:00:43. > :00:47.Daily Politics. The wealthiest pensioners should stop getting
:00:47. > :00:53.winter fuel allowance, say Labour. What other benefits should be means
:00:53. > :00:59.tested? Sleaze is back at Westminster as the lobbying scandal
:00:59. > :01:03.hits the Commons and Lords. But is legislation the answer?
:01:03. > :01:06.Harder exams, a tougher curriculum and shorter holidays. But is the
:01:06. > :01:10.real way to raise standards in our schools to teach children how to be
:01:10. > :01:15.happy? There were empty ballot boxes and a
:01:15. > :01:23.record low turnout. Six months on, have police commissioners captured
:01:23. > :01:28.the public's imagination? All of that in the next hour. With
:01:28. > :01:33.us for much of the problem today is James O'Shaughnessy, who ran David
:01:33. > :01:38.Cameron's Downing Street policy unit until last year, and is now chief
:01:38. > :01:41.policy adviser with the lobbying and PR firm, Portland Communications.
:01:41. > :01:45.Let's start with the shadow chancellor 's announcement this
:01:45. > :01:54.morning that Labour would suck for the means testing of the winter fuel
:01:54. > :01:57.allowance. -- Labour would start means testing. It was originally
:01:57. > :02:00.introduced by Gordon Brown and supported by Labour at the last
:02:00. > :02:06.election. Ed Balls made the announcement in a speech on the
:02:06. > :02:10.party 's becoming policy in the City of London this morning.
:02:10. > :02:14.When our care system is under such pressure, can it remain a priority
:02:14. > :02:19.to pay the winter fuel allowance, a vital support for middle and low
:02:19. > :02:24.income pensioners, to the richest 5% of those with incomes high enough to
:02:24. > :02:30.pay the higher rate of tax? We believe the winter fuel allowance
:02:30. > :02:35.provides support for low income pensioners to combat fuel poverty.
:02:36. > :02:39.That is why we introduced, at that time, the allowance. It is why we
:02:39. > :02:45.paid into all pensioners. But in tough a comic times, we have to make
:02:45. > :02:55.difficult choices. ASH microbe tough economic times. We have to strike a
:02:55. > :02:56.
:02:57. > :03:02.balance between universal and pay the winter allowance to the
:03:02. > :03:08.wealthiest pensioners. With us is the Shadow Treasury
:03:08. > :03:14.minister, Chris Leslie. You want to cut the winter fuel allowance bill
:03:14. > :03:20.by 5%. How much will it save? It would be about �100 million,
:03:20. > :03:26.probably about 600,000 pensioners affected. The richest 5% of 12
:03:26. > :03:31.million pensioners. Don't forget that was an example of a wider on
:03:31. > :03:35.the station that Ed Balls was having about the need for decisions which
:03:35. > :03:45.might have to be made if we have the bleak inheritance George Osbourne
:03:45. > :03:47.
:03:47. > :03:50.leaves behind. -- a wider conversation. If George Osborne
:03:50. > :03:54.continues regardless, as he has so far, then there are going to be
:03:54. > :03:57.tough decisions. You are claiming it is going to be
:03:57. > :04:01.bleak if the government continues with its economic policies. The
:04:01. > :04:05.admitted this is a drop in the ocean. It is going to have to be a
:04:05. > :04:11.lot more in terms of labour's becoming policy to sort out the
:04:11. > :04:21.economy in the terms you have just described. ASH microbe labour's
:04:21. > :04:29.
:04:29. > :04:35.We will not have to be as harsh as he is planning to be. He will
:04:35. > :04:39.probably continue as he has, with that ideological approach. That is
:04:39. > :04:43.our point today. The spending review in June, rather than trying to
:04:43. > :04:47.predict what he does know will happen in the economy in two years.
:04:48. > :04:52.He should be focusing on getting the economy moving, stimulate growth
:04:52. > :04:57.right now. But means testing for wealthier
:04:57. > :05:02.pensioners is not a game changer, is it, in terms of reducing the
:05:02. > :05:08.deficit? It would be a significant decision.
:05:08. > :05:12.I don't dismiss how difficult it is. 100 million in terms of the deficit
:05:12. > :05:18.is not a game changer. We have to get to a number of
:05:18. > :05:24.changes, step by step. This will progress. People want to know the
:05:24. > :05:30.fairer approach we will take. People recognise, actually that pensioners
:05:30. > :05:37.that people on �42,000 per year, really, the winter fuel allowance
:05:37. > :05:40.doesn't need to be paid to them. What about other benefits? Is Labour
:05:40. > :05:43.making a break with universal benefits? Peter Hain has tweeted
:05:43. > :05:51.that this is an attack on universal benefits.
:05:51. > :05:57.We will look at benefits more generally. What about childcare? Why
:05:57. > :06:07.not look at child benefit? Child benefit was able watched decision
:06:07. > :06:16.
:06:16. > :06:25.that George Osborne made last year. It is paid to a family. Taxation is
:06:25. > :06:32.not -- is on an individual basis. you have made this break, will you
:06:32. > :06:35.look at other benefits? We want to defend those universal principles.
:06:35. > :06:39.As George Osborne makes more of a mess of the situation, we are going
:06:39. > :06:46.to have to look at where the line is torn between universal and targeted
:06:46. > :06:49.support. Certainly, most of the Tory ministers and politicians we have
:06:49. > :06:53.had on this programme have said that it is something that they will look
:06:53. > :06:57.at at the next election. Reading between the lines, the only reason
:06:57. > :07:06.they haven't is because of the commitment David Cameron made at the
:07:06. > :07:12.last election. David Cameron did not make that commitment. The situation
:07:12. > :07:19.is difficult. It is interesting to hear him talk about the legacy that
:07:19. > :07:28.a Labour government had. Talking about bleak inheritance, theirs was
:07:28. > :07:31.bleak. I can see the limit for this. It is right that the wealthiest to
:07:31. > :07:36.contribute the most when you have to make these difficult decisions. But
:07:36. > :07:43.actually, this is a drop in the ocean. The real question for Labour
:07:43. > :07:47.is our they going to stick to, or not, the government spending plans?
:07:47. > :07:54.This is the big decision that every opposition have to make.
:07:54. > :07:59.Are you? We hope that in two years time... George Osborne, two years
:07:59. > :08:06.ago, predicted he would get the deficit down or stop he was wrong
:08:06. > :08:11.then. Now you are asking whether you can predict in two years whether...
:08:12. > :08:17.I don't think it is responsible to say now in 2013, exactly what
:08:17. > :08:22.revenues we will be getting in 2015. We know George Osborne is very keen
:08:22. > :08:26.on this political games and the spending review in June is about
:08:26. > :08:32.trying to position himself and put Labour in a difficult position about
:08:32. > :08:35.what it will do in 2015. We will make our commitment clear in that
:08:35. > :08:40.manifesto before 2015. Every opposition has to make a
:08:40. > :08:48.difficult decision. Do you stick to the government 's spending plans or
:08:48. > :08:50.do you do something different? Labour have had chances in the past.
