In Recommendation 15 and 16.
:11:54. > :11:59.He said the independent self regulator must have the power when
:11:59. > :12:07.necessary to direct where apologies go. He repeated it in
:12:07. > :12:12.recommendation 16. He would direct if the newspapers did not behave
:12:12. > :12:17.fairly. That is one of about 12, by the way. A how would you have felt
:12:17. > :12:22.if a deal had been done at 3am involving the politicians and
:12:22. > :12:29.newspaper proprietors and had not involved Hacked Off? If I had been
:12:29. > :12:33.found guilty of unlawful and unethical misconduct, and then I
:12:33. > :12:38.had been consulted by the Conservative minister all the way
:12:38. > :12:44.along and tried to do a side deal and fell because the public, the
:12:44. > :12:54.victims and parliamentarians did not want it, and then I saw a deal
:12:54. > :12:54.
:12:54. > :13:01.had been done against me, I bid be enraged. You do not think there is
:13:01. > :13:06.nothing there about how they behaved? No. They were represented
:13:06. > :13:12.by Oliver Letwin, who was there. Oliver Letwin was representing the
:13:12. > :13:18.newspapers! No single newspaper thinks Oliver Letwin represents
:13:18. > :13:23.them in anything. You ask a very fair question about why the victims
:13:23. > :13:27.were represented in that room. David Cameron at the Leveson
:13:27. > :13:31.Inquiry, in June, under oath, said that the test of whether this will
:13:32. > :13:36.work is whether it satisfied the victims - the people who have been
:13:36. > :13:43.thrown to the Bulls. You have a journalist he was in that category.
:13:43. > :13:49.-- the walls. They will not allow anything to be settled unless the
:13:49. > :13:56.victims say whether it will work for them. We had to compromise. We
:13:56. > :14:00.did not want a Royal Charter. We did compromise. At least you were
:14:00. > :14:05.there. Parliament has voted overwhelmingly for a particular
:14:05. > :14:09.type of regulation. Why would the newspapers think they are above the
:14:09. > :14:13.law and not go along with that? am not speaking for the newspapers
:14:13. > :14:19.but I do not think that they think they are above the law. What
:14:19. > :14:22.concerns them is that Levison laid out the principles of voluntary
:14:22. > :14:27.independent self- regulation and as it was emerging from the deal
:14:28. > :14:33.cooked up in the small hours of 18th March, it was not voluntary,
:14:33. > :14:36.independent and it was not self- regulation. Another point which I
:14:36. > :14:42.hate to offend the majesty of Parliament but the most toxic
:14:42. > :14:48.people who can possibly envisage as to how the press can be regulated
:14:48. > :14:53.our politicians. They have an incestuous claustrophobic
:14:53. > :14:57.relationship with journalists and that makes them the least impartial
:14:57. > :15:04.judges. That is what the regulator must be independent. What the
:15:04. > :15:10.Leveson proposals and the cross- party charter did was stop them
:15:10. > :15:14.being on the recognition panel. It brings up active Conservative or
:15:14. > :15:18.Labour peers back into a recognition panel - which is
:15:18. > :15:21.supposed to be independent - and the self regulator. It must be
:15:21. > :15:28.independent of politicians and only the cross-party one is. It must
:15:28. > :15:30.also be independent of the industry. The royal charter says the Press
:15:30. > :15:40.Board of Finance will own the Royal Charter and will constitute the
:15:40. > :15:52.
:15:52. > :15:57.human stories of terrible abuse by the worst of the press. The enquiry
:15:57. > :16:02.was set up to try to address that. We are already so far away from the
:16:02. > :16:07.recommendations. Just so many months down the line and we are rebelling
:16:07. > :16:11.against politicians and with the press. It is divorced from what it
:16:11. > :16:18.was meant to be about, which is the human being is complaining about the
:16:19. > :16:23.way they had been abused. Where did it go wrong? David Cameron said he
:16:23. > :16:28.would institute Lord Leveson's recommendations unless they were
:16:28. > :16:32.bonkers. He agreed they were not bonkers. He started to backtrack all
:16:32. > :16:37.down the line. Nothing will ever happen. That only shows he is a
:16:37. > :16:40.novice when it comes to setting up enquiries. He is a politician and
:16:40. > :16:46.now the argument is back in the hands of the politicians and the
:16:46. > :16:52.press. They should not be setting up their own regulations. One thing I
:16:52. > :16:58.would say about the Leveson enquiry is that yes, there was a parade of
:16:58. > :17:04.people who had been abused by the press before the Press Complaints
:17:04. > :17:10.Commission even existed. That we were never allowed to bring before
:17:10. > :17:15.the enquiry the scores of people who had be helped and protected by the
:17:15. > :17:18.Press Complaints Commission. For every victim who appeared before a
:17:18. > :17:23.Leveson, I could produce somebody who had been helped. We were not
:17:23. > :17:29.allowed to do that. As for Leveson itself, it has got into the
:17:30. > :17:38.bloodstream through the brilliant campaign by the lobby group. The
:17:38. > :17:43.Lord Chief Justice himself, Leveson 's superior, said in a speech in
:17:43. > :17:47.October 2011, I recommended Leveson. One thing you need to know about him
:17:47. > :17:51.is that when he makes his recommendations, there is no
:17:51. > :18:01.obligation on anybody to implement anything that he says. The notion
:18:01. > :18:03.
