:00:45. > :00:50.Politics. David Cameron nurses his wounds after the rebellion last
:00:50. > :00:56.night by over 100 Conservative MPs against gay marriage. The proposals
:00:56. > :01:00.passed with the help of Labour, but many backbenchers are unhappy. Alex
:01:00. > :01:04.Salmond posts a report which he says shows Britain -- Scotland would be
:01:04. > :01:07.better off as an independent nation.
:01:08. > :01:11.Hot sauce entrepreneur Levi Roots joins us to discuss the government
:01:11. > :01:15.scheme to help the unemployed start own businesses.
:01:15. > :01:19.And could the coalition talks of 2010 ever have resulted in a Lib-Lab
:01:19. > :01:28.pact? We will bring together two keep
:01:28. > :01:32.layers from those five days in May. -- two key players. With us for the
:01:32. > :01:37.whole programme is the former Labour Transport Secretary and Education
:01:37. > :01:39.Minister Andrew Adonis. Let's start with a Scottish
:01:39. > :01:45.government report published this morning which makes the economic
:01:45. > :01:50.case for independence. Speaking in the last hour, Scotland's First
:01:50. > :01:54.Minister Alex Salmond said the UK Government had held Scotland back
:01:54. > :02:03.for decades. Economic policy at the present moment is largely determined
:02:03. > :02:06.at Westminster. Westminster refused to invest Scotland's resources for
:02:06. > :02:11.future generations, Westminster has cut capital investment in a
:02:11. > :02:16.recession. The one thing you must not do is cut back on investment in
:02:16. > :02:20.the future in a recession. Westminster has allowed too much of
:02:20. > :02:23.economic activity of the United Kingdom to be concentrated in the of
:02:23. > :02:30.England. We can't afford to make these mistakes in Scotland, nor can
:02:31. > :02:36.we afford to have mismanagement by governments we have never re-elected
:02:37. > :02:40.setting the economic temperature and calls for Scotland. Laura Bicker is
:02:40. > :02:45.at the event in a bus factory in Falkirk.
:02:45. > :02:51.Is there anything new we are hearing from the SNP and Alex Salmond? We
:02:51. > :02:55.have heard those arguments rehearsed many, many times by Alex Salmond.
:02:55. > :03:02.Are there new figures or new analysis? There is no new figures or
:03:02. > :03:07.analysis, but I think he is trying to ram home a message. I think the
:03:07. > :03:09.first thing to note is the venue that he chose to make his speech.
:03:09. > :03:16.This is a bus manufacturing depot right in the heart of Scotland in
:03:16. > :03:20.Falkirk, it employs 900 people and ships buses right across the world,
:03:20. > :03:25.low carbon buses using special technology to Malaysia, Hong Kong,
:03:25. > :03:29.Australia. This is the kind of manufacturing plants that Alex
:03:29. > :03:33.Salmond says would do better if decisions were made in Hollywood
:03:33. > :03:39.rather than Westminster. The key messages he is trying to get across
:03:39. > :03:43.that, first of all, people should not fear independence. We have had
:03:43. > :03:47.successive UK ministers coming to Scotland to put across this message
:03:47. > :03:52.that there is a risk associated with independence, financial risk. Most
:03:52. > :03:57.recently, George Osborne talked about the currency. Scotland would
:03:57. > :04:00.like to keep the pound if they became independent, the Chancellor
:04:00. > :04:05.said it would perhaps not become possible and it might put the rest
:04:05. > :04:08.of the UK at risk. Alex Salmond is saying that the real risk is if
:04:08. > :04:13.Scotland stays with Westminster. You have heard many of the points he
:04:13. > :04:19.made earlier. The second clear point he is trying to get across is that
:04:19. > :04:25.Scotland is a diverse economy with more to it than just oil and gas. We
:04:25. > :04:30.know it generates about �25 billion to the Scotland GDP. But he is
:04:30. > :04:35.trying to say that there is far more than that, there is a �14 billion
:04:35. > :04:38.turnover in the last year in manufacturing, �12 billion for food
:04:38. > :04:43.and drink. He says Scotland could do better in these industries if
:04:43. > :04:48.decisions were made here. There is very little detail in the paper, he
:04:48. > :04:54.cited two things in it, our passenger duty, which he said would
:04:54. > :04:58.be lower in an independent Scotland to allow freedom of movement and
:04:58. > :05:02.businesses to trade. He said it would be good to get a good child
:05:02. > :05:07.care policy in place so that young mums could get back to work. These
:05:07. > :05:12.are the kind of things he said an independent Scotland could do, but
:05:12. > :05:17.there is very little detail so far. He has until September 2014 to put
:05:17. > :05:23.that in place. Thank you, Laura. One of the things that will boost the
:05:23. > :05:28.SNP campaign is discontinuing thread that Scotland is not a priority for
:05:28. > :05:34.Westminster, it never has been, and in an ongoing difficult economic
:05:34. > :05:38.time, we are suffering in Scotland. Scotland has done extremely well out
:05:38. > :05:42.of the union and its per capita public spending is higher than in
:05:42. > :05:46.England. I think this will concentrate the minds of the Scots.
:05:46. > :05:51.To my mind, the defining moment is what Alex Salmond has said about the
:05:51. > :05:54.currency. He is saying that he wants to stay with sterling. The SNP has
:05:54. > :05:58.toyed around with the idea of Scotland in Europe, possibly the
:05:59. > :06:05.euro. If he was saying that Scotland was going to leave Stirling and join
:06:05. > :06:09.the euro... He has dropped that.A large part of his economic policy
:06:09. > :06:13.will continue to be driven by London. The Bank of England will
:06:13. > :06:18.determine his interest rates and his economic policy will be determined
:06:18. > :06:23.by what goes on in London. The Scots need to address that if they are
:06:23. > :06:28.going to stay in a currency union with England, isn't it better to
:06:28. > :06:31.have some real say in how the currency union is run? That is
:06:31. > :06:34.precisely the reason why I think the Scots will follow Alistair Darling
:06:34. > :06:39.and do the sensible thing, not the insane thing of keeping in a
:06:39. > :06:44.currency union with England and having no control. There will be
:06:44. > :06:47.months of debate, exactly on the issue of the currency union. Andrew
:06:47. > :06:52.Adonis is described as a rail enthusiast, but we suspect he might
:06:53. > :06:56.be more than that. As Transport Secretary he personally
:06:56. > :07:04.championed the new High Speed two rail line and inspected the nation's
:07:04. > :07:08.railway. So we wish to see how big a Trainspotting he really is. Here are
:07:08. > :07:11.four famous engines, and at the end of the programme, if you have time,
:07:11. > :07:17.we will see whether you can name them all.
:07:17. > :07:19.Are we a nation of entrepreneurs? This morning, the Department for
:07:19. > :07:22.work and pensions has been promoting plans to help unemployed people
:07:22. > :07:29.start up their own businesses. The new enterprise allowance was
:07:29. > :07:33.launched two years ago to encourage people to consider self-employment.