:08:50. > :08:55.The Conservatives have had opportunities in the past and lost
:08:55. > :09:01.elections. The real question is going to be, there is a long-term,
:09:01. > :09:06.three-year commitments to reduce the deficit. Does Labour stick to it? If
:09:06. > :09:11.not, they were going into the election saying they will spend more
:09:12. > :09:18.with their reputation being that they spend too much. I understand
:09:18. > :09:28.this. If we were to say what is happening in 2015... Hang on a
:09:28. > :09:28.
:09:28. > :09:33.second. Ed Balls said you cannot move on in any other basis. This
:09:33. > :09:38.sounds like Labour is edging towards saying, we will start by looking at
:09:38. > :09:44.the government's spending plans. That will be where we move from.
:09:45. > :09:54.If the government carries on as they were, that looks like our starting
:09:54. > :09:57.point. We will be a different opposition to the one that you were
:09:57. > :10:02.in with the Conservatives. There was a promise from the Conservatives
:10:02. > :10:10.that they were going to keep education maintenance allowances.
:10:10. > :10:13.They made promises in opposition that they could not keep. Today, as
:10:13. > :10:20.an opposition, we want to be different. We don't want to make
:10:20. > :10:24.promises we don't think we can keep. On a number of occasions, Ed
:10:24. > :10:32.Miliband has said that to touch in a bus of benefits is difficult for
:10:32. > :10:42.him. It is impossible. -- universal benefits. The real question is,
:10:42. > :10:44.
:10:44. > :10:50.today you have made a decision to cut millions from the budget. Child
:10:50. > :10:55.benefit as a saving of �2 billion. It is until you start, and you
:10:55. > :11:01.haven't said yet if you will reverse it, until you start to make
:11:01. > :11:07.decisions of that magnitude, people will not take you seriously.
:11:07. > :11:12.You are picking at individual elements. The big issue is, we can't
:11:12. > :11:22.possibly make promises on spending issues beyond 2015. We don't know
:11:22. > :11:23.
:11:24. > :11:31.what sort of mess... It could get worse! We hope that George Osborne
:11:31. > :11:35.will take the advice, stimulate the economy now, listen to the IMF.
:11:35. > :11:39.There are three alternatives. The government has its spending plans
:11:40. > :11:44.and they come true. They are slightly better. Or they are worth.
:11:44. > :11:46.In each of those scenarios, Labour still spends more than the
:11:46. > :11:52.Conservatives are pledging. It doesn't matter what the plans are,
:11:52. > :11:57.you still spend more. Is there a circumstance in which you would
:11:58. > :12:02.spend less? You have conceded that there are different pathways. George
:12:02. > :12:06.Osborne is going to set one. That is the wrong thing to do.
:12:06. > :12:10.It survived rocking amendments in the Commons. Today the Same Sex
:12:10. > :12:14.Marriage Bill arrives in the Lords to be debated. How will it be
:12:14. > :12:19.received? Adam is on College Green. In the next couple of hours, peers
:12:19. > :12:23.will start to discuss the bill for the first time in the House of
:12:23. > :12:28.Lords. More than 80 of them have put their names down to speak in the
:12:28. > :12:32.debate, meaning they could be up late tonight talking about the
:12:32. > :12:37.issue. Then there is going to be a vote tomorrow on the second reading.
:12:37. > :12:41.Lord Dear has tabled what is called a wrecking amendment, which could
:12:41. > :12:45.stop the bill in its tracks right there and then. Let's discuss what
:12:45. > :12:51.could happen with the Conservative peer, Michael Bates, who joins me
:12:51. > :12:55.here. How are you feeling about the issue? I understand where people are
:12:55. > :12:58.coming from on this. They feel pretty angry that same-sex marriage
:12:59. > :13:05.was not in the Coalition agreement are not in the Conservative
:13:05. > :13:10.manifesto, and we have that. I understand why people are angry. But
:13:10. > :13:16.I do think there is something quite constitutionally wrong about a piece
:13:17. > :13:21.of legislation that has come to us with a majority of 225 from the
:13:21. > :13:25.elected house, and we are going to deny it a second reading. Amend it
:13:25. > :13:31.by all means. But I don't think it is right to deny it a second
:13:31. > :13:36.reading. Do you think Lord Dear is going to succeed tomorrow when it
:13:36. > :13:39.comes to a vote? Those debates will be heard. One of the things the
:13:39. > :13:43.House of Lords is renowned for is it is difficult to predict in advance
:13:43. > :13:50.how people will vote. Able to listen to the arguments. The whips play a
:13:50. > :13:54.less important role in this, and it is a free vote. I don't think that
:13:54. > :13:59.it will succeed. I think, actually, by testing the opinion at second
:13:59. > :14:06.reading, somehow it is weakening the case of those of us who actually
:14:06. > :14:11.want to see good, reasoned amendments put down at committee and
:14:11. > :14:14.report stage that will strengthen the issue in the bill. So as the
:14:14. > :14:22.builders further through its stages, what reassurances are you
:14:22. > :14:27.looking for? Lots of people who have been in politics for hay while that
:14:27. > :14:33.matter a while have heard a variance between what ministers say and what
:14:33. > :14:38.courts will stay. I think that we want the assurances that have been
:14:39. > :14:44.given to religious organisations to say they are able to opt in to
:14:44. > :14:48.this, but they can't be forced to. I think we will want to see this
:14:48. > :14:51.tested. In the House of Lords, we have some great legal minds who can
:14:51. > :14:57.apply that forensic test to this legislation. That is what we should
:14:57. > :15:02.be doing. How late are you going to be up tonight debating it? The whips
:15:02. > :15:07.have been generous. I understand there were 93 speakers down. After
:15:07. > :15:15.64 speakers today, we would pause and, to another 30. I think this one
:15:15. > :15:19.will run and run. That is it. Two things are
:15:19. > :15:29.inevitable when you talk about same-sex marriage. People disagree
:15:29. > :15:32.