:18:03. > :18:08.that literal implementation dot-macro Harold Wilson set up
:18:08. > :18:14.commissions to kick things into touch. I may be one of the only
:18:14. > :18:22.people around this table, except for you, ain't -- Andrew, who has read
:18:22. > :18:27.the entire royal charter. Where do we go from here, Ian? It seems that
:18:27. > :18:32.the government has called a party and that nobody has turned up. There
:18:32. > :18:37.is no law to force the newspapers to turn up. Absolutely. Newspapers
:18:37. > :18:41.cannot be compelled to do this. It is a perfectly fair and sensible
:18:41. > :18:50.compromise. What was announced yesterday the old with my major
:18:50. > :18:55.concern is a journalist, which is that it removes politicians and it
:18:56. > :19:02.removes Parliament from charter renewal. If what he wanted is
:19:02. > :19:04.implemented, if even for a second in two or three years a journalist
:19:04. > :19:14.wants to investigate major corruption and felt there and had
:19:14. > :19:20.been stayed, but the charter is coming up for renewal, at that point
:19:20. > :19:27.free press is dead. But it is not like the BBC charter, which does not
:19:27. > :19:33.hold back. But the provision says is that the self regulator never looks
:19:33. > :19:37.at content before it goes out. recognition panel is it self
:19:37. > :19:40.appointed independently to be independent of press and
:19:40. > :19:49.politicians. And you cannot change those rules without a two thirds
:19:49. > :19:56.vote. Cut through all of that, but Americans on the left and right
:19:56. > :20:03.would understand, is that press stands apart from the legislators
:20:03. > :20:09.procedure. Don't preach about the American system! Your left-wing
:20:09. > :20:14.American friends would be appalled at what you are trying to do. Every
:20:14. > :20:24.major liberal newspaper in America poses what you are trying to do.
:20:24. > :20:29.
:20:30. > :20:33.Absolutely not. What makes this country a disgrace and what taints
:20:33. > :20:41.excellent journalism is the parade of outrageous behaviour on an
:20:41. > :20:45.industrial scale by journalists acting on the orders of editors at
:20:45. > :20:50.dash-macro and executives. And even worse, the conspiracy to cover up
:20:50. > :21:00.and concealed from the police dot-macro if you took two people
:21:00. > :21:06.abroad, they are appalled by what this has done to good journalists.
:21:06. > :21:10.-- if you talk to people abroad. have overplayed your hand, haven't
:21:10. > :21:14.you? By doing this in the middle of the night, the newspapers are going
:21:14. > :21:21.to go their own way. There is nothing you can do to bring them to
:21:21. > :21:24.your party. You can search it as much as you like, but it was not
:21:24. > :21:32.done in the night. It was always recognised that the press would not
:21:32. > :21:39.go willingly into even involuntary system. Leveson set up some
:21:39. > :21:43.intensive is. Dash-macro incentives. What happens now is that the
:21:43. > :21:48.incentives will come into play. happens if the press don't take
:21:48. > :21:53.them? In a year, they will have to be reviewed. Parliament will think
:21:54. > :22:00.again. What David Cameron said was that Parliament may have to
:22:00. > :22:07.legislate. That is what he said. You agree with that? Parliament will
:22:07. > :22:13.have to look at it again. We cannot have them above the law. I support
:22:13. > :22:18.Leveson, which is not legislate to. I think the bottom line, we are
:22:18. > :22:23.getting a lot of posturing going on. The bottom line may be that we are
:22:23. > :22:28.going to have to come up with something the press will agree to.
:22:28. > :22:33.They have got to voluntarily buy into it. They want to be seen to be
:22:33. > :22:37.setting the agenda. They don't like being told what to do by politicians
:22:37. > :22:47.or anybody. We should all go away and let the dust settle and come
:22:47. > :22:47.