:07:33. > :07:36.Participants get action is to a volunteer businessmen tour providing
:07:36. > :07:42.guidance and support as they develop their business plan. Once they
:07:42. > :07:47.participant has had their plan approved and start training, they
:07:47. > :07:52.can access financial support consisting of an allowance worth
:07:52. > :07:57.�1274 over 26 weeks, and the facility to access a loan of up to
:07:57. > :08:05.�1000 to help with start-up costs. The scheme aims to create 40,000 new
:08:05. > :08:11.businesses by 2015. By November 20 15,210 loans had been taken out
:08:11. > :08:18.across England. This morning, the government has been promoting its
:08:18. > :08:22.latest recruit, the entrepreneur and hot sauce salesman Levi Roots. He is
:08:22. > :08:27.an ambassador for entrepreneurship, and he has already been put to work.
:08:27. > :08:33.Have you ever thought about being your own boss? Using your skills to
:08:33. > :08:36.do a job your way? You are not alone. The thing that puts most
:08:36. > :08:40.people off becoming self-employed is the thought of doing it by
:08:40. > :08:45.themselves. The job centre plus new enterprise allowance can provide the
:08:45. > :08:50.support you need to get started in business, to do the job you want,
:08:50. > :08:57.your way. You can use your skills and experience to do something you
:08:57. > :09:00.really enjoy. Levi Roots has joined us, as has the Pensions Minister,
:09:00. > :09:10.Mark Hoban. How important our schemes like this? Would it have
:09:10. > :09:12.
:09:12. > :09:19.helped you? Absolutely, I started out like this. I met my first mental
:09:19. > :09:26.in 2006 -- I met my first mentor. I said that I thought I had a source
:09:26. > :09:33.which could outsell Heinz Camacho catsup, and he showed me the door!
:09:33. > :09:43.-- Heinz tomato ketchup. Here is a mental, somebody in June to you I
:09:43. > :09:45.
:09:45. > :09:52.am. That's here is a mentor. have to be able to get off the
:09:52. > :09:56.ground. It is about personality, and you have a big personality, it is a
:09:56. > :10:01.winning formula. What sort of businesses will you be mentoring?
:10:01. > :10:05.am working with the young boy from south London, which resonates with
:10:05. > :10:09.me. He has a great skateboarding business, fantastic passion and a
:10:09. > :10:14.great opportunity, but he lacks the advice from somebody like me, a
:10:14. > :10:20.mentor or a role model he can be in June with. What sort of advice are
:10:20. > :10:23.you giving? Just seeing somebody a bit like himself, perhaps from a
:10:23. > :10:31.similar area with a similar background, or are you giving hard,
:10:31. > :10:37.gritty business advice? Hard-core advice, and making the crucial calls
:10:37. > :10:42.that he perhaps will not make. I would have the experience that was
:10:42. > :10:48.instilled into me, I now want to pass it onto a young entrepreneur.
:10:48. > :10:52.You think he will succeed? I think so, I believe he has the tools the
:10:52. > :10:57.passion. The money helps, but having somebody around who can help showing
:10:57. > :11:02.you how to use the money is the crucial thing. You will get that
:11:02. > :11:08.involved? That will make a big difference? But coming onto the
:11:08. > :11:18.money, you had an investment of �50,000, a sizeable investment from
:11:18. > :11:18.
:11:18. > :11:22.two Dragons. The amounts here, �65 a week, it sounds poultry. That the
:11:22. > :11:29.initial money you need to start the business, because before I got to
:11:29. > :11:39.dragons den, I needed the initial help, I did not go there as a first
:11:39. > :11:42.
:11:42. > :11:47.step, my business was ready for the next step. And this gives you that
:11:47. > :11:54.first step. How do you judge who gets the money? Bee people come into
:11:55. > :11:58.the job centre, they have a new idea from day one. We have a network
:11:58. > :12:04.dividing advice from people like Dean who we saw this morning, or
:12:04. > :12:08.Natasha, who was setting up a counselling business. The mentor's
:12:08. > :12:11.will work with somebody, they will look at their business plan, they
:12:11. > :12:15.will look at whether or not it will be successful, if they give the
:12:15. > :12:21.planned a green light, the people get the money and they will be paid
:12:21. > :12:24.a weekly sum over 26 weeks, six months, to help them get off the
:12:24. > :12:29.ground. There are some really good quality people giving advice, people
:12:29. > :12:32.like Levi and others with experience of business, helping young
:12:32. > :12:38.entrepreneurs setting up a business to look after themselves and their
:12:38. > :12:44.families. You will rely on people like Levi to root out the dead-end
:12:44. > :12:51.ideas which will just not make it to money? The mentors that we have in
:12:51. > :12:54.place are good at defining the opportunities. �65 a week for the
:12:54. > :12:58.first 13 weeks, �33 a week for a further 13 weeks, do you really
:12:58. > :13:05.think that is enough? It helps people when they are starting to
:13:05. > :13:10.earn a living. They are getting their benefits, once they... If they
:13:10. > :13:14.are going to have their business plan approved, the benefit has two
:13:14. > :13:19.stop and they have to start trading. In the absence of the scheme they
:13:19. > :13:24.would get nothing. They would get their benefit. If they are not
:13:24. > :13:26.looking for work, they do not get benefits. We are giving them
:13:26. > :13:30.financial support which they would not otherwise get to tide them over
:13:31. > :13:38.the first period of trading, to give them the confidence of money coming
:13:38. > :13:42.in, so they take that idea, grow it and develop it. It is real support,
:13:42. > :13:46.people want to get off the ground. There are fantastic stories from
:13:46. > :13:51.around the country, people who have taken advantage of this. In Grimsby,
:13:51. > :13:56.a chap recognise that if you go to hospital you might not have pyjamas,
:13:56. > :14:01.so he set up a kiosk selling pyjamas in the hospital. It only has
:14:01. > :14:09.provided a job for him, he has taken an apprentice. Somebody unemployed
:14:09. > :14:11.in Glasgow who had worked in the care sector provided a tucking in
:14:11. > :14:15.service for elderly people, she is now employing nine people who were
:14:15. > :14:20.previously unemployed. We need people like Levi acting as mentors,
:14:20. > :14:25.role models. But we have a problem of exploding and employment, and the
:14:25. > :14:28.idea that this will be a big solution, I don't think is correct.
:14:28. > :14:34.But for those who have set of these companies it will be life changing,
:14:34. > :14:42.and having mentors like Levi is the right way. Is it right way for tax
:14:42. > :14:52.payers money to be spent? Just over 15,000 loans. That is not a bad
:14:52. > :14:53.