:15:32. > :15:35.and there are protest is on the green! -- protesters. James
:15:35. > :15:38.O'Shaughnessy, there has been a majority in the Commons which has
:15:38. > :15:43.voted for it, but, has it been a good idea for the Government to
:15:43. > :15:47.proceed with it, in terms of the loss of support, meaning that it has
:15:47. > :15:52.been extremely divisive? It has been divisive, there is no getting away
:15:52. > :15:56.from that. Lots of people in the country at large have concerns about
:15:56. > :16:00.gay marriage. It is a very generational thing. It tends to be
:16:00. > :16:03.older citizens versus younger citizens. If you go back to one of
:16:03. > :16:08.David Cameron 's very earliest speeches as Conservative Party
:16:08. > :16:12.leader, as a candidate, he talked about the importance of marriage,
:16:12. > :16:17.whether it was between a man and a woman, man and man or a woman and
:16:17. > :16:23.woman. He has been absolutely constant about that. Although it was
:16:23. > :16:30.not in the manifesto. It was not but there were constitutional issues
:16:30. > :16:36.about that. Is it a good idea? Do we want to elevate the institution of
:16:36. > :16:39.marriage to the point that everybody can take part in it? Absolutely.
:16:39. > :16:43.There is anecdotal and polling evidence which shows many grassroots
:16:43. > :16:48.Tories are going over to UKIP as a result, and do not feel that they
:16:48. > :16:53.have been listened to. In fact, they are accusing the Government, David
:16:53. > :16:58.Cameron particularly, of being out of touch. There will always be
:16:58. > :17:02.people who disagree with these issues. This argument has to be
:17:02. > :17:06.conduct did with respect for one another's positions. People are not
:17:06. > :17:11.motivated by hatred or prejudice, by and large, they are just concerned
:17:11. > :17:14.about the issues. I think actually, if you look at polling among younger
:17:14. > :17:18.people, it is one of the issues which attracts people to the
:17:18. > :17:22.Conservative Party. More than anything, it is something which
:17:22. > :17:29.David Cameron deeply believes in. He believes marriage is a conservative
:17:29. > :17:31.institution which needs to be strengthened. On Friday, the
:17:31. > :17:34.Conservative MP Patrick Mercer resigned the Tory whip after
:17:34. > :17:41.allegations were made that he had broken House of Commons lobbying
:17:41. > :17:44.rules. It followed journalists approaching him, claiming to be
:17:44. > :17:48.lobbyists working on behalf of Fijian business interests. He told
:17:48. > :17:58.the journalists that his services were available at a very reasonable
:17:58. > :18:05.
:18:05. > :18:10.to undertake consultancy work outside Parliament, and he denies
:18:10. > :18:13.breaking Parliamentary rules. But he resigned the Conservative whip, and
:18:13. > :18:17.the story reignited around over lobbying in Westminster. Then, on
:18:17. > :18:22.Sunday, three members of the House of Lords were reported by the Sunday
:18:22. > :18:26.Times to have agreed to work on behalf of a fake solar power
:18:26. > :18:32.company, although all three deny breaking Parliamentary rules. Before
:18:32. > :18:38.the last election, David Cameron warned that lobbying was the next
:18:38. > :18:42.big scandal waiting to happen. A statutory register of lobbyists was
:18:42. > :18:46.promised, as was earlier legislation to introduce the power of recall,
:18:46. > :18:50.allowing voters to force a Brian election if their MP has broken the
:18:50. > :18:55.rules. Three years on, neither law has been introduced. Writing in the
:18:55. > :18:58.Daily Telegraph today, Nick Clegg says they will now happen, and in
:18:58. > :19:03.the last hour, he has been explaining why he thinks reform is
:19:03. > :19:05.essential. We are not going to change everything overnight, and no
:19:05. > :19:09.single measure will stop any politician who is absolutely
:19:09. > :19:14.determined to behave badly. That does not mean we cannot take
:19:14. > :19:18.worthwhile steps, including, urgently, edges leading for a
:19:18. > :19:23.statutory register for lobbyists, which is what we will be doing as
:19:23. > :19:28.part of a wider set of reforms to restore public trust to politics.
:19:28. > :19:31.have been joined by the Conservative MP Douglas Carswell, and by the
:19:31. > :19:35.Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake, who has been involved in negotiations
:19:35. > :19:40.over the proposed new legislation. Would a statutory register of
:19:40. > :19:44.lobbyists make any difference? pretty easy to please lobbyists, but
:19:44. > :19:48.I think the real thing we need to do is to police the lawmakers, which is
:19:48. > :19:54.a more difficult problem. Nobody disagrees with the idea of the
:19:54. > :19:59.register. But would it be effective? It would not have stopped what has
:19:59. > :20:03.allegedly occurred in these cases... We need to police both the
:20:03. > :20:06.lobbyists and numbers of Parliament and peers. In this particular case,
:20:06. > :20:11.it would not have stopped it, but it would stop other things lobbyists
:20:11. > :20:17.might do, including not being entirely open about which companies
:20:17. > :20:24.they are representing. So, really, it would help MPs check out and
:20:24. > :20:29.validate the companies they that is all it would do! That is not a bogus
:20:29. > :20:32.company, thank goodness, I got away with it! 5-1 no, it would ensure
:20:32. > :20:41.transparency, so people could see who they were meeting with, and they
:20:41. > :20:48.would be able to pursue the matter further. You work for a lobbying
:20:48. > :20:51.company - is it a good idea? More transparency is always good. It is
:20:51. > :20:57.important to draw a distinction between this alleged behaviour,
:20:57. > :21:02.which is clearly against the rules of the Commons, and the perfectly
:21:02. > :21:07.legitimate function of charities and companies and anybody else who is
:21:07. > :21:15.regulated by government to have their say. So, why do these things
:21:15. > :21:19.keep happening if the rules are so clear? I do not think they are as
:21:19. > :21:23.clear as they should be. If we have got sanctions in place, particularly
:21:23. > :21:29.for members of Parliament, such as MP recall, people will think very
:21:29. > :21:33.clearly about it. Do you know the rules? Absolutely. It is outrageous
:21:33. > :21:37.to accept any money to ask questions or table legislation. It is the
:21:37. > :21:42.basic rule number one of being a member of the legislature. It is
:21:42. > :21:49.appalling, it is absolutely shocking. But the real thing we need
:21:49. > :21:53.to recognise is that we need to make lawmakers vulnerable to voters. In
:21:53. > :21:57.the House of Lords, obviously, they are completely immune to what the
:21:57. > :22:01.public thinks, but so are most MPs in most seats. In seven out of ten
:22:01. > :22:09.seats, you face very little chance of being thrown out of office, which
:22:09. > :22:19.is why we need a recall. I voted in favour of Lords reform, and I think
:22:19. > :22:19.
:22:19. > :22:23.we should have accepted the Labour amendment to put it to a referendum.
:22:23. > :22:28.Why has the Government not done anything? The debited Prime Minister
:22:28. > :22:31.has we stated the fact that we will deliver that within this Parliament.