:22:48. > :22:52.back. That is what the Guardian is asking for. I put it to you, Iain
:22:52. > :22:59.Martin, that the status quo is not acceptable. If the newspapers are
:22:59. > :23:04.not going to go down this route, they have to do something that is
:23:04. > :23:08.seen to be a major difference from what went before. I agree. That is
:23:08. > :23:16.part of what was announced yesterday. There is no doubt that if
:23:16. > :23:24.this can provide can be agree, you get tougher regulation. We shall
:23:24. > :23:28.see. Thank you, I enjoyed that. There is a ten station to look at
:23:28. > :23:32.local election results and draw conclusions about the national
:23:33. > :23:38.fight. Local elections can often be about council tax, services, rather
:23:38. > :23:44.than the narrative of Westminster. Giles has been to Nottinghamshire, a
:23:44. > :23:48.political battleground. Eyes are going to be on what they are talking
:23:48. > :23:52.about on the doorstep. Here, carving out a win in this set
:23:52. > :23:56.of local elections is all about who controls this building.
:23:56. > :24:01.Nottinghamshire county council. It is basically all of the county
:24:02. > :24:06.except the city of Nottingham, which is a unitary authority. For Labour,
:24:06. > :24:12.this area should be child's play. They have traditionally been in
:24:12. > :24:16.control. But in 2009, with MPs expenses and frustration at Gordon
:24:16. > :24:23.Brown, the Tories took it from them. It seems to be how a general
:24:23. > :24:27.election would go. At what a result here might mean now people are less
:24:27. > :24:34.caring about. They don't care about how many
:24:34. > :24:37.points anybody is ahead. They care about the issues that are going to
:24:37. > :24:41.affect them and their families, their children, whether they are
:24:41. > :24:46.going to have a job, whether the cost of living is going to rise.
:24:46. > :24:53.They don't care about political programmes. It matters, the
:24:53. > :24:58.difference I can make if elected. The Lib Dems elsewhere suffered last
:24:58. > :25:02.year locally for national politics and a price for coalition. You might
:25:02. > :25:08.think they would be bracing for more of the same. Actually, they think
:25:08. > :25:11.that is less likely. In vast parts of Nottinghamshire, we have a record
:25:11. > :25:15.of action, not just recently but for years. When you translate that to
:25:15. > :25:21.your voting for your counsellor, people know who the bloke is who
:25:21. > :25:24.fixes the potholes. Secondly, we have a grassroots campaign across
:25:24. > :25:27.Nottinghamshire that can't be matched by any other party.
:25:27. > :25:33.Tories know that holding on here would be a victory for them locally
:25:33. > :25:37.and they blow to Labour nationally. They have had �132 million of
:25:37. > :25:42.backhaul is in the finances to handle. That has meant taking tricky
:25:42. > :25:45.decisions that are not always easy to sell on the doorstep. It is a
:25:45. > :25:52.large amounts to find over four years. We know that what we need to
:25:52. > :25:57.do. We know where savings need to be made. That is what we have already
:25:57. > :26:06.done. We have already found �170 million. From that, we have
:26:06. > :26:09.reinvested in services. That is what we need to do all over again.
:26:09. > :26:14.Apart from the votes going in these ballot boxes for the main parties,
:26:14. > :26:21.the added frisson here is the smaller parties, the Greens and the
:26:21. > :26:27.UK Independence party. They put forward 91 candidates this year. How
:26:27. > :26:31.much they draw from the party 's or vote will be interesting.
:26:31. > :26:38.Filling boxes means getting the vote out and talking to the electorate.
:26:38. > :26:45.Anybody who pounds the pavement must be ready to tackle anything. Last
:26:45. > :26:48.week, I canvassed a gentleman. He was in his house, naked excrement
:26:48. > :26:58.and Mark it was unexpected but he said he would vote Labour so I was
:26:58. > :26:59.
:26:59. > :27:04.fine with it. Dash-macro he was in his house, naked!
:27:04. > :27:14.I spoke to a lady who was very Merry. She thought she had voted for
:27:14. > :27:19.
:27:20. > :27:26.me. It was a lovely thing to see. Sometimes they are drunk and naked!
:27:26. > :27:33.Let me try to suggest a yardstick. When these elections were last held
:27:33. > :27:37.in 2009, Labour was at its absolute lowest. It was under Gordon Brown.
:27:37. > :27:42.They were getting trashed in the polls. They lost 300 sheep
:27:42. > :27:52.dash-macro seats. If they can't win back against this coalition
:27:52. > :27:53.
:27:53. > :28:01.government, it is not a good result. That is going to be a question for
:28:01. > :28:09.Ed Miliband. If Ed Miliband can win in 2015 in the South and the places
:28:09. > :28:12.he needs to win, he needs a good showing on Thursday. He needs about
:28:13. > :28:22.40% of the vote. If he falls short of that, questions will grow and
:28:23. > :28:27.