:14:53. > :14:59.amount... We rely on people like Levi to show that it will go one
:14:59. > :15:06.good propositions. But we need really good role models. How many
:15:06. > :15:09.mentors have you got? Over 15,000 businesses have started, we have
:15:09. > :15:15.provided advice to 30,000 people interested in getting a business
:15:15. > :15:19.going. The people I have spoken to today are helping to support
:15:19. > :15:24.businesses in South London, and they say 75% of the ones they have worked
:15:24. > :15:29.with have survived a year, a good track record given how precarious
:15:29. > :15:32.small businesses can be. It is one of a range of ways in which we have
:15:32. > :15:38.to help people get back into work and look after themselves and their
:15:38. > :15:42.families. How hard is it for businesses to start about the
:15:42. > :15:48.moment? Very difficult. We look at this thing about self-employment, it
:15:48. > :15:53.is a lonely world out there. Part of the reason and part of the message I
:15:53. > :15:58.am hoping is to tell people that they are not alone. There is
:15:58. > :16:03.fantastic help, people are azure crew willing to stay the course with
:16:03. > :16:07.you. It is not just the money. The money is small, but the advice and
:16:07. > :16:13.the mentorship is perhaps the best thing. How often are you meeting
:16:13. > :16:18.with some of the business people you are mentoring? Once a week, do they
:16:18. > :16:24.phone you and say, Levi, come over? It is going really badly and I need
:16:24. > :16:29.your help? It is an open book. They can have my e-mail address. We will
:16:29. > :16:34.converse. It is about hands-on help. A bit like a Peter Jones made the
:16:34. > :16:42.crucial call for me. I am hoping I will be able to make a call for some
:16:42. > :16:48.of these entrepreneurs. There is an old saying in Parliament that it is
:16:48. > :16:52.the opposition who are in front of you and the enemies behind you. Last
:16:52. > :16:56.night the Government pushed throughs its Same-Sex Marriage Bill with the
:16:56. > :17:02.support of Labour and in the face of opposition from many on its own
:17:02. > :17:07.side. Here a flavour of the debate. -- here is a flavour of the debate.
:17:07. > :17:11.This Bill has a single important and straightforward purpose to extend
:17:11. > :17:15.marriage to same-sex couples. And I'm delighted that the major
:17:15. > :17:20.political parties on the front benches are unanimous in the view
:17:20. > :17:25.that this is ants essential objective and I'm grateful for their
:17:25. > :17:30.unwavering support. It has been reassuring to see the other parties
:17:30. > :17:34.sharing my determination to ensure that nothing derailed or delays this
:17:34. > :17:38.very important piece of legislation. If you are a same-sex couple you
:17:38. > :17:44.have no justice at all. It is not about fairness, there is no justice,
:17:44. > :17:52.you cannot be married. And it seems to me to be grossly unfair to
:17:52. > :17:57.continue to perpetuate an injustice particularly the proposal in this
:17:57. > :18:03.amendment is accepted tonight. a free vote. We are in danger of
:18:03. > :18:12.being party to a stitch-up, a last minute stitch-up between front
:18:12. > :18:17.benches, but this is a free vote, not on a conscience issue, but on
:18:17. > :18:20.equality. Whether they are whipped to support the Bill or will defy the
:18:20. > :18:24.whip to oppose it. There are people in this House who are supporting
:18:24. > :18:27.this amendment for the opposite reason. I do not include my
:18:27. > :18:35.honourable friend in that. There are people who are breathing the word
:18:35. > :18:37.equality for the first time. It sticks frankly in the claw of us to
:18:37. > :18:42.be lectured about equality by a group of people who have been
:18:42. > :18:46.opposing this Bill and opposing equality and opposing every measure
:18:46. > :18:49.that has come forward to promote equality in the first place
:18:49. > :18:54.including civil partnerships. I fear that the playing field is not
:18:54. > :19:02.being levelled. I believe that the pendulum is swinging so far the
:19:02. > :19:07.other way and there are plenty in the aggress aggressive homosexual
:19:07. > :19:13.community who see this as a stepping stone to something even further.
:19:13. > :19:16.Well, that was the debate yesterday. Let's get the latest from Carole
:19:16. > :19:20.Walker. Hugely divisive for the Conservatives, but where are we now
:19:20. > :19:24.with the Bill? Well, the debate will continue in the Commons this
:19:24. > :19:28.afternoon, Jo, and there are more amendments down and there will be a
:19:29. > :19:32.further vote in principle on what is called the third reading, another
:19:32. > :19:37.important milestone in the Bill this evening. The expectation is that it
:19:37. > :19:41.will get through the Commons with a similar figures to the votes that we
:19:41. > :19:44.have seen in the past. More than 100 Conservative MPs perhaps voting
:19:44. > :19:47.against it, but with the support of Labour and the Liberal Democrats,
:19:47. > :19:51.the Government will get through this milestone. It does go on to the
:19:51. > :19:55.House of Lords where it could face quite a difficult ride. But clearly,
:19:55. > :20:00.I think, the Prime Minister thinks that this is an important issue. He
:20:00. > :20:05.will press on with this, but the legacy that it will leave, in terms
:20:05. > :20:08.of the difficulties within its own party, I think, it is something that
:20:08. > :20:12.is going to be difficult for him to overcome. He sent this e-mail out
:20:12. > :20:17.today. It is something when a Prime Minister has to send an e-mail to
:20:17. > :20:22.his party members saying, " I really wasn't sneering at you." Many MPs
:20:22. > :20:26.and activists will be looking him to say, " Well, if you really care
:20:26. > :20:32.about our feelings then you have got to show that in what you do and say
:20:32. > :20:35.in the coming months." highlighted the disconnect between
:20:35. > :20:40.David Cameron and his party and we have yet to see if the relationship
:20:40. > :20:46.can be fixed. How much does David Cameron have to fear from his
:20:46. > :20:51.backbenchers. Some of whom feel he hasn't been leading the party on the
:20:51. > :20:54.key issues of Europe and gay marriage? There is a sense of
:20:54. > :21:00.frustration that every time David Cameron does something which is aP
:21:00. > :21:06.mrauded amongst his own -- applauded amongst his MPs that is not followed
:21:06. > :21:11.up with action. We had as one MP put it, four months of inactivity after
:21:11. > :21:16.that speech during which time UKIP then made great strides and did very
:21:16. > :21:21.well in the local elections. I think David Cameron now does face a series
:21:21. > :21:24.of tests and the first one will be the Government's handling of that
:21:24. > :21:29.Private Members' Bill on a European referendum. I think MPs will be
:21:29. > :21:34.looking to see if the part of the Government does do all it can to
:21:34. > :21:38.make sure that that gets some passage through Parliament. As one
:21:38. > :21:43.senior figure in the party said to me, he has got to start governing as
:21:43. > :21:47.though he is in a coalition with the Conservatives rather thatten thatten
:21:47. > :21:50.than looking at his Lib Dem coalition partners. MPs and
:21:50. > :21:52.activists would like to see him standing up to the Lib Dems more and
:21:52. > :21:57.pushing some core Conservative issues.
:21:57. > :22:01.Carole Walker, thank you very much. Are David Cameron was chosen as
:22:01. > :22:06.Conservative leader because in a way he was different to many grass-roots
:22:06. > :22:10.Tories, young, moderniser, a little bit like Tony Blair. So who is it
:22:10. > :22:14.that's out-of-touch in this argument within the Conservative Party? Is it
:22:14. > :22:18.grass-roots Tories or David Cameron? I think David Cameron is in touch
:22:18. > :22:23.with middle opinion which is in favour of gay marriage and I am glad
:22:23. > :22:27.all three parties united to support it. And Carole mentioned it going to
:22:27. > :22:30.the House of Lords. I suspect it would have a majority in the House
:22:30. > :22:34.of Lords. The thing I find disappointing what is going to
:22:34. > :22:39.happen in the House of Lords is the position of the Church of England.