:22:31. > :22:35.-- the Deputy Prime Minister. Lobbying is compact, there are
:22:35. > :22:38.different ways you can tackle it. There are different people who can
:22:38. > :22:42.be caught within the net of lobbying, so the Government wants to
:22:42. > :22:47.do it correctly. The legislative programme is under pressure in many
:22:47. > :22:50.other areas as well. Has there been a dragging feet on this adage
:22:50. > :22:54.internally, there have been tough negotiations about exactly what it
:22:54. > :22:58.would look like, to make sure that it tackles the problem, but without
:22:58. > :23:05.putting an undue burden on business. It sounds like the Conservatives
:23:05. > :23:08.might not have been so keen as the other parties? Recall means that you
:23:08. > :23:12.allow local people to vote to recall their representative. What the
:23:12. > :23:15.Government came up with was a very different system, which would mean
:23:15. > :23:20.that politicians could sit in judgment on other politicians and
:23:20. > :23:23.send them away from Parliament. What we need is a recall mechanism with a
:23:23. > :23:29.real recall vote. If you do that, I think there will be agreement in the
:23:29. > :23:33.House of Commons. Well, actually, we are providing a guarantee that if a
:23:33. > :23:37.member of Parliament has been sentenced, there will be a recall
:23:37. > :23:43.guarantee. And of course, there will be a committee which looks at other
:23:43. > :23:51.types of misdemeanour. So you are looking at politicians being judged
:23:51. > :23:55.by other politicians, rather than by constituents? You cannot possibly
:23:55. > :23:59.strengthen democracy by allowing a group of politicians to expel
:23:59. > :24:07.another politician, without asking the majority of constituents # How
:24:07. > :24:10.is that recall? It is a sham. - get I think this so-called committee of
:24:10. > :24:20.grandees as demonstrated that it can, when necessary, enforced the
:24:20. > :24:24.
:24:24. > :24:27.rules. It is an outrageous system, it is an old boys system, it is not
:24:27. > :24:33.democratic. You would not trust your Parliamentary colleagues to make a
:24:33. > :24:39.proper decision? If I have a choice of being judged by my electorate or
:24:39. > :24:45.by the Westminster system, I would choose the voters every time.
:24:45. > :24:49.about people who might want to take out grievances on their MP? We have
:24:49. > :24:55.had an example of this. There was, to all intents and purposes, aged
:24:55. > :25:00.visionary sanctioned recall in 1997, when the Tories cried foul and took
:25:00. > :25:04.it to the courts and got a rerun. Because it was seen as vexatious,
:25:04. > :25:08.people came out in their tens of thousands, and the Liberal Democrats
:25:08. > :25:15.were returned by a majority of more than 20,000. Vexatious attempts to
:25:15. > :25:18.not succeed. You cannot generalise on one example. On an issue like
:25:18. > :25:21.abortion, for instance, I suspect there would be the risk of a
:25:21. > :25:27.significant body of people organising, with a view to try to
:25:27. > :25:34.depose a member of Parliament. a dangerous or a good idea to trust
:25:34. > :25:38.constituents? Goodness me, we live in a democracy. Do you not fear any
:25:38. > :25:42.attempt by constituents to perhaps randomly... ? Think about what might
:25:42. > :25:47.happen, somebody gets up vexatious claim, a group of people who think
:25:47. > :25:49.it is madness get together and outvote the others. You have
:25:49. > :25:56.quadrupled participation in the constituency. I think it would be
:25:56. > :25:59.dynamic. As I said, it is something we are considering, we are looking
:25:59. > :26:08.at different options, we may not go for the option which Douglas
:26:08. > :26:11.prefers. How is that strengthening democracy, Tom, come on? ! We have
:26:11. > :26:18.seen that the so-called committee of grandees can deliver the goods when
:26:18. > :26:20.necessary. Some colleagues are worried that this might turn into a
:26:20. > :26:28.kangaroo court, where it is not actually about a misdemeanour, it is
:26:28. > :26:36.about... How can you describe the constituents as a kangaroo court?
:26:36. > :26:40.This is extraordinary! Do you regard your constituents as a kangaroo
:26:40. > :26:47.court? We have got to think about the threshold to even have an
:26:47. > :26:50.election, so it is just like running a by-election. If somebody was seen
:26:50. > :26:54.to be messing around, then clearly, people are going to turn out, if
:26:54. > :26:59.they think it is a ridiculous waste of time, to return a local MP. It is
:26:59. > :27:04.normal human behaviour. I do not think MPs have very much to worry
:27:04. > :27:08.about on this, even though I am not one myself. You said you would be
:27:08. > :27:13.happy for a register of interests - do you think lobbying has given
:27:13. > :27:15.politics a bad name? No, there has always been lobbying. In
:27:15. > :27:20.Westminster, we have got things like the Institute of mechanical
:27:20. > :27:24.engineers, setting up things so that they can lobby Parliament in order
:27:24. > :27:28.to have the railways built, in the old days, four example. It has
:27:28. > :27:31.always happened. Also, I think it is perfectly reasonable if you are
:27:31. > :27:36.affected by government in some way to have a conversation with them in
:27:36. > :27:40.order to protect your interest. the grey area, and it is clear from
:27:40. > :27:46.what you said, you do not ask gems on behalf of them for money. But
:27:46. > :27:49.there could be a potential conflict if you are involved, or are on the
:27:49. > :27:54.board, or are being paid as a consultant, influencing Parliament
:27:54. > :27:59.in a different way - would it be simpler, from the point of view of
:27:59. > :28:05.the public, if MPs did not get paid for any other work? I disagree. I
:28:05. > :28:08.want to sit lawmakers, I want MPs to have another role in life, to be
:28:08. > :28:18.Citizen lawmakers rather than professional politicians. I think
:28:18. > :28:23.that is down to individual members of Parliament. I might have a
:28:23. > :28:29.different viewpoint, it is an important part of me representing my
:28:29. > :28:35.constituency. But you are happy for other MPs to get paid work in areas
:28:35. > :28:37.which are outside their remit? is a question for their
:28:37. > :28:42.constituents. If they are not happy with the level of involvement they
:28:42. > :28:47.have got, then they have an opportunity, every five years, there
:28:47. > :28:51.is MP recall, it is called a general election. Let me guess what makes
:28:51. > :28:54.you happy. I bet it is the return of The Daily Politics to your screens
:28:55. > :28:59.after a week away. There is a growing body of scientific evidence
:28:59. > :29:03.about what makes us feel good and how it affects our health. Our guest
:29:03. > :29:07.of the day, James O'Shaughnessy, is interested in how that can be
:29:07. > :29:17.applied in education. Find out more, we sent out out last week as the
:29:17. > :29:18.