:28:27. > :28:30.develop about his availability If Labour stars to win 450 seats, Mr
:28:30. > :28:37.Cameron, whose reputation among Tory backbenchers is not high to begin
:28:37. > :28:40.with, that becomes a problem for the Prime Minister. Things have shifted
:28:40. > :28:49.in the parliamentary Tory party. The Tories are in better shape than they
:28:49. > :28:55.have been since last year. You think they are united? You think the
:28:55. > :28:59.chickens have found their heads? hard-core still want to remove David
:28:59. > :29:04.Cameron. The prospect of them persuading a large group of their
:29:04. > :29:10.colleagues to join them in that, I think, is disappearing. The key is,
:29:10. > :29:20.will this harmony, which is partly because of the Thatcher Festival of
:29:20. > :29:23.
:29:23. > :29:29.the past couple of weeks, which it survive contact with the electorate?
:29:29. > :29:39.I have always thought you can never have too many old attorneys in
:29:39. > :29:42.
:29:42. > :29:48.Parliament. performance, the government is not
:29:48. > :29:56.doing well. And yet, Mr Miller band and the Labour Party still seem to
:29:56. > :30:01.be struggling to have a real identity. There is nothing there
:30:02. > :30:06.that looks tasty to the voter. Two of my sons have been canvassing for
:30:06. > :30:16.work experience. They said that more and more people are coming to the
:30:16. > :30:25.
:30:25. > :30:30.front door, saying, UK Independence Is it not possible that the big
:30:30. > :30:36.story after the elections on Thursday will be UKIP? That is the
:30:36. > :30:44.marvellous thing about this set of elections. They have no idea how
:30:44. > :30:49.they will do. They are a political phenomenon. The Tories have no idea
:30:49. > :30:52.how they will do. It has taken time for a political phenomenon to come
:30:53. > :31:00.through the start they could do extraordinarily well because people
:31:00. > :31:06.anxious to do something with their boat. -- come through. Finally, is
:31:06. > :31:13.it fair to say that the better UKIP turns probably means the worst the
:31:13. > :31:18.Tories will do? Absolutely. If UKIP goes off the scale and do something
:31:18. > :31:27.extraordinary and unpredictable on Thursday, the losses Ford David
:31:27. > :31:37.Cameron start to get up to 500 current 600, at 700, Tory harmony
:31:37. > :31:37.
:31:37. > :31:42.will disappear. -- 500, 600, 700. We shall see. Sometimes the
:31:42. > :31:44.doorstep does not tell you everything but it is interesting to
:31:45. > :31:47.know. Even more than usual, there is a real buzz around European
:31:47. > :31:50.politics this week. On Monday, the European Council of Ministers will
:31:51. > :31:54.vote on whether to ban a pesticide thought to be responsible for a
:31:54. > :31:56.large decline in bee numbers. But there is a sting in the tail - the
:31:57. > :32:01.British government thinks the science and evidence doesn't yet
:32:01. > :32:03.prove the pesticide is to blame. This morning, protesters have
:32:03. > :32:12.marched on Westminster to demand the Government change its mind but
:32:12. > :32:19.that seems unlikely. Here's the Environment Minister, David Heath,
:32:19. > :32:25.being asked about campaigners' concerns. I actually share many of
:32:25. > :32:31.their concerns. I was one of the first MPs in the House of Commons
:32:31. > :32:35.to be talking about bee health. We have to base everything on the
:32:35. > :32:41.scientific research available. That is far from conclusive. We need to
:32:41. > :32:46.get this right. During the wrong thing may actually involve worse
:32:46. > :32:51.effects on the bee and pollen 80 population than acting in a knee-
:32:51. > :32:57.jerk way. And we are joined now by Green MEP Jean Lambert and Dr Chris
:32:57. > :33:02.Hartfield from the National Farmers' Union. What do you say in
:33:02. > :33:07.response to the minister that you are spearheading a knee-jerk
:33:07. > :33:12.response? I do not think we are spearheading a knee-jerk response.
:33:12. > :33:17.We are looking at issues around precautionary principle, which is
:33:17. > :33:20.in the legislation. So does the audit committee of his own
:33:20. > :33:30.parliament think there is sufficient evidence to take action.
:33:30. > :33:36.Her what you say to that? Farmers fully understand how important bees
:33:36. > :33:41.are. -- what do you say? The pollination service is valued at
:33:41. > :33:46.around �510 million a year. It would be crazy to undertake any
:33:46. > :33:51.practices that would damage that bee population. The precautionary
:33:51. > :33:56.principle is there. You do not need absolute evidence in order to take
:33:56. > :34:00.action. What it also says is, if you take action, it needs to be
:34:00. > :34:07.proportionate and cost-effective. If we look at the evidence - what
:34:07. > :34:15.it tells us - if we look at the harmful impact of bees in the field,
:34:15. > :34:19.we have not been able to seek those impacts. I think there is some
:34:19. > :34:25.argument about the quality of recent research a lot of this is
:34:25. > :34:29.based on. Another problem is that some of the big pesticide companies
:34:29. > :34:34.have not been publishing their research. You are hearing an
:34:35. > :34:41.argument on research which is not in the public domain. What research
:34:41. > :34:43.do you base your position? On the position which is coming from the
:34:43. > :34:48.European Food Standards Agency. They have looked again at the
:34:48. > :34:56.evidence - at some of the more up- to-date research - and this was
:34:56. > :35:06.their conclusion. Is your decision research based? You want to say
:35:06. > :35:16.they use neonicotinoid insecticides band? -- peas. You want to see it
:35:16. > :35:17.