:22:39. > :22:43.The bishops headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury are opposing gay
:22:43. > :22:48.marriage and opposing the right of vicars who want to conduct gay
:22:48. > :22:51.marriages to allow their churches to be used for that purpose. In two or
:22:51. > :22:55.three years time that will look like a serious mistake and a back ward
:22:55. > :22:58.looking position on the part of the Church of England.
:22:58. > :23:06.But you think it will pass? I think so with a big majority.
:23:06. > :23:09.When you talk about the Church of England. The views chime with many
:23:09. > :23:14.of not just Conservative voters in the country who feel strongly on
:23:14. > :23:17.this issue? Opinion is moving. And the polls I see show a majority in
:23:17. > :23:20.favour of gay marriage and it is a basic issue of equality and with
:23:20. > :23:24.each passing month. Those who are prepared to argue on principle
:23:24. > :23:33.against equality are finding it harder and harder to do so. What was
:23:33. > :23:36.telling about the debate yesterday was Nick Herbert's speech. The
:23:36. > :23:39.argument for equality is to allow gay marriage.
:23:39. > :23:42.Tomorrow hundreds of solicitors and barristers from all over England and
:23:42. > :23:47.Wales are planning to demo in Westminster against the Government's
:23:47. > :23:55.plans to cut criminal Legal Aid. The Ministry of Justice is consulting on
:23:55. > :24:00.plans that will save �220 million. BBC West Midlands reporter,
:24:00. > :24:04.Elizabeth Glinka has been to Birmingham University's law school
:24:04. > :24:08.to cross-examine witnesses. The key point to look at... What
:24:08. > :24:11.price justice? Legal Aid for criminal cases costs the taxpayer
:24:11. > :24:14.over �1 billion a year. The Government wants that to come down
:24:14. > :24:20.and is consulting on plans to restructure the system, cutting the
:24:20. > :24:25.number of firms allowed to defend criminal cases from 13600 to just
:24:26. > :24:30.400. Instead of choosing your lawyer, you will be assigned one
:24:30. > :24:40.from a Government approved list from a firm which has agreed to work for
:24:40. > :24:44.at least 17. 5% less than it charges at the moment. . Client choice goes
:24:44. > :24:47.out of the window. The inhe centretive is there for the
:24:47. > :24:51.solicitor to do a good job. When that solicitor does a good job, it
:24:52. > :24:56.the clients come back and refer other clients to us.
:24:56. > :25:00.So rich lawyers are less rich. Why does that matter? Well, what about
:25:00. > :25:05.if you want your day in court like these Birmingham students? Your
:25:05. > :25:11.lawyer would be paid the same whether they take your case to trial
:25:11. > :25:15.or advice you to plead guilty. obvious fear is they will be putting
:25:15. > :25:21.pressure on the clients to plead guilty so they can get on with their
:25:21. > :25:24.next guilty plea and they don't have to waste the time doing the trial.
:25:24. > :25:30.The consultation on the plans ends on the 4th June and the scheme could
:25:30. > :25:37.be up and running as early as next year. Under the it changes, 36 firms
:25:37. > :25:42.would be awarded contracts across the Midlands. There are 55 operating
:25:43. > :25:46.in Birmingham alone. Which could mean law firms going out of business
:25:47. > :25:52.a worrying trend for the next generation. At the end of the day,
:25:52. > :25:55.we are in this to get a job. There is the whole want to do justice and
:25:55. > :26:00.all the ideals and everything that comes with it, but if you can't put
:26:00. > :26:03.food on the table what's the point? By saying that you should just be
:26:03. > :26:07.allowed to cut people's pay, it means you are going to get less
:26:07. > :26:11.people wanting to do it. And if there is no passion in it, you will
:26:11. > :26:15.not get the results. Access to justice should be paramount over
:26:15. > :26:20.cuts when people really need help. think whilst the Government is
:26:20. > :26:24.sensible to look at cuts, to cut them as excessively as they have in
:26:24. > :26:29.this case is just bizarre. The Government says fewer firms will
:26:29. > :26:30.mean better value for the taxpayer. The lawyers fear the quality of
:26:30. > :26:32.The lawyers fear the quality of The lawyers fear the quality of
:26:32. > :26:36.The lawyers fear the quality of justice will suffer. Elizabeth
:26:36. > :26:38.Glinka reporting and Giles Dilnot is outside Parliament with more on
:26:38. > :26:41.this. Jo, it seems to be a suggestion
:26:41. > :26:49.about the quality of justice and access to justice that is key here.
:26:49. > :26:53.What's going on? Well, Elizabeth Davis is the chair of the Legal
:26:53. > :26:57.Services Consumer Panel. The Government says that within its
:26:57. > :27:00.search for money and this is what it is, it is a search for savings, you
:27:00. > :27:06.will still get access to a descent lawyer and you will still get access
:27:06. > :27:10.when you need it to justice. What's wrong with that? Our main concern is
:27:10. > :27:14.you might get it, but you will have absence of consumer choice. And what
:27:14. > :27:19.that means in reality is, at the moment, if you have Legal Aid, you
:27:19. > :27:24.might use a provider based on how close they are to you. Their
:27:24. > :27:28.sPesism, the ex-- specialism, the expertise your case needs. It might
:27:28. > :27:33.be based on an existing relationship. Under the proposals,
:27:33. > :27:37.you will not have that choice. And under the proposals if you have real
:27:37. > :27:41.concerns about the kwaflt of -- quality of your provider, you will
:27:41. > :27:44.not be able to switch to another provider.
:27:44. > :27:48.If you are paying for it, choose as much as you like? The notion that
:27:48. > :27:51.choice as a consumer should be linked to whether you are paid or
:27:51. > :27:56.not is something I would never support and nor do I think many
:27:56. > :28:00.people would. And let me give you examples of other areas of
:28:00. > :28:04.Government policy, in healthcare, in social care and in education. The
:28:04. > :28:09.idea that choice is important is well rehearsed and well accepted.
:28:09. > :28:12.So why not here? The problem I can see is you don't represent lawyers
:28:12. > :28:17.and you don't represent clients and their customers, but lawyers will
:28:17. > :28:21.say the same sort of things, this is going to provide access to justice,
:28:21. > :28:27.but lots of people say lawyers would say that, wouldn't they because they
:28:27. > :28:34.are the greatest recipient of the pie? There is a public perception of
:28:34. > :28:37.fat cat lawyers. Le, they don't do too badly. When it
:28:37. > :28:41.comes to the pay, the fee structures, I will leave that to the
:28:41. > :28:45.representative bodies to argue that one for you. My big concern around
:28:45. > :28:51.this is access to justice, access to quality, and choice that means you
:28:51. > :28:55.can choose the provider that's best for you. When you have saving money
:28:55. > :28:58.as the key driver to any change, if all of the things that they fear are
:28:58. > :29:03.going to happen, don't happen, do you accept they are at least a risk
:29:03. > :29:08.of what could happen? Well, the reality is that those who are most
:29:08. > :29:14.vulnerable, so people who have been victims of violence, of domestic
:29:14. > :29:19.abuse, will be in receipt of Legal Aid. The big question, I think you
:29:19. > :29:26.touched upon it a minute ago, is in our country, in England and Wales,
:29:26. > :29:33.we spent �39 her head on Legal Aid. In France and other countries, it is
:29:33. > :29:37.5 or �6 per head. We are right to introduce rigour into the system and
:29:37. > :29:43.make sure money is well spent. You heard it is the perception that you
:29:43. > :29:49.have got fat cat lawyers. There are lawyers, a lawyer earned over �1
:29:49. > :29:55.million in Legal Aid fees. They are exceptions to the rule? But they are
:29:55. > :30:03.spending time on spending Legal Aid money on immigration appeals and
:30:03. > :30:09.plan ning appeals. That can't be right when we are borrow borrowing
:30:09. > :30:12.426 approximately bds a day. -- �426 billion a day.