:29:18. > :29:27.country was barking basking in the glow of the half term holidays. This
:29:27. > :29:31.is the Royal Mechanical Energy Level Engineers in Berkshire. Do you think
:29:31. > :29:36.your teachers worry if you are happy? No, not really.What do they
:29:36. > :29:44.care about? Coughing in the staff room. They try to make you happy in
:29:44. > :29:51.the staff room -- at school, so that you enjoyed it. Personality is what
:29:51. > :29:54.it is about, people should be fun people. That is what it is all about
:29:54. > :29:58.at Wellington College, a private school which takes the development
:29:59. > :30:02.of character and well-being so seriously, they even have classes
:30:02. > :30:06.dedicated to it. They have embraced a fairly new movement called
:30:06. > :30:09.positive psychology, where, instead of looking at what makes people
:30:09. > :30:19.miserable and trying to prevent it, you look at what makes people happy
:30:19. > :30:25.
:30:25. > :30:28.I think it is desperately sad for those children. It is a kind of
:30:28. > :30:35.abuse not to let young people actually have a chance to think
:30:35. > :30:40.about and develop their own autonomy and sense of looking after their
:30:40. > :30:46.minds, the emotions, their bodies. You really can teach this stuff. You
:30:46. > :30:53.can teach character as well. But under this government, Ofsted
:30:53. > :30:59.has stopped measuring pupils' well-being. The education secretary
:30:59. > :31:05.wants teachers to focus on facts. The new national curriculum is
:31:05. > :31:08.heavily weighted on history and great books.
:31:08. > :31:14.He does understand it. I think he is worried that if he talks too much
:31:14. > :31:21.about it, schools will think oh, this is our pretext for letting go
:31:21. > :31:25.of academic rigour and focusing on standards, and we can do this softer
:31:25. > :31:31.stuff instead. Actually, it is not one or the other. It is both.
:31:31. > :31:34.It was not just digital cameras that flummoxed Tony Blair. His government
:31:34. > :31:40.started a big well-being programme called social and emotional aspects
:31:40. > :31:45.of learning. Reviews found that it made hardly any difference. But
:31:45. > :31:49.research from America showed that similar programmes their lead to an
:31:49. > :31:52.improvement in exam results of 11 percentage points.
:31:52. > :31:58.Back at the museum in Berkshire, it looks like everybody is having a
:31:58. > :32:03.good time. At in 2007, Unicef found that Britain's kids are the most
:32:03. > :32:13.miserable indie divides world. If it's the job of schools to make them
:32:13. > :32:14.
:32:14. > :32:19.happier? -- in the developed world. James O'Shaughnessy is part of the
:32:19. > :32:23.Wellington School's ethos. It is easy for public and private schools
:32:23. > :32:28.to develop well-being in the curriculum. They have got money to
:32:28. > :32:32.do it. How do you do it in state schools? That is the challenge that
:32:32. > :32:40.Wellington is taking on. They have got a well-being curriculum there.
:32:40. > :32:43.They are now trying to introduce it into the state system. They are
:32:43. > :32:47.sponsoring one secondary school already. It has taken money to
:32:47. > :32:53.develop it, but I don't think it takes money to develop it in
:32:53. > :32:58.schools. Many schools are introducing it into their own
:32:58. > :33:02.classroom practice. What is resource intensive is coming up with
:33:02. > :33:10.programmes in the first instance. You have said that good public
:33:10. > :33:14.schools develop optimism, altruism, things that are not advertised in
:33:14. > :33:18.the glossy brochures. Do you think that is more important, in the end,
:33:18. > :33:23.than just the straightforward results that people may or may not
:33:23. > :33:29.get? Is it the confidence that you come out of some of these schools
:33:29. > :33:35.with? Is it what you want to develop in state schools? I don't think in
:33:35. > :33:40.terms of putting public school ethos in state schools. My children go to
:33:40. > :33:44.state schools. That is what I am worried about changing. That is what
:33:44. > :33:49.matters. The question is, do we have happy children or successful
:33:49. > :33:53.children, or do we have both? For the past 50 years, there has been an
:33:53. > :34:00.argument that you can have one or the other but not both. That seems,
:34:00. > :34:04.to me, plainly mad. Also, it carriages -- it suggests that if you
:34:04. > :34:08.focus on academic rigour but also find ways to build children's
:34:08. > :34:11.character strengths, this has a knock-on benefits both for the
:34:11. > :34:17.academic work and in a bunch of other things. They are happier, more
:34:17. > :34:25.productive. They want to play a bigger role in their communities.
:34:25. > :34:31.Has it been bad to have all of these exams in primary schools? Has the
:34:32. > :34:39.focus been too much on league tables? Parents want to see those
:34:39. > :34:43.schools. Is there room for what you are talking about and getting both?
:34:43. > :34:48.There is. Would we throw out the economic stuff and say, no, it has
:34:48. > :34:53.been too much? It has not been too much. Parents want to know that
:34:53. > :35:02.children are getting the fundamentals... Excuse me! Have some
:35:02. > :35:07.water. They also want their children to develop, for their character to
:35:07. > :35:13.let them become good and productive people. We don't hear much about
:35:13. > :35:17.happiness from Michael Gove stock he talks about longer school days,
:35:17. > :35:23.shorter holidays. He does not talk about a happy school life. Is he
:35:23. > :35:26.wrong? This is difficult. If you rewind 40 years, the people who
:35:26. > :35:30.advocated happy schools were the same people who oversaw an education
:35:30. > :35:38.system that has led to millions of adults being illiterate. The
:35:38. > :35:42.standard agenda is in some respects in reaction against that. Other
:35:42. > :35:46.countries are racing ahead of us. We need to focus on that. My argument
:35:46. > :35:51.is you don't have to choose. You can have both because they are
:35:51. > :35:56.commensurate. If you have happy children with grit and resilient --
:35:56. > :36:01.resilience, they are going to do better. A lot of it is what happens
:36:01. > :36:06.at home. Do you think any work done at school can be undermined if those
:36:06. > :36:11.virtues are not being taught at home? How a child does in education
:36:11. > :36:14.is driven more by their parents than their teachers. You need to have a
:36:14. > :36:17.reinforcement of all of those values, absolutely. But schools can
:36:17. > :36:21.make a difference. They can help children catch up if they are
:36:22. > :36:25.falling behind. Good luck in pursuing your happiness in schools.
:36:25. > :36:29.Thank you very much for being our guest.
:36:29. > :36:34.Parliament has returned today after the Whitsun recess. So what is in
:36:34. > :36:38.the diary for our MPs and Lords? As we have been hearing, later today
:36:38. > :36:41.the House of Lords will discuss the gay marriage bill. It is likely to
:36:41. > :36:51.have a bruising passage, as one member, Lord Dear, has tabled a
:36:51. > :36:58.
:36:58. > :37:02.wrecking amendment seeking to Ed Miliband will set out Labour's plan
:37:02. > :37:06.for spending. Later this week at the Star Chamber will come back.