:35:17. > :35:22.all pesticides banned. Yours is not evidence based opposition, it is
:35:22. > :35:27.ideological based opposition. You would like to see them all band, or
:35:27. > :35:35.whether they are harmful or not. We're looking at the evidence -
:35:35. > :35:40.whether it is gradual build-up and potential impacts - all round. On
:35:40. > :35:45.this particular issue, the European Food Standards Agency has put
:35:45. > :35:50.forward a recommendation, which the petition is working on. That is the
:35:50. > :35:56.science they are using. Even you say the consequences of getting
:35:56. > :36:01.this wrong could be huge, given all the crops that depend on it.
:36:01. > :36:09.Shouldn't there be a moratorium on using these pesticides? There
:36:09. > :36:19.appears to be muddled results which need to be clarified. The ban on a
:36:19. > :36:24.neonicotinoid insecticides, there is no evidence to show they are
:36:24. > :36:30.harmful to the bee population. If we cannot do that, when we banned
:36:30. > :36:37.neonicotinoid insecticides, we cannot show if there are benefits.
:36:37. > :36:44.We are talking about actions which may show no measurable results for
:36:44. > :36:50.bee health. There are also results coming through from Italy, Germany,
:36:50. > :36:54.where certain of these have been banned in particular processes. You
:36:54. > :37:00.are seeing improvements in bee health. The would not necessarily
:37:00. > :37:10.say it is a direct consequence. -- you would not. Why don't we have a
:37:10. > :37:16.moratorium on debt and use insecticides which are not
:37:16. > :37:21.neonicotinoid insecticides. They know the fact of the matter is we
:37:21. > :37:26.would not be able to demonstrate any measure will benefit as a
:37:26. > :37:34.result of banning neonicotinoid insecticides. Why not give it a
:37:34. > :37:38.try? It is incredibly important. assumes the neonicotinoid
:37:38. > :37:45.insecticides are used for no good reason. They are used because they
:37:45. > :37:50.are the most effective products. there something else you could use?
:37:50. > :37:57.The reality is, these are the most effective things. Is there
:37:57. > :38:03.something else? They would be less effective. You would move on to the
:38:03. > :38:09.next Les best thing. Potentially unforeseen consequences to the
:38:09. > :38:16.environment. If you get it wrong, it is a catastrophe. We are not on
:38:16. > :38:26.a precipice at the moment. The need to be led by science and evidence.
:38:26. > :38:26.
:38:27. > :38:36.-- we need. There is a hole challenge facing bees. This is one
:38:36. > :38:41.of the issues. I am very pro bee. What I find extraordinary about
:38:41. > :38:46.this is that we all accept this is potentially very dangerous. This
:38:46. > :38:53.seems to get about 5% of the coverage of global warming, which
:38:53. > :39:03.might or might not be happening. Potentially more catastrophic.
:39:03. > :39:10.
:39:10. > :39:16.get both on the Daily Politics! We thank you for being here. Once
:39:17. > :39:23.again Parliament is in recess. They are soon off for another 10 days.
:39:23. > :39:28.Then there was the three-week Easter recess. That seems like it
:39:28. > :39:32.was only two weeks ago. And it was two weeks ago. Our MPs in this
:39:32. > :39:41.Parliament spending less time on the green benches than in previous
:39:41. > :39:44.years? Back in 1997, when Tony Blair first took office, there were
:39:44. > :39:48.163 sitting days from May to April. And, over the intervening years,
:39:48. > :39:51.that has stayed roughly the same - all the way through to the last 12
:39:51. > :39:54.months, when parliament sat for 146 days. And, what about PMQs? Some
:39:54. > :39:57.have been saying that David Cameron has tried to avoid them. But
:39:57. > :40:01.according to our research, there were 30 PMQs in 1997, rising to 35
:40:01. > :40:04.in 2004/5, and, in the last year, there were 31. And, it turns out
:40:04. > :40:08.that of the PMQs that were actually held, David Cameron has only missed
:40:08. > :40:18.3.2% - that is compared to 5% for Tony Blair and 11.8% for Gordon
:40:18. > :40:19.
:40:19. > :40:25.Brown. So, Iain and Anne, what do you make of that? It flies in the
:40:25. > :40:35.face of what you think will start it seems light there has not been
:40:35. > :40:39.