:30:12. > :30:17.I see you sneering? It is a challenge for all areas of public
:30:17. > :30:21.service. Let's not pre-empt the outcome. Come 4th June, I would be
:30:21. > :30:24.surprised if you have a lot of responses pushing for the status
:30:24. > :30:29.quo, saying that Legal Aid is different to any other public
:30:29. > :30:34.service that they shouldn't face our fair share of economic cuts.
:30:34. > :30:38.That's good news. Never and not at the expense of quality.
:30:38. > :30:43.Absolutely right. The most important thing is better focus. The money
:30:43. > :30:48.going to those in most need. When times are tough, at times of
:30:48. > :30:53.austerity, what you do is you try and focus every taxpayer pound on
:30:53. > :30:58.those most in need. Can we see that greater transparency
:30:58. > :31:02.then? Let's see a competitive tend tendering process that has quality
:31:02. > :31:10.at the heart of it, not price. Let's see the quality monitoring processes
:31:10. > :31:13.you set in choice. How will we judge the performances of these firms?
:31:13. > :31:18.Snool I am all for transparency, the more information that we put out for
:31:18. > :31:23.people to scrutinise, we will introduce more rigour into the
:31:23. > :31:27.system. What I have a problem is very wealthy prisoners using Legal
:31:27. > :31:32.Aid to change what prison they are in. That's wrong. Let's have you
:31:32. > :31:35.back when we have had a look at whether there is transparency in the
:31:36. > :31:38.system. You nearly put me out of the job there and a good thing too. I
:31:38. > :31:43.suspect we will be out here Jo discussing this.
:31:43. > :31:46.STUDIO: You were pushed out of that conversation, weren't you, Giles?
:31:46. > :31:49.The days that followed the 2010 general election saw negotiations
:31:49. > :31:55.between the three main parties as they fought for the right to govern
:31:55. > :32:04.Britain. The talks resulted in the Lib Dem/Tory coalition we have
:32:04. > :32:09.today. Was that a foregone con cushion. -- conclusion, a
:32:09. > :32:15.documentary made by Nick Robinson, David Thompson has been looking at
:32:16. > :32:21.how the drama played out and how it might have turned out differently.
:32:21. > :32:27.Five Days That Changed Britain, we know the ending. A Conservative-Lib
:32:27. > :32:31.Dem coalition. How might it have been and what happens next?
:32:31. > :32:38.It started with one man's refusal to admit defeat.
:32:38. > :32:42.Gordon and the people around Gordon were determined so far as we could
:32:42. > :32:43.to stay in power. We saw this as a straight and important competition
:32:43. > :32:47.for power between us and the Conservatives.
:32:47. > :32:52.That meant being anal to do a deal with the man who came third, not
:32:52. > :32:58.first at the general election. The thing is at times, Labour were so
:32:58. > :33:02.close. It was ex-cruisenating. If the electorate moved 1% differently
:33:02. > :33:07.than it had, almost all of those problems would have been self
:33:07. > :33:10.resolving. After the result then I talked to Gordon Brown on three or
:33:10. > :33:16.perhaps four occasions over the critical weekend. The message I
:33:16. > :33:20.wanted to get to him was for me, and a lot of Liberal Democrats, the more
:33:20. > :33:21.natural position was to see whether or not an arrangement could be made
:33:21. > :33:26.with Labour. The conversation that really
:33:26. > :33:32.mattered for Labour was the one with the current Lib Dem leader and that
:33:32. > :33:38.was the problem. I don't think Nick found him im impossible --
:33:38. > :33:43.impossible and I think he found him a bit Gordon I shall!
:33:43. > :33:48.Then there was the lack of a plan. No, we didn't have a document of
:33:48. > :33:51.paper, a renegotiating position. I mean, we were sort of flying blind
:33:51. > :33:56.in that sense. Which gave the advantage to David
:33:56. > :34:01.Cameron. But Gordon Brown had one more dramatic shot in his locker.
:34:01. > :34:04.The reason that we have a hung parliament is that no single party
:34:04. > :34:09.and no single leader was able to win the full support of the country. As
:34:09. > :34:13.the leader of my party I must accept that that is a judgement on me. I
:34:13. > :34:16.therefore, intend to ask the Labour Party to set in train the processes
:34:16. > :34:20.needed for its own leadership election.
:34:20. > :34:24.It all changed in the last hour. is a bid by Gordon Brown to keep
:34:24. > :34:30.Labour in power. On the Monday evening, I believed there was all to
:34:30. > :34:33.play for and there was a good prospect of a Labour-Lib Dem
:34:33. > :34:38.coalition being negotiated. But it turned out like this. Is it
:34:38. > :34:43.really the end of the story or the beginning of a saga? I think the
:34:43. > :34:49.possibility exists for coalition politics to be a feature of British
:34:49. > :34:52.democracy for sometime and therefore p we in the Labour Party have got to
:34:52. > :34:58.be thinking alliance, coalition, partnership because that maybe the
:34:58. > :35:08.only way in which we get back into power or it maybe the next way we
:35:08. > :35:09.
:35:09. > :35:19.Peter Mandelson ending that report. David Thompson reporting with a
:35:19. > :35:25.
:35:25. > :35:30.little help from Nick Robinson. Our guest of the day Andrew Adonis has
:35:30. > :35:38.just published a book. You say you felt it was close on
:35:38. > :35:40.that Monday evening. Was it really, realistic a Lib-Lab coalition?
:35:40. > :35:48.will never know. There was a possibility. The key thing, it is
:35:48. > :35:53.clear to me, is that Nick Clegg had decided he wanted to go in with the
:35:53. > :35:58.Conservatives. That was an an honourable position. He thought they
:35:58. > :36:01.won the election and for him to try and swim against the tide was too
:36:01. > :36:11.big a thing to do. He is quite sympathetic to the Conservatives and
:36:11. > :36:12.
:36:12. > :36:17.was prepared to sign up up -- sign up to their economic strategy.
:36:17. > :36:21.My party didn't prepare properly for a hung parliament. You have got to
:36:21. > :36:26.terms in terms of people and ne terms of understanding the
:36:26. > :36:31.manifestoes of the other parties. I hope Labour win the next election
:36:31. > :36:34.outright. There is no excuse for the parties not to be properly prepared.
:36:34. > :36:40.Was Nick Clegg only going to go into coalition with the Conservatives?
:36:40. > :36:44.That's not right. The second half of Andrew's analysis I agree with.