:37:06. > :37:10.Ministers will be brought before it to agree to spending cuts worth
:37:10. > :37:18.�11.5 billion in the next spending review. Joining us now is keep a
:37:18. > :37:26.career, -- Pippa Crerar and Andrew Grice. Andrew Grice, another scandal
:37:26. > :37:30.in talking about MPs and Lords allegedly caught up in yet another
:37:30. > :37:37.lobbying scandal. Will there be action this time? There will have to
:37:37. > :37:41.be. Ministers are telling us they intended to introduce a register of
:37:41. > :37:47.lobbyists in this session of parliament that has just begun. The
:37:47. > :37:50.fact is, they were not committed to that. In the Queen's Speech, this
:37:50. > :37:56.was just a few weeks ago, and they cannot put Redgate any longer. We
:37:56. > :37:59.would not be talking about it today if there were not the revelations in
:37:59. > :38:07.the newspapers in recent days. This time, ministers will have to get
:38:07. > :38:11.their act together. The reason allegations... Do you think that the
:38:11. > :38:17.new generation of MPs will be less susceptible to these allegations of
:38:17. > :38:23.Bibury? You are right that it does go back to cash for questions and
:38:23. > :38:27.John Major 's time. He found out the dangers of it to a government of
:38:27. > :38:32.having backbench MPs misbehaving. It is true also, though, that the
:38:32. > :38:36.current crop of MPs are perhaps more professional in their mindset and
:38:36. > :38:40.approach to how they do their politics. It is true that you could
:38:40. > :38:46.end up with a group of MPs who are perhaps less susceptible. But I
:38:46. > :38:50.think he is right. Action has to be taken now. The public clamour, in
:38:50. > :38:54.particular after the expenses scandal, will be so profound that
:38:54. > :39:01.the government just cannot brush it aside. You can't underestimate how
:39:01. > :39:06.important it is in terms of the public's perception of politicians.
:39:06. > :39:09.What brings politics into such attribute is this kind of thing.
:39:09. > :39:15.Another line of action for politicos, particularly George
:39:15. > :39:18.Osborne, is the Star Chamber, which everybody likes to talk about. Do
:39:18. > :39:28.you think the threat of being summoned to be interrogated by
:39:28. > :39:29.
:39:29. > :39:34.Cabinet colleagues will work? could put more pressure on ministers
:39:34. > :39:38.who are resisting calls by the Treasury for more cuts. At the end
:39:38. > :39:42.of the day, the most crucial body will actually be the quad, the body
:39:42. > :39:48.at the top of the Coalition. They would Cameron, Nick Clegg and their
:39:48. > :39:55.Treasury counterparts, George Osborne and Danny Alexander. --
:39:55. > :39:58.David Cameron. It would be lovely to be a fly on
:39:59. > :40:04.the wall when the discussions are taking place. But, Pippa Crerar,
:40:04. > :40:12.there could be secretaries of state who promised to do something
:40:12. > :40:19.untenable like cutting the whole police budget. How desperate does it
:40:19. > :40:22.get? As he alluded, in 2010, the prospect of the Star Chamber was
:40:22. > :40:28.brought up never happen. Lots of meetings happen. The Cabinet
:40:28. > :40:33.ministers were brought into the Star Chamber. Whether it happens again,
:40:33. > :40:42.it is hard to say. Cabinet ministers will have plenty of tactics up their
:40:42. > :40:47.sleeve. Things like Iain Duncan Smith promising a �3 billion cut in
:40:47. > :40:52.his department so money could go to the Armed Forces - that is untenable
:40:52. > :40:55.and the Lib Dems would oppose it. That is never going to happen.
:40:55. > :41:00.Another tactic is Peter Lilley suggesting equalised in the age of
:41:00. > :41:07.retirement, pushing the cuts into the future. They have all got many
:41:07. > :41:09.tactics up their sleeve. Andrew, Labour is breaking the
:41:09. > :41:17.promise of universal benefit for pensioners. But it is important
:41:17. > :41:24.symbolically. Until now, Ed Miliband has said that his label for the
:41:24. > :41:28.party, one nation Labour, embraces benefits. Ed Balls is called that
:41:28. > :41:33.into question. Some Labour MPs will not like it. But the leadership
:41:33. > :41:41.hopes isn't a strong signal that Labour, in office, would impose IMF
:41:41. > :41:46.-- discipline on public spending. They know they need to rebuild
:41:46. > :41:49.credibility to have a chance of winning in 2015.
:41:49. > :41:55.It was billed as the biggest shake-up in policing in England and
:41:55. > :41:58.Wales since the invention of the modern police force in the 1820s.
:41:58. > :42:03.Six months on from the election, what kind of impact our police and
:42:03. > :42:07.current commissioners having? In a moment we will have three
:42:07. > :42:12.commissioners in the studio. First, this report, which contains some
:42:12. > :42:17.flashing lights. As a collection is go, they scored
:42:17. > :42:22.some notable firsts. An empty ballot box in one area of England. And I'm
:42:22. > :42:25.used polling station in Wales. But if the turnout for police and crime
:42:25. > :42:30.commissioners in November of last year was the lowest ever in peace
:42:30. > :42:35.time, the fact they are elected and therefore accountable is, say their
:42:35. > :42:41.supporters, a long needed reform. To their critics, they are a
:42:41. > :42:45.politicisation and over expensive unwonted influence on police.
:42:45. > :42:51.The 15.1% turnout in the elections proved a massive public disinterest
:42:51. > :42:54.in these elections and these posts altogether. There has only been
:42:54. > :42:58.negative conclusions from the way the police and crime commissioners
:42:58. > :43:03.have behaved. We have seen no significant change in the way
:43:03. > :43:08.policing has taken place. I think that proves the lack of value of the
:43:08. > :43:13.proposals. Lots of people would like to argue that the commissioners have
:43:13. > :43:18.been a failure. I think there is evidence to show that some of them
:43:18. > :43:22.on the right track. The creative work done by some PCC is on value
:43:22. > :43:32.for money and service delivery are not headline news. Inevitably,
:43:32. > :43:33.
:43:33. > :43:38.negative stories are. The PCC for Cumbria had to repay hundreds of
:43:38. > :43:47.pounds for a show that he used. And Barnes may regret her Paris and
:43:47. > :43:57.adventure. -- and macro Barnes. She was caught out over racist and
:43:57. > :43:59.
:43:59. > :44:04.Police and crime commissioners have given the impression that they have
:44:04. > :44:11.gone on a spending spree. What I say to you is what I have
:44:11. > :44:14.said previously, both here and on other occasions, that the whole
:44:14. > :44:18.point is the police and crime commissions will be accountable to
:44:18. > :44:23.their electorate. Police and crime commissioners have
:44:23. > :44:26.a clear mandate than the police authorities they were placed. I
:44:26. > :44:32.think that we always help them. I also think they have got a clearer
:44:32. > :44:38.job, which come in these times, is to improve policing in a time of
:44:38. > :44:41.tight money. The best PCCs are leading the Way better than any
:44:41. > :44:45.other public service, actually, in how to do that.