:40:39. > :40:46.one for ages. -- it takes a lot out of them and some of them are not up
:40:46. > :40:52.to it. We all enjoy a PMQs. I love it. We like to see our prime
:40:52. > :40:56.ministers and others accountable. If there were 30 in 1997, I am
:40:56. > :41:05.assuming there were at least 60 in the previous year. They used to be
:41:05. > :41:11.twice a week. Tony Blair slimmed it back to one. Tony Blair did not
:41:11. > :41:16.want to days of the week having to be dominated by prep. He would get
:41:16. > :41:21.it all into one. Are you surprised by the figures? You get the sense
:41:21. > :41:27.that Parliament is sitting and doing less than it did. I am not
:41:27. > :41:32.surprised by the figures. I happen to think it is not necessarily
:41:32. > :41:37.particularly a bad thing. You mean, they cause more trouble when they
:41:37. > :41:42.are here! They are an obsession of a modern government. The coalition
:41:42. > :41:46.has started to move away from it. Under New Labour, the Government
:41:46. > :41:50.did not feel comfortable unless it had built after Bill and was
:41:50. > :41:57.legislating on everything underneath a son. -- bill after
:41:57. > :42:04.Bill and was legislating on everything under the sun. We could
:42:04. > :42:08.probably do with a break. I do not think we need lots of the relevant
:42:09. > :42:16.legislation. Rather than passing legislation, they could do their
:42:16. > :42:25.real jobs in holding the executive to account. A lot of committee work.
:42:25. > :42:34.Lots of people think MPs are lazy. Committees are not such sexy stuff.
:42:34. > :42:37.It's his if it is the Public Accounts Committee. If you look at
:42:37. > :42:44.the work of Andrew Tyrie on banking, he and his fellow politicians have
:42:44. > :42:49.come closest to getting serious, proper answers as to what went
:42:49. > :42:57.wrong. Parliament then a be sitting next week but the Daily Politics
:42:57. > :43:06.will be back. There is nothing more infuriating and fascinating and
:43:06. > :43:10.finding out who is richer than you. The wealthiest peers and MPs in
:43:10. > :43:19.Britain have been revealed. We thought we would bring them to you
:43:19. > :43:24.as well. Hook is rolling in it? Who is worth been very nice to? -- who
:43:24. > :43:31.is rolling in it? You may not have heard of him but Britain's richest
:43:31. > :43:36.MP is Richard Bennion - a junior agriculture minister. His family
:43:36. > :43:40.fortune is �110 million. He is number seven. Wealthiest
:43:40. > :43:46.backbencher, Zac Goldsmith. Which is Labour MP is Margaret Hodge, the
:43:46. > :43:53.formidable chair of the public demands -- Public Accounts
:43:53. > :43:56.Committee. The Lib Dems are not on the list. Around the Cabinet table,
:43:56. > :44:01.it is Defence Secretary Philip Hammond you should be nice to. In
:44:01. > :44:08.at number 20 with a fortune of �8 million. That should be good for a
:44:08. > :44:10.few flak jackets. Most people think that politicians - they might often
:44:10. > :44:15.think that politicians are more wealthy than they are. When they
:44:15. > :44:20.see figures bandied around like the collective wealth of the Cabinet is
:44:20. > :44:24.70 million, it does tend to confirm those prejudices. The average wage
:44:24. > :44:28.for a parliamentarian - even then her heart of hearts they may think
:44:28. > :44:35.it is not very much - is much higher than average earnings in
:44:35. > :44:41.Britain. They are wealthy by any measure. Only one Prime Minister is
:44:41. > :44:45.on the Rich List. Step forward Tony Blair, but David Beckham of
:44:45. > :44:51.politics. What does that tell us about the ability of our
:44:51. > :44:56.politicians to make a buck or two? We're looking at President Putin,
:44:56. > :45:00.who is worth a lot. The President of Pakistan is worth over a billion.
:45:00. > :45:05.The same in India and the Middle East, where we are completely
:45:05. > :45:09.outranked. Even if you take Tony Blair, who has made probably 30
:45:09. > :45:12.million, that is nothing compared with the rest of the world. Our
:45:12. > :45:19.politicians are not particularly greedy or they are not as good as
:45:19. > :45:26.others around the world in getting money. OK, so he is richest of the
:45:26. > :45:32.rich in the House? In at number three is Lord Sainsbury - allegedly
:45:32. > :45:37.worth �400 million. Next to Lord Ballyedmond he is worth �860
:45:37. > :45:42.million. And the daddy? The richest politician in Britain is Lord
:45:42. > :45:52.Ashcroft, with a healthy bank balance of �1.2 billion. Ever think
:45:52. > :46:09.