:36:44. > :36:49.Parties should prepare beforehand and that's something the Liberal
:36:49. > :36:56.Democrats had done. Nick appointed the team to do work befores hand.
:36:56. > :37:01.Some of us faced Andrew with ideas of what needed to needed to happen
:37:01. > :37:07.and it was fascinating to discover that a party that been running the
:37:07. > :37:11.country had no plan for the next step forward and that derailed the
:37:11. > :37:15.negotiations that we had with Labour.
:37:15. > :37:19.Nothing to do with the nature of Nick Clegg with David Cameron? There
:37:19. > :37:22.is now a feeling that the two of them were better matched than any
:37:22. > :37:28.match between Nick Clegg and somebody who is going to replace
:37:28. > :37:32.Gordon Brown? Well, a match with anybody with Gordon Brown would have
:37:32. > :37:37.been an interesting challenge, but leaving that particular point aside,
:37:37. > :37:43.as Menzies Campbell said if you looked at our manifesto beforehand
:37:43. > :37:46.and the Conservative manifesto and the Liberal Democrats manifesto.
:37:46. > :37:50.When we met the Labour Party negotiating team, Andrew was there,
:37:50. > :37:53.they could not give a commitment to support their policy on voting
:37:53. > :37:57.reform which by the way was something of a dilution of what we
:37:57. > :38:02.wanted to see. That lack of preparation really undermined any
:38:02. > :38:06.successful discussion with Labour. You brought it on yourselves? You
:38:06. > :38:10.talked yourselves out of a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, not just
:38:10. > :38:16.for the reasons you say, but probably because there was a sense
:38:16. > :38:20.of we can't do business with these people. People like John Reid and
:38:20. > :38:25.Andy Burnham were saying it would be a disaster? I think we could have
:38:25. > :38:28.done a deal. On the issue of voting reform, we were content to hold a
:38:28. > :38:34.referendum which is the position that... But you had nothing to talk
:38:34. > :38:36.to them about? We said that in the discussions. I don't accept it was a
:38:36. > :38:41.negotiating failure. Nick decided he wanted to go in with the
:38:41. > :38:44.Conservatives. Having said which though, it is important you make the
:38:44. > :38:49.strongest possible play that you can in a hung parliament situation.
:38:49. > :38:54.you didn't? He we could have made a stronger play and if we are in the
:38:54. > :38:57.situation again, we should do so. It is interesting. You can argue
:38:57. > :39:01.about whether Nick Clegg decided to go in with the Conservatives. In
:39:01. > :39:07.terms of the negotiating team. It took place over a period of days.
:39:07. > :39:12.Paddy Ashdown and Menzies Campbell had links with Labour? There were
:39:12. > :39:18.strong links. But Gordon and Nick didn't have strong personal
:39:18. > :39:24.relations. It is important the Prince pals they have -- principals,
:39:24. > :39:30.that they have strong relations smtz Gordon Brown said he was going to
:39:30. > :39:33.If Alan Johnson had been there, the promise of him as leader. Would it
:39:33. > :39:37.have been different? Could it have been different for Nick Clegg?
:39:37. > :39:40.don't accept the point that Nick was Tory facing. Nick said beforehand
:39:40. > :39:44.that we would if necessary enter negotiations with the party which
:39:44. > :39:49.had the largest numbering of seats. That was -- number of seats, that
:39:49. > :39:53.was the Conservatives. It could have been the Labour Party as Paddy
:39:53. > :39:56.Ashdown pointed out on that clip. It wasn't a predetermined decision to
:39:56. > :40:01.go with the Conservatives. There was a P plan to say we would discuss
:40:01. > :40:05.with the party which had the largest number of seats and that will be the
:40:05. > :40:08.position that I'm sure we will be adopting if that arises at the next
:40:08. > :40:13.election. Should Nick Clegg have got himself a
:40:13. > :40:16.department? Do you think, having gone into Government and decided
:40:16. > :40:21.that he was Deputy Prime Minister, should he have got a department?
:40:21. > :40:27.Would that have given the Liberal Democrats more influence? The role
:40:27. > :40:32.Nick has is an oversight of a wide range of department departmental
:40:33. > :40:38.initiatives in he every department. -- in every department. I have seen
:40:38. > :40:41.Andrew's comments on this. Maybe if one looks at Continental examples,
:40:41. > :40:46.you find Deputy Prime Ministers occupying major ministerial posts.
:40:46. > :40:49.If you want to have a strategic view of what a Government is achieving,
:40:49. > :40:53.you can't do that from one individual ministerial post and
:40:53. > :41:00.clearly, that was a decision that was taken by Nick. I have to say
:41:00. > :41:03.that the negotiating team at no point was discussing those matters,
:41:04. > :41:11.we were looking at the policies, not the personalities that should be
:41:11. > :41:19.leading P. That was as mistake. Nick marooned himself in the Cabinet
:41:19. > :41:23.Office. It is a clearing house. It is not an office of state.
:41:23. > :41:26.Continental governments, the second party has a significant office. In
:41:26. > :41:29.Germany, the green leader is the Foreign Minister. In Sweden, it has
:41:29. > :41:32.been Finance Minister. Having a significant departmental power base
:41:32. > :41:35.dm a Government is very important to having influence across the
:41:35. > :41:38.Government. Gordon Brown wanted a deal with the
:41:38. > :41:41.Liberal Democrats before the last election or it was talked about. Do
:41:41. > :41:51.you think there should be now proper talks with the Liberal Democrats xw
:41:51. > :41:51.
:41:51. > :41:56.that he deal before 2015? I think it would be premature to talk about
:41:56. > :42:02.that. I thought we were just talking about a lack of preparatory is in
:42:02. > :42:07.the event of hung parliament. don't think we should be in the
:42:07. > :42:09.business of formerly negotiating, I think preparing means developing
:42:09. > :42:14.strong relationships between the parties, and a strong mutual
:42:14. > :42:18.understanding. You have to understand the Lib Dems to
:42:18. > :42:23.understand why people like Andrew are so mad keen on constitutional
:42:23. > :42:27.reform. My lot found it hard to understand. Unless you understand
:42:27. > :42:30.that the first, second, third and fourth concern the Lib Dems always
:42:30. > :42:36.have this House of Lords reform, you can never really get under their
:42:36. > :42:45.skin. Peter Mandelson said he didn't even know who you were before the
:42:45. > :42:48.negotiations were starting. I think I wear that badge with pride!
:42:48. > :42:52.Preparation is about, firstly, knowing what you want. If ever there
:42:52. > :42:56.was a team of people in the room who did not know what they want, it was
:42:56. > :43:00.the Labour team we met, with Ed Balls Parling one-way, Andrew
:43:00. > :43:04.valiantly pulling in another and Peter Mandelson holding the reins
:43:04. > :43:09.with some difficulty. We had in the preparatory work, we knew what the
:43:09. > :43:12.priorities were for Britain, we discuss the pupil premium and issues
:43:12. > :43:16.about budget and finances, we discussed with Labour all of those
:43:16. > :43:23.things, and their answer was nothing. We will cancel runway three
:43:23. > :43:27.at Heathrow. That is not a negotiating position. I said that I
:43:27. > :43:33.think they could have done the deal. The basic dynamics of that was
:43:33. > :43:37.moving in on David Cameron. You said that the Liberal Democrat
:43:37. > :43:45.negotiators only started talks with Labour to get an AV wrap around. As
:43:45. > :43:49.the person mad about constitutional reform, was that the nub of it?
