03/06/2013 Daily Politics

Daily Politics. The wealthiest pensioners should stop getting

winter fuel allowance, say Labour. What other benefits should be means

tested? Sleaze is back at Westminster as the lobbying scandal

hits the Commons and Lords. But is legislation the answer?

Harder exams, a tougher curriculum and shorter holidays. But is the

real way to raise standards in our schools to teach children how to be

happy? There were empty ballot boxes and a

record low turnout. Six months on, have police commissioners captured

the public's imagination? All of that in the next hour. With

us for much of the problem today is James O'Shaughnessy, who ran David

Cameron's Downing Street policy unit until last year, and is now chief

policy adviser with the lobbying and PR firm, Portland Communications.

Let's start with the shadow chancellor 's announcement this

morning that Labour would suck for the means testing of the winter fuel

allowance. -- Labour would start means testing. It was originally

introduced by Gordon Brown and supported by Labour at the last

election. Ed Balls made the announcement in a speech on the

party 's becoming policy in the City of London this morning.

When our care system is under such pressure, can it remain a priority

to pay the winter fuel allowance, a vital support for middle and low

income pensioners, to the richest 5% of those with incomes high enough to

pay the higher rate of tax? We believe the winter fuel allowance

provides support for low income pensioners to combat fuel poverty.

That is why we introduced, at that time, the allowance. It is why we

paid into all pensioners. But in tough a comic times, we have to make

difficult choices. ASH microbe tough economic times. We have to strike a

balance between universal and pay the winter allowance to the

wealthiest pensioners. With us is the Shadow Treasury

minister, Chris Leslie. You want to cut the winter fuel allowance bill

by 5%. How much will it save? It would be about �100 million,

probably about 600,000 pensioners affected. The richest 5% of 12

million pensioners. Don't forget that was an example of a wider on

the station that Ed Balls was having about the need for decisions which

might have to be made if we have the bleak inheritance George Osbourne

leaves behind. -- a wider conversation. If George Osborne

continues regardless, as he has so far, then there are going to be

tough decisions. You are claiming it is going to be

bleak if the government continues with its economic policies. The

admitted this is a drop in the ocean. It is going to have to be a

lot more in terms of labour's becoming policy to sort out the

economy in the terms you have just described. ASH microbe labour's

We will not have to be as harsh as he is planning to be. He will

probably continue as he has, with that ideological approach. That is

our point today. The spending review in June, rather than trying to

predict what he does know will happen in the economy in two years.

He should be focusing on getting the economy moving, stimulate growth

right now. But means testing for wealthier

pensioners is not a game changer, is it, in terms of reducing the

deficit? It would be a significant decision.

I don't dismiss how difficult it is. 100 million in terms of the deficit

is not a game changer. We have to get to a number of

changes, step by step. This will progress. People want to know the

fairer approach we will take. People recognise, actually that pensioners

that people on �42,000 per year, really, the winter fuel allowance

doesn't need to be paid to them. What about other benefits? Is Labour

making a break with universal benefits? Peter Hain has tweeted

that this is an attack on universal benefits.

We will look at benefits more generally. What about childcare? Why

not look at child benefit? Child benefit was able watched decision

that George Osborne made last year. It is paid to a family. Taxation is

not -- is on an individual basis. you have made this break, will you

look at other benefits? We want to defend those universal principles.

As George Osborne makes more of a mess of the situation, we are going

to have to look at where the line is torn between universal and targeted

support. Certainly, most of the Tory ministers and politicians we have

had on this programme have said that it is something that they will look

at at the next election. Reading between the lines, the only reason

they haven't is because of the commitment David Cameron made at the

last election. David Cameron did not make that commitment. The situation

is difficult. It is interesting to hear him talk about the legacy that

a Labour government had. Talking about bleak inheritance, theirs was

bleak. I can see the limit for this. It is right that the wealthiest to

contribute the most when you have to make these difficult decisions. But

actually, this is a drop in the ocean. The real question for Labour

is our they going to stick to, or not, the government spending plans?

This is the big decision that every opposition have to make.

Are you? We hope that in two years time... George Osborne, two years

ago, predicted he would get the deficit down or stop he was wrong

then. Now you are asking whether you can predict in two years whether...

I don't think it is responsible to say now in 2013, exactly what

revenues we will be getting in 2015. We know George Osborne is very keen

on this political games and the spending review in June is about

trying to position himself and put Labour in a difficult position about

what it will do in 2015. We will make our commitment clear in that

manifesto before 2015. Every opposition has to make a

difficult decision. Do you stick to the government 's spending plans or

do you do something different? Labour have had chances in the past.

The Conservatives have had opportunities in the past and lost

elections. The real question is going to be, there is a long-term,

three-year commitments to reduce the deficit. Does Labour stick to it? If

not, they were going into the election saying they will spend more

with their reputation being that they spend too much. I understand

this. If we were to say what is happening in 2015... Hang on a

second. Ed Balls said you cannot move on in any other basis. This

sounds like Labour is edging towards saying, we will start by looking at

the government's spending plans. That will be where we move from.

If the government carries on as they were, that looks like our starting

point. We will be a different opposition to the one that you were

in with the Conservatives. There was a promise from the Conservatives

that they were going to keep education maintenance allowances.

They made promises in opposition that they could not keep. Today, as

an opposition, we want to be different. We don't want to make

promises we don't think we can keep. On a number of occasions, Ed

Miliband has said that to touch in a bus of benefits is difficult for

him. It is impossible. -- universal benefits. The real question is,

today you have made a decision to cut millions from the budget. Child

benefit as a saving of �2 billion. It is until you start, and you

haven't said yet if you will reverse it, until you start to make

decisions of that magnitude, people will not take you seriously.

You are picking at individual elements. The big issue is, we can't

possibly make promises on spending issues beyond 2015. We don't know

what sort of mess... It could get worse! We hope that George Osborne

will take the advice, stimulate the economy now, listen to the IMF.

There are three alternatives. The government has its spending plans

and they come true. They are slightly better. Or they are worth.

In each of those scenarios, Labour still spends more than the

Conservatives are pledging. It doesn't matter what the plans are,

you still spend more. Is there a circumstance in which you would

spend less? You have conceded that there are different pathways. George

Osborne is going to set one. That is the wrong thing to do.

It survived rocking amendments in the Commons. Today the Same Sex

Marriage Bill arrives in the Lords to be debated. How will it be

received? Adam is on College Green. In the next couple of hours, peers

will start to discuss the bill for the first time in the House of

Lords. More than 80 of them have put their names down to speak in the

debate, meaning they could be up late tonight talking about the

issue. Then there is going to be a vote tomorrow on the second reading.

Lord Dear has tabled what is called a wrecking amendment, which could

stop the bill in its tracks right there and then. Let's discuss what

could happen with the Conservative peer, Michael Bates, who joins me

here. How are you feeling about the issue? I understand where people are

coming from on this. They feel pretty angry that same-sex marriage

was not in the Coalition agreement are not in the Conservative

manifesto, and we have that. I understand why people are angry. But

I do think there is something quite constitutionally wrong about a piece

of legislation that has come to us with a majority of 225 from the

elected house, and we are going to deny it a second reading. Amend it

by all means. But I don't think it is right to deny it a second

reading. Do you think Lord Dear is going to succeed tomorrow when it

comes to a vote? Those debates will be heard. One of the things the

House of Lords is renowned for is it is difficult to predict in advance

how people will vote. Able to listen to the arguments. The whips play a

less important role in this, and it is a free vote. I don't think that

it will succeed. I think, actually, by testing the opinion at second

reading, somehow it is weakening the case of those of us who actually

want to see good, reasoned amendments put down at committee and

report stage that will strengthen the issue in the bill. So as the

builders further through its stages, what reassurances are you

looking for? Lots of people who have been in politics for hay while that

matter a while have heard a variance between what ministers say and what

courts will stay. I think that we want the assurances that have been

given to religious organisations to say they are able to opt in to

this, but they can't be forced to. I think we will want to see this

tested. In the House of Lords, we have some great legal minds who can

apply that forensic test to this legislation. That is what we should

be doing. How late are you going to be up tonight debating it? The whips

have been generous. I understand there were 93 speakers down. After

64 speakers today, we would pause and, to another 30. I think this one

will run and run. That is it. Two things are

inevitable when you talk about same-sex marriage. People disagree

and there are protest is on the green! -- protesters. James

O'Shaughnessy, there has been a majority in the Commons which has

voted for it, but, has it been a good idea for the Government to

proceed with it, in terms of the loss of support, meaning that it has

been extremely divisive? It has been divisive, there is no getting away

from that. Lots of people in the country at large have concerns about

gay marriage. It is a very generational thing. It tends to be

older citizens versus younger citizens. If you go back to one of

David Cameron 's very earliest speeches as Conservative Party

leader, as a candidate, he talked about the importance of marriage,

whether it was between a man and a woman, man and man or a woman and

woman. He has been absolutely constant about that. Although it was

not in the manifesto. It was not but there were constitutional issues

about that. Is it a good idea? Do we want to elevate the institution of

marriage to the point that everybody can take part in it? Absolutely.

There is anecdotal and polling evidence which shows many grassroots

Tories are going over to UKIP as a result, and do not feel that they

have been listened to. In fact, they are accusing the Government, David

Cameron particularly, of being out of touch. There will always be

people who disagree with these issues. This argument has to be

conduct did with respect for one another's positions. People are not

motivated by hatred or prejudice, by and large, they are just concerned

about the issues. I think actually, if you look at polling among younger

people, it is one of the issues which attracts people to the

Conservative Party. More than anything, it is something which

David Cameron deeply believes in. He believes marriage is a conservative

institution which needs to be strengthened. On Friday, the

Conservative MP Patrick Mercer resigned the Tory whip after

allegations were made that he had broken House of Commons lobbying

rules. It followed journalists approaching him, claiming to be

lobbyists working on behalf of Fijian business interests. He told

the journalists that his services were available at a very reasonable

to undertake consultancy work outside Parliament, and he denies

breaking Parliamentary rules. But he resigned the Conservative whip, and

the story reignited around over lobbying in Westminster. Then, on

Sunday, three members of the House of Lords were reported by the Sunday

Times to have agreed to work on behalf of a fake solar power

company, although all three deny breaking Parliamentary rules. Before

the last election, David Cameron warned that lobbying was the next

big scandal waiting to happen. A statutory register of lobbyists was

promised, as was earlier legislation to introduce the power of recall,

allowing voters to force a Brian election if their MP has broken the

rules. Three years on, neither law has been introduced. Writing in the

Daily Telegraph today, Nick Clegg says they will now happen, and in

the last hour, he has been explaining why he thinks reform is

essential. We are not going to change everything overnight, and no

single measure will stop any politician who is absolutely

determined to behave badly. That does not mean we cannot take

worthwhile steps, including, urgently, edges leading for a

statutory register for lobbyists, which is what we will be doing as

part of a wider set of reforms to restore public trust to politics.

have been joined by the Conservative MP Douglas Carswell, and by the

Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake, who has been involved in negotiations

over the proposed new legislation. Would a statutory register of

lobbyists make any difference? pretty easy to please lobbyists, but

I think the real thing we need to do is to police the lawmakers, which is

a more difficult problem. Nobody disagrees with the idea of the

register. But would it be effective? It would not have stopped what has

allegedly occurred in these cases... We need to police both the

lobbyists and numbers of Parliament and peers. In this particular case,

it would not have stopped it, but it would stop other things lobbyists

might do, including not being entirely open about which companies

they are representing. So, really, it would help MPs check out and

validate the companies they that is all it would do! That is not a bogus

company, thank goodness, I got away with it! 5-1 no, it would ensure

transparency, so people could see who they were meeting with, and they

would be able to pursue the matter further. You work for a lobbying

company - is it a good idea? More transparency is always good. It is

important to draw a distinction between this alleged behaviour,

which is clearly against the rules of the Commons, and the perfectly

legitimate function of charities and companies and anybody else who is

regulated by government to have their say. So, why do these things

keep happening if the rules are so clear? I do not think they are as

clear as they should be. If we have got sanctions in place, particularly

for members of Parliament, such as MP recall, people will think very

clearly about it. Do you know the rules? Absolutely. It is outrageous

to accept any money to ask questions or table legislation. It is the

basic rule number one of being a member of the legislature. It is

appalling, it is absolutely shocking. But the real thing we need

to recognise is that we need to make lawmakers vulnerable to voters. In

the House of Lords, obviously, they are completely immune to what the

public thinks, but so are most MPs in most seats. In seven out of ten

seats, you face very little chance of being thrown out of office, which

is why we need a recall. I voted in favour of Lords reform, and I think

we should have accepted the Labour amendment to put it to a referendum.

Why has the Government not done anything? The debited Prime Minister

has we stated the fact that we will deliver that within this Parliament.

-- the Deputy Prime Minister. Lobbying is compact, there are

different ways you can tackle it. There are different people who can

be caught within the net of lobbying, so the Government wants to

do it correctly. The legislative programme is under pressure in many

other areas as well. Has there been a dragging feet on this adage

internally, there have been tough negotiations about exactly what it

would look like, to make sure that it tackles the problem, but without

putting an undue burden on business. It sounds like the Conservatives

might not have been so keen as the other parties? Recall means that you

allow local people to vote to recall their representative. What the

Government came up with was a very different system, which would mean

that politicians could sit in judgment on other politicians and

send them away from Parliament. What we need is a recall mechanism with a

real recall vote. If you do that, I think there will be agreement in the

House of Commons. Well, actually, we are providing a guarantee that