:46:09. > :46:13.self-made people. Very few seem to be that wealthy. The average
:46:13. > :46:23.parliamentary salary is higher than the average British salary of
:46:23. > :46:33.�26,000. It does not seem that most MPs are living off of their salary
:46:33. > :46:33.
:46:33. > :46:40.alone. The best time to be around as a politician was under Henry VIII.
:46:40. > :46:47.That was a one off, though ex-macro from the 19th-century, you get the
:46:47. > :46:52.impression that particular the on the Tory backbench, these were the
:46:52. > :47:02.landed gentry and they seemed to be worth on average, a lot more than
:47:02. > :47:03.
:47:03. > :47:13.today's MPs. That is right. It wasn't until 19 11th that a salary
:47:13. > :47:22.
:47:22. > :47:28.of �400 per year was brought in. -- aristocrats. Throughout the 19th
:47:28. > :47:37.century, some of our biggest politicians were not from wealthy
:47:37. > :47:43.backgrounds. The thing that interests me, on all sides, MPs
:47:43. > :47:49.extol the enterprise culture, the need to create jobs. When you look
:47:49. > :47:54.at the richest ones, Zac Goldsmith, �75 million inherited. Margaret
:47:54. > :48:04.Hodge �18 million, inherited. Shaun Woodward, �15 million, married into
:48:04. > :48:06.
:48:06. > :48:13.it. Geoffrey Robinson, the inherited it. The leader of the Conservatives
:48:13. > :48:21.in future, possibly, he inherited it. We are often sold the idea that
:48:21. > :48:27.we just need an amazing idea to open a milk bottle and we can all be
:48:27. > :48:32.billionaires. But the majority of people who are wealthy come from the
:48:32. > :48:40.right background. Tony Blair always said he believed in enterprise. He
:48:40. > :48:48.is now proving it! Should we be more likely to applaud him? It makes you
:48:48. > :48:56.want to spit. The only thing worse than somebody who is much more rich
:48:56. > :49:01.than you is a politician who is much more rich than you. To all of us,
:49:01. > :49:04.those are big numbers. What astonishes me is how low they are.
:49:05. > :49:10.What has changed is that above our political class, where real power
:49:10. > :49:17.lies, is a global elite. If you look at the real rich list, the Queen is
:49:17. > :49:26.at 268. There is only one British born person the top ten, and he
:49:26. > :49:33.inherited it. That contrasts with the 19th-century, where if you
:49:33. > :49:37.constructed a similar list, many of the top players were not rich.
:49:37. > :49:43.are always told it is a Cabinet of millionaires. Philip Hammond is the
:49:43. > :49:47.only one on this list. But if you own a couple of houses in London,
:49:47. > :49:52.you are automatically a multimillionaire. What do you think
:49:52. > :49:55.the public attitude is to this? tends to be rather unsympathetic to
:49:55. > :50:03.MPs, who they feel and too much money. There has been lots of talk
:50:03. > :50:09.about businesses on the side. There is concern that people who are
:50:09. > :50:18.within politics initially, then leave politics, they earn a lot
:50:18. > :50:22.after politics. That is when they feel they have the contacts, and
:50:22. > :50:28.especially with the NHS and its changes, people can earn a lot of
:50:28. > :50:35.money later. What these tables don't take into account for a number in
:50:35. > :50:38.the Cabinet is what they will inherit. Wow, really? I take an
:50:38. > :50:48.unfashionable view. I think politicians should be almost
:50:48. > :50:49.
:50:49. > :50:57.compelled to had -- have second or third jobs. They are doing better
:50:57. > :51:06.than the French. The French peasant -- president had to put out a list
:51:06. > :51:11.and they were all pretty poor. dear! The poor French. Now, as we
:51:11. > :51:21.all know, a week is a long time in politics. We have only got 60
:51:21. > :51:23.
:51:23. > :51:27.seconds to summarise it. Thankfully, Good news! Britain avoids a
:51:27. > :51:32.triple-dip recession by 0.3%. Although better than expected, to
:51:32. > :51:37.say that growth is slow would be unfair to the mobility of
:51:37. > :51:40.gastropods. The government is encouraged to
:51:40. > :51:46.spend more on cycling. Unsurprisingly, this message came
:51:46. > :51:50.from the All Party Cycling Group. MPs finally approved same-sex
:51:50. > :52:00.marriage dot-macro not here but in France. Although some seemed
:52:00. > :52:07.
:52:07. > :52:11.We will not introduce what has been called a snooper 's charter.
:52:11. > :52:15.reason may still smiling. She briefly gave up the day job over Abu
:52:15. > :52:25.Qatada for some comedy with Mark reckless.
:52:25. > :52:28.