:43:49. > :43:53.discussions with Labour, we were ready to have a full range of policy
:43:53. > :43:56.discussions which we had with the Conservatives. Looking at the
:43:56. > :44:01.coalition agreement, it is very wide-ranging in a whole scope of
:44:01. > :44:04.government departments and policies, many of which are in place now and
:44:04. > :44:08.more of which will follow, things like reform of the state pension
:44:08. > :44:14.system and someone which are fundamentally radical and, I would
:44:15. > :44:19.say, left of centre reforms, which were long overdue. We could not get
:44:19. > :44:24.any engagement with Labour on that. The fundamental decision which Nick
:44:24. > :44:29.Clegg took was to support the Osbourne plan, to go for further and
:44:29. > :44:33.faster cuts than Alistair Darling proposed. I would say to throw over
:44:33. > :44:38.the Lib Dems' own manifesto. Once they had taken up, I think the die
:44:38. > :44:44.was cast. Do you think what has happened in this coalition
:44:44. > :44:48.government will put the public off in the future? I don't think it will
:44:48. > :44:52.be determined in that way. I think the public will be voting for the
:44:52. > :44:58.party on the policies they favour, we will have to deal with the
:44:58. > :45:03.consequences. Has this government and coalition a bad name? Thank you
:45:03. > :45:08.very much. According to our next guest, the
:45:08. > :45:13.American War on drugs has cost $1 trillion, resulted in 45 million
:45:13. > :45:18.arrests yet has achieved nothing. This filmmaker argues that
:45:18. > :45:26.politicians are afraid to do anything but be tough on drug users
:45:26. > :45:31.and drug dealers. His film, The House I Live In, aims to argue for
:45:31. > :45:36.the decriminalisation of drugs. Carpenter's perspective on the
:45:36. > :45:44.severity of drug laws caught me off guard. A long time ago, we may drugs
:45:44. > :45:50.into this huge thing and we have made it so illegal and we made it
:45:50. > :45:56.such a national issue with that tough on crime stance. You can't get
:45:56. > :45:59.elected if you don't profess to be tough on crime. We have to join
:45:59. > :46:05.together to ensure that drug dealers are punished swiftly, Shirley and
:46:05. > :46:13.severely. You can't stay elected if you don't do things to be tough on
:46:13. > :46:16.crime. Build new prisons base for 24,000 inmates. Nobody wants to be
:46:16. > :46:20.the first person to say, we can't afford what we are doing, let's do
:46:20. > :46:27.something different. If you made any noise about being soft on crime in
:46:27. > :46:33.any way, you would be out of a job. Three strikes and you are out.
:46:33. > :46:39.Eugene joins us now. Wide EU say it has not worked, in broad terms, the
:46:39. > :46:42.war on drugs? We have been at this for 40 years, we have spent $1
:46:42. > :46:50.trillion, we have 2.3 million people in jail and we have an unmitigated
:46:50. > :46:55.rate of addiction. Drugs are cheaper, purer and more in use, more
:46:55. > :47:01.widely available, so I don't see how it is meant to have succeeded.
:47:01. > :47:04.is your benchmark for success? we concerned about the ravaging
:47:05. > :47:09.impact on human life, families and communities of drug addiction? We
:47:09. > :47:13.would like healthier families, individuals and communities, safer
:47:13. > :47:20.neighbourhoods, it has made American communities less safe. When you over
:47:20. > :47:25.apply the police to nonviolent dissent -- offenders, cops are
:47:25. > :47:32.racking up petty drug arrests all night and there is an closer
:47:33. > :47:37.violence in America. Communities are made less safe. We have not made
:47:37. > :47:43.communities safer, nor individual safer, we have just enriched those
:47:43. > :47:46.who profit from incarceration. a very difficult issue for
:47:46. > :47:51.politicians, very few governments have tried it on any big scale
:47:52. > :47:58.because it would not be palatable with the population, despite the
:47:58. > :48:02.litany of woes that have been associated with the war on drugs.
:48:02. > :48:06.You are kind to call it decriminalisation, we commonly here
:48:06. > :48:10.it is legalisation. That scares everyday people, they would think
:48:10. > :48:15.that overnight there would be a drug dealer in every corner and we would
:48:15. > :48:20.declare open season on substances, with devastating impact. I am not an
:48:20. > :48:25.advocate of legalisation, but I'm an advocate of following the example of
:48:25. > :48:28.Portugal, for example. Portugal decriminalised the position of all
:48:28. > :48:34.-- the possession of all drugs across the board, up to a certain
:48:34. > :48:41.point. Beyond that point, somebody is assumed to be a dealer. At every
:48:41. > :48:47.other level, that criminalisation had striking results. Drug use, HIV
:48:47. > :48:53.and violence associated with drugs, these figures all went down. And
:48:53. > :48:59.there was enormous savings in the criminal justice system in Portugal
:48:59. > :49:03.with which they developed a robust treatment centre. You have thought
:49:03. > :49:08.about policies that are difficult to make work, for governments to put in
:49:08. > :49:12.place. Could something like that ever work here? I don't recognise
:49:13. > :49:16.that position. We don't have a problem with exploding crime and
:49:16. > :49:21.violence. Crime rates are coming down, violent crime rates much more
:49:21. > :49:25.rapidly than overall crime rates. Drug-related crime, in terms of the
:49:25. > :49:30.impact on the court, is coming down. There are big negative effects,
:49:30. > :49:34.potentially, whether you quality criminalisation or legalisation, on
:49:34. > :49:39.individual lives and the lives of communities. It can wreck lives. --
:49:39. > :49:45.whether you call it decriminalisation or legalisation.
:49:45. > :49:50.In 2013, this situation is improving in this country, it is not getting
:49:50. > :49:54.worse. Perhaps that is not the case in some parts of the world.
:49:54. > :49:57.reality is that this was always a public health matter, it was a
:49:58. > :50:01.complete departure from common sense to treat it as a criminal matter. If
:50:01. > :50:05.somebody came to you and told you they were addicted, as so many
:50:05. > :50:09.people in this world are, the first thing you would do was not to call
:50:09. > :50:14.the police, you would say to them, you need counselling, you need to
:50:14. > :50:18.get in a programme, somebody to intervene, many tough love kind of
:50:18. > :50:22.things. In America we just did tough on crime, because it sold tickets
:50:22. > :50:26.and was good for politicians. The failure is so monumental that even
:50:26. > :50:30.people from the far right all the way to the far left are finding a
:50:30. > :50:36.common voice. Washington disagrees about everything except for the drug
:50:36. > :50:40.war. Many people are against the drug war. Leading Republicans don't
:50:40. > :50:43.want to see a bloated federal programme that does no good, there
:50:43. > :50:50.is certainly a common cause with people who think it is inhumane to
:50:50. > :50:52.treat the nonviolent as though they were violent. We need to do more on
:50:52. > :50:58.rehabilitation, and I am always struck by the big problem about drug
:50:58. > :51:01.use in prisons. Of course, when they get out, unless they are on the
:51:01. > :51:07.straight and narrow, you are just recycling them back into prison
:51:07. > :51:13.again, and drugs are a big part of that. The amount -- the more that we
:51:13. > :51:23.can do to help people out of addiction and so on... American
:51:23. > :51:49.
:51:50. > :51:54.politicians will share that view, Isn't it criminal when you have drug
:51:54. > :51:58.cartels? It is a massive business? Isn't the problem the shipping of
:51:58. > :52:04.the stuff in America stickily of the drugs being there in the first
:52:04. > :52:08.place? Naes a consequence of the criminalisation of the drug. When
:52:08. > :52:13.you criminalise a drug, it creates the market. We did prohibition. It
:52:13. > :52:18.was a disaster. So then about five decades later somebody said, " Why
:52:18. > :52:23.don't we try that again?" We have gone into the prohibition of drugs.
:52:23. > :52:32.Alcohol is a far more destructive substance to public safety than any
:52:32. > :52:37.of the drugs. We say some drugs are legal and other drugs are not.
:52:37. > :52:40.social acceptability is quite a big point. When you are dealing with
:52:40. > :52:46.substances which the overwhelming majority were enjoying, you have big
:52:46. > :52:49.problems if you start decriminalising them. In the last
:52:49. > :52:53.few days, there have been plenty of reports of Conservative voters
:52:53. > :52:56.jumping ship to join UKIP. Conservative local councillors have
:52:57. > :53:00.switched parties and there are murmuring is that some Tory MPs
:53:01. > :53:04.might be tempted to change sides. But political defections are
:53:04. > :53:11.certainly not a new thing. Winston Churchill, elected as a Conservative
:53:11. > :53:17.MP in 1900, defected to the Liberal party in 1904. By 1924 and a switch
:53:17. > :53:21.or two later, he was back in the fold as a conservative. 1981 was
:53:21. > :53:27.notable for the biggest UK political defection, Labour lost 28 MPs to a
:53:27. > :53:30.new party when the gang of four founded the SDP. More recent
:53:30. > :53:35.Parliamentary wardrobe swaps include Shaun Woodward, who left the
:53:35. > :53:42.Conservatives to join Labour in 1999, Paul Marsden went from red to
:53:43. > :53:45.yellow in 2001, and Bob Spink went from conservative to UKIP in 2008.
:53:46. > :53:52.We have been joined by the Conservative MP said Judge Karim,
:53:52. > :53:56.who used to be a Liberal Democrat, and by a councillor who has switched
:53:57. > :53:59.to UKIP from the Conservatives. And Lord Adonis was originally a member
:54:00. > :54:08.of the SDP, then the Liberal Democrats, before defecting to
:54:08. > :54:16.Labour. Just the Conservatives to go! Suzanne, you are the most recent
:54:16. > :54:22.defector, how long have you been in UKIP? A couple of days, it is that
:54:22. > :54:31.new. Have you been warmly received? Allah guess, I said, hello, I think
:54:31. > :54:37.I am the new leader of UKIP in Merton. What made you decide to
:54:37. > :54:41.become a cloud or a fruitcake? felt let down by the Conservative
:54:41. > :54:45.Party. There were various issues locally where I felt the party
:54:45. > :54:50.should have intervened. I also felt that my residents were not being
:54:50. > :54:53.represented properly. When you find yourself on the streets delivering
:54:53. > :54:57.literature that you think is wishy-washy, Labour light, not
:54:57. > :55:01.getting the message across, and you stand on the doorstep and somebody
:55:01. > :55:05.says, I've always voted conservative and never will again because of
:55:05. > :55:09.this, this amp is, you have to find yourself buttoning your lip when you
:55:09. > :55:15.are thinking, I kind of agree. Surely it is time to examine your
:55:15. > :55:25.conscience and think where you want to go. How big a threat is UKIP to
:55:25. > :55:27.
:55:27. > :55:29.your old party? 22% in the polls yesterday. In terms of my local area
:55:29. > :55:37.in Merton, I think UKIP has more chance of taking seats than the
:55:37. > :55:42.Labour stronghold. We will keep away from local politics. Sajid, you
:55:42. > :55:49.followed Winston Churchill, are you now in the right party? I started
:55:49. > :55:54.out very early, I was seven years old when I was active in the
:55:54. > :55:58.Conservative Party, I left them at 19 and I came back some years later.
:55:58. > :56:01.When somebody is on a political journey, it is important that our
:56:01. > :56:06.political system is quite accommodating, especially if we want
:56:06. > :56:09.younger people to get involved in politics. We have to allow them to
:56:09. > :56:15.develop their thought processes and move within accordance of that.
:56:15. > :56:20.it difficult psychologically to move between parties? It is a very tough
:56:20. > :56:24.decision. Even at the age of 19 when I decided I was going to leave the
:56:24. > :56:29.Conservative Party at that stage, it was a tremendously difficult
:56:29. > :56:36.decision. Then when I made a decision to rejoin once again, it is
:56:36. > :56:40.a tough call. Most of your political movements over the years, you
:56:40. > :56:44.develop very strong personal links with people within political
:56:44. > :56:50.parties. It is important that as you develop you are able to move in
:56:50. > :56:52.accordance with those developments. Are you hated by the party you left
:56:52. > :56:59.behind and viewed in suspicion by your new home, or those in your new
:56:59. > :57:03.home? I was incredibly lucky because I had many, many friends in the
:57:03. > :57:09.Conservative Party from my younger days who were extremely welcoming of
:57:09. > :57:12.the fact that I was coming back into the fold, so to speak. And I still
:57:12. > :57:16.have friends in the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, in the Labour
:57:16. > :57:21.Party as well. So as a pragmatic politician I think it is important
:57:21. > :57:26.that you have friends in a wide base and call on those when there is
:57:26. > :57:29.political advantage in terms of pushing the agenda you want to push.
:57:29. > :57:32.Andrew Adonis, people are always those bitches when you join a party,
:57:32. > :57:38.you were liked very much by the Blairites and Tony Blair, but there
:57:38. > :57:43.will always those in Labour who viewed you with suspicion? I changed
:57:43. > :57:46.when I was 30, when Tony Blair became the Labour leader. I took the
:57:47. > :57:51.view that if you are modernising social Democrats, a modernising
:57:51. > :57:56.social Democrat had just become the leader of the Labour Party. I did
:57:56. > :58:01.not change a single view I had. Defections are there most potion --
:58:01. > :58:04.potent when people say that the abuse they hold are better
:58:05. > :58:09.represented by the new party than the last. -- when people say that of
:58:09. > :58:13.the views they hold are better represented by the new party than
:58:13. > :58:20.the last. Many people defecting to UKIP say that their views are at
:58:20. > :58:24.upheld by UKIP. Just time to find out the answer to
:58:24. > :58:32.the quiz. Andrew has forgotten! We wanted to test what a rail
:58:32. > :58:41.enthusiasts years. Can you identify these four famous engines? InterCity
:58:41. > :58:47.125, Thomas the Tank Engine, the Rocket, and is that just a Mullard?
:58:47. > :58:52.You are just too good, it is not from Thomas the Tank Engine, but it