:44:45. > :44:50.Six months may not be long enough to judge, but critics point to the US
:44:50. > :44:56.for comparison. These proposals were a cheap import
:44:56. > :45:03.from the American model of politically elected sheriffs. We
:45:03. > :45:06.have seen how this model has created a real set of social problems,
:45:06. > :45:10.including undermining trust and confidence in the police and
:45:10. > :45:13.creating concerns around race relations.
:45:14. > :45:23.The 41 PCCs inning lead and well still have 4.5 years to parade how
:45:24. > :45:28.
:45:28. > :45:35.they will avoid that. I am joined now by three police and grand
:45:35. > :45:40.commissioners. -- crime commissioners. Welcome to all of
:45:40. > :45:47.you. I have to start with the mandate - you all one your seats on
:45:47. > :45:49.a mandate of between 9% and 10% of the elect Ed, which is low by
:45:49. > :45:57.anyone's judgment, but if there were elections tomorrow, would you do
:45:57. > :46:04.better? Actually it was 15.8% of the electorate in Sussex. But yes, we
:46:04. > :46:07.would. It was dark, there were no elections taking place, so it is not
:46:07. > :46:14.surprising. How much I do you think it would be if it was held
:46:14. > :46:19.tomorrow? For the sake of statistics, it was 16.6% in my case,
:46:19. > :46:23.and I got more than 65% of those. Voters did not get any information
:46:23. > :46:33.about who was standing, apart from the candidates themselves. Uncle how
:46:33. > :46:33.
:46:33. > :46:38.much higher do you think it would be? I think in most areas, the next
:46:38. > :46:44.PCC elections will take race alongside the local elections, which
:46:44. > :46:46.is likely to see turnout boosted quite considerably. I think she has
:46:46. > :46:50.been fairly kind about the circumstances surrounding the
:46:50. > :46:55.election in November. Actually, it was an absolute shambles. You could
:46:55. > :46:58.not have contrived any worse circumstances to hold an election
:46:59. > :47:05.in. You have all given reasons for that, but what about your record in
:47:05. > :47:09.the last six months? Absolutely. If you look at what we have done in
:47:09. > :47:13.Sussex, we have delivered a plan which sets out priorities in
:47:13. > :47:18.policing which the people in Sussex really want, focusing on anti-social
:47:18. > :47:21.behaviour, road safety, domestic abuse and violence. That is a
:47:21. > :47:26.fantastic achievement. The level of correspondence to my office has
:47:26. > :47:29.increased by 3500%. People know they have got someone they can go to,
:47:29. > :47:39.which is an achievement. Are you getting the same levels of
:47:39. > :47:42.
:47:42. > :47:48.correspondence? 4000 pieces of correspondence, but apart from that,
:47:48. > :47:52.it is tangible things. In Kent, 100 extra officers on the street, mobile
:47:52. > :47:57.police stations, visible policing, working with specials, it is all
:47:57. > :48:01.tangible things. I do not talk pie in the sky, it is actually what is
:48:01. > :48:06.good for the people of Kent, what they want and what I can deliver.
:48:06. > :48:13.That has been the really good thing about PCC is. I did have my
:48:13. > :48:17.criticism of it, which I stand by... And yet you are a police and
:48:17. > :48:27.crime commission, and you said they were a waste of money? Well, what do
:48:27. > :48:33.
:48:33. > :48:38.you do. Thankfully, the people of Kent agreed with me. We had an
:48:38. > :48:42.election, I stood on a platform, I said that I would stop the
:48:42. > :48:47.privatisation of the police to G for S which was on the table when I
:48:47. > :48:53.walked into my office, I said that I would reject visible policing, and I
:48:53. > :48:58.have saved a third of the police community support officers who were
:48:58. > :49:01.due to be cut. In the budget process, I put the precept up, and
:49:01. > :49:08.what I found was that people were prepared to do that because they saw
:49:08. > :49:13.that it was going to make a difference. Why did you not both do
:49:13. > :49:16.what I did, and stand as an independent, and put your party
:49:16. > :49:21.politics to one side? It should not be there. I have a real issue with
:49:21. > :49:25.this. I think it is nothing to do with politicising the police. People
:49:25. > :49:29.when they stand as an independent, they are not independent of
:49:29. > :49:34.politics, they are just independent of the parties. They are still
:49:34. > :49:39.political. This is a political decision. We all make big decisions
:49:39. > :49:45.around tax and spending. These are political issues. We are all
:49:45. > :49:51.democratically elected, which makes us politicians. Have you not also
:49:51. > :49:55.decided to put up the precept? Precisely, but I was able to do that
:49:55. > :49:58.because the old police authority actually had so many Conservative
:49:58. > :50:02.councillors on it who would not put the precept up, so I was able to do
:50:02. > :50:05.that. And we still had the police authority, I would not have been
:50:05. > :50:12.able to do that, so we would not have been able to have an extra 100
:50:13. > :50:21.people. Is it right for council tax to go up Judge allege well, in
:50:21. > :50:24.Sussex, we kept the precept the same as last year. Today, we opened the
:50:24. > :50:31.recruitment for 18 new constables in Sussex, the first time we have done
:50:31. > :50:35.that for many years, without having to raise the council tax. Why could
:50:36. > :50:38.you not do that in your area, be able to recruit more officers
:50:38. > :50:44.without raising council tax? circumstances in each force are
:50:44. > :50:47.different. Bedfordshire is one of the most hard-pressed forces. We do
:50:47. > :50:52.not even get from the government what the funding formula says we
:50:52. > :50:56.should get. We are �24 million a year less due to the operation of
:50:56. > :51:01.the damping mechanism. So, circumstances vary between different
:51:01. > :51:04.forces. We have also got a major counter terrorist threat, a major
:51:04. > :51:10.organised crime threat, as well as alarmingly high levels of serious
:51:10. > :51:13.and inquisitive crime. So, the situation varies between the forces.
:51:13. > :51:18.That is why what is appropriate for Bedfordshire is not the same as what
:51:18. > :51:25.is appropriate for Sussex, but we are each elected to do the best job
:51:25. > :51:29.we can in our area. You mentioned that you got voted in to protect any
:51:29. > :51:34.further privatisation or outsourcing - are you going to do more
:51:35. > :51:37.outsourcing in your area? Just so that people are aware, in Sussex, we
:51:37. > :51:41.already outsource our custody facilities, and have done for many
:51:41. > :51:47.years. I am looking at doing further collaboration with my colleague in
:51:47. > :51:52.Surrey, and the question I would ask is, why do we have 41 policing
:51:52. > :51:54.forces across the country, who use different payroll systems, and
:51:54. > :51:58.different human resources departments? This sort of thing
:51:58. > :52:03.could be amalgamated and outsourced. But you cannot really
:52:03. > :52:11.collaborate, if you have got some people against outsourcing, and
:52:12. > :52:14.others in favourite, you cannot do it? We work very closely with Essex.