:52:28. > :52:32.It is a reckless step! Well, I say We are now joined, as we often are,
:52:32. > :52:38.by Agnes Poirier, to discuss the vote this week in the French
:52:39. > :52:44.government on gay marriage. This was a divided France. It was a really
:52:44. > :52:50.big issue. Why was that? It is totally different than in the UK. We
:52:50. > :52:54.have to explain. The bill had two parts. One was not contentious at
:52:54. > :53:00.all. An overwhelming majority of the French people agreed that anybody
:53:00. > :53:06.can have the same rights, inheritance, pension, everything
:53:06. > :53:14.that is linked to marriage. Now, the contentious part of the bill was
:53:14. > :53:21.about adopting rights for homosexuals. In the UK, this is not
:53:21. > :53:26.a problem. It is already legal. That really proved quite divisive.
:53:26. > :53:31.is what the argument was about. was about family. It was an
:53:31. > :53:37.anthropological question, really, rather than ending to do with
:53:37. > :53:40.equality before the law. We often describe France as an increasingly
:53:40. > :53:47.secular country, but I understand the Catholic church played quite a
:53:47. > :53:51.big role in this campaign? It did, but all religious leaders did.
:53:51. > :53:57.Remember, the state and the church are separate in France. It is not
:53:57. > :54:03.like Britain, the question of whether gays and lesbians can marry
:54:03. > :54:08.in church. France has an even lower church participation than Britain. I
:54:08. > :54:17.was surprised to see that the church still seemed to be a strong lobby in
:54:17. > :54:27.France. It is an aggregate. What happened is that a coalition of
:54:27. > :54:30.
:54:30. > :54:37.ultra groups, they are only 100 strong, but suddenly we had street
:54:37. > :54:45.violence like in the 1930s. And the general attitude of France 's Muslim
:54:45. > :54:51.community, is my -- community? Again, it is not an issue for them
:54:51. > :54:58.in that they are not going to celebrate religious weddings of gays
:54:58. > :55:05.and lesbians. We are only talking about town halls. Yes, and the
:55:05. > :55:11.church can do what it wants. Religious value -- weddings have no
:55:11. > :55:20.equal value in France. The economist said it was good news for Francois
:55:20. > :55:30.Hollande because it took the news away from the economy. I am not so
:55:30. > :55:35.sure! It is not good news. He is not doing very well. But he is in for
:55:35. > :55:41.the five years. He controls the parliament. The controls 19 out of
:55:41. > :55:45.the 20 cities of France. He is in a very comfortable situation. But a
:55:45. > :55:51.lot of people on the left also said this was not a priority, the
:55:51. > :55:55.same-sex marriage. He could have done it at the end of his mandate.
:55:55. > :56:00.At the moment, the French want to hear about the economy, employment,
:56:00. > :56:04.not about same-sex marriage. same-sex marriage has been a big
:56:04. > :56:11.debate in Britain. It has not taken on the far-off city or even the
:56:11. > :56:15.divisiveness that it has in France. -- the ferocity. It came close to it
:56:15. > :56:23.in the Tory party. It is something that Cameron launched and rather
:56:23. > :56:30.regrets in a way. I think he needs to build as big a coalition as
:56:30. > :56:35.possible. Do you think it was misjudged? I think he thought he
:56:35. > :56:40.could take his core vote for granted. I thought he could add more
:56:40. > :56:43.liberal voters. In effect, what he did was not particularly impressed
:56:43. > :56:48.the liberal part of the vote and he alienate it a lot of his core
:56:48. > :56:52.supporters, a lot of whom will vote for the UK Independence party.
:56:52. > :57:02.makes you wonder why Francois Hollande decided to go for it as
:57:02. > :57:08.well. He had the majority for it, didn't he? Is the French government
:57:08. > :57:17.is taking comfort from, we are beginning to see the loosening of
:57:17. > :57:27.the reins of austerity in Spain, and Italy as well with the centre-left
:57:27. > :57:35.
:57:35. > :57:40.government - are things going to Europe. He was relying on the
:57:40. > :57:46.Socialists to come in, and we saw what happened. In many ways,
:57:46. > :57:49.austerity haven't really hit France yet. They are saying, we must stop
:57:49. > :57:56.this austerity, but it hasn't happened yet. I was there yesterday
:57:56. > :58:01.and it seemed pretty affluent. Just time to find the answer to our
:58:01. > :58:06.quiz. The bank of England announced the new design of the �5 note
:58:06. > :58:16.featuring a famous person. Margaret Thatcher? Within Churchill? Nick
:58:16. > :58:17.
:58:17. > :58:23.Clegg? Margaret Thatcher. neglect. OK, it is going to be
:58:23. > :58:29.unveiled here and you can see that it is, let's have a look, come on,
:58:29. > :58:37.get on with it! Winston Churchill! The fiver isn't just getting a new
:58:37. > :58:47.face. Mervyn King unveiled the note. We can now call them a Winston.