:52:14. > :52:21.There is going to be no privatisation of police services in
:52:21. > :52:26.Kent. We do not need to do it. It is what is best for Kent. We are
:52:26. > :52:30.already driving out our savings. I think if you drive out savings, they
:52:30. > :52:37.should go back into the service from whence they came. I do not disagree
:52:37. > :52:44.with that at all. So why is it necessary to outsourcing your area?
:52:44. > :52:47.Because you are looking at ways of doing things for less money. If you
:52:47. > :52:50.privatise great bits of the police service, there will be three or four
:52:50. > :52:55.large providers doing it, and you will still have to buy back your
:52:55. > :53:03.services. You are not getting them for free. But what about the idea of
:53:03. > :53:07.fooling? We have been doing that in Kent since 2007. We were
:53:07. > :53:14.trailblazers. I am pleased to see that Surrey and Sussex are doing it
:53:14. > :53:18.now. It is interesting, because both of us, under the Government 's
:53:18. > :53:22.current proposals for rehabilitation of offenders, we are going to have
:53:22. > :53:27.to work together on probation at some stage, so we will be looking at
:53:27. > :53:30.outsourcing them, anyway. To move on to something slightly different, the
:53:30. > :53:35.Woolwich attack, which was a terrible tragedy, but it has had an
:53:35. > :53:39.impact on policing, I should think, across the country - what about the
:53:39. > :53:46.impact in your area? It has a great impact in Bedfordshire, because
:53:46. > :53:49.unfortunately, we have this very small minority, called the EDL, they
:53:49. > :53:54.think Luton is their spiritual home because of the origins of that
:53:54. > :53:58.organisation, and we are also the home to a large Muslim population. I
:53:58. > :54:02.think the important thing to say is that those extremists who
:54:02. > :54:07.perpetrated that horrendous attack, they are also a very small minority,
:54:07. > :54:12.and they do not represent the religion of Islam or the vast
:54:12. > :54:17.majority of Muslims, who share our horror at what happened. So what
:54:17. > :54:20.impact has it had on policing? are all trying to pull together to
:54:21. > :54:30.make that point, that this is all about minorities, very small
:54:30. > :54:34.minorities, trying to do harm. On Friday, we have what I think was a
:54:34. > :54:39.very powerful demonstration of people from all backgrounds in our
:54:39. > :54:44.town coming together and laying flowers at the Cenotaph outside the
:54:44. > :54:48.town hall and saying, actually, we are the people of Luton, and not
:54:48. > :54:52.these minorities who are trying to divide our community. Do you think
:54:52. > :54:58.police commissioners have a role in managing these sensitive
:54:58. > :55:03.situations? I think they do, we have to make sure that the force handles
:55:03. > :55:06.them sensitively and properly. As far as Kent was concerned, it is
:55:06. > :55:10.quiet in Kent. There was a big police presence on the streets,
:55:10. > :55:15.working with community leaders, and I am pleased with how the police in
:55:15. > :55:20.Kent dealt with it. Spending cuts cash what impact have government
:55:20. > :55:24.spending cuts had on policing in Sussex? Under the previous company
:55:24. > :55:31.and sit spending review, Sussex police had to save 20% in the
:55:31. > :55:34.budget, equating to �52 million. We are on target to meet that. It has
:55:34. > :55:40.not had an effect on frontline policing, to the extent that we are
:55:40. > :55:45.able to freeze the council tax and do some recruitment as well. That
:55:45. > :55:47.sounds miraculous - what about your area? It has had an impact in Kent.
:55:47. > :55:53.There has been a slight drawback of visible community policing, the
:55:53. > :55:57.policing that evil one. I do not want a police service which sits
:55:57. > :56:01.outside the community, just responding to needs. I want them
:56:02. > :56:05.working with communities, going into schools and colleges. I am fighting
:56:05. > :56:11.more cuts to police funding, because that is what will disappear, which
:56:11. > :56:19.is not fair. How efficient is your office, and the money that is spent
:56:19. > :56:22.on your salary and the salaries of your staff? Very efficient. We have
:56:23. > :56:26.13.5 full-time employees, we came in under budget last year, we have got
:56:27. > :56:30.exactly the same budget this year. But it is a big job, it is more than
:56:30. > :56:33.the old police authority job. We have got all of the statutory
:56:33. > :56:36.responsibilities of the old authority, plus all the
:56:36. > :56:41.commissioning, plus the work with criminal justice, was the work with
:56:41. > :56:44.partners, it is not a small job. It is a really big job, and the sooner
:56:45. > :56:51.people realise that, the better. What about the number of people in
:56:51. > :56:55.your office? I have kept my staff, lament at what I inherited from the
:56:55. > :57:05.police authority. Nonetheless, my office budget has seen a real terms
:57:05. > :57:05.
:57:05. > :57:08.reduction this year. I think what is important in the context of
:57:08. > :57:16.Bedfordshire is the impact that the forthcoming copy and sit spending
:57:16. > :57:19.review could have. I really worry about that. In Bedfordshire, because
:57:19. > :57:23.of the previous Comprehensive Spending Review, we have had to move
:57:23. > :57:29.away from the traditional model of neighbourhood policing and implement
:57:29. > :57:34.a far more reactive model, and although that has continued to drive
:57:34. > :57:39.down crying quite successfully, it has nonetheless meant that the force
:57:39. > :57:42.is less visible to the public, which is a real worry when it comes to
:57:42. > :57:47.protecting and building public confidence in the force. You have
:57:47. > :57:53.taken on 12 staff, is that right? No, I inherited staff, we have 12
:57:53. > :57:57.now. For the people in Sussex, they should know that in Sussex, we have
:57:57. > :58:03.the 14th largest force in the country, at my office has the
:58:03. > :58:07.seventh cheapest budget, so in real terms, we have saved �186,000 since
:58:07. > :58:11.coming into office. But it is not just about what my office saves, it
:58:11. > :58:15.is about making sure that Sussex police are efficient and effect,
:58:15. > :58:18.that we can drive out more savings and put them into frontline
:58:18. > :58:21.policing. I suppose people are worried about the communications
:58:21. > :58:27.which come with the new office, and all of the trappings, which cost
:58:27. > :58:33.money... Rightly so, and we should be transparent and accountable.
:58:33. > :58:36.Expenses on websites... Absolutely, everything is on the website.
:58:36. > :58:40.Personally I do not claim any allowances for any travel I do
:58:40. > :58:50.across Sussex, neither does my deputy, but that is up to colleagues
:58:50. > :58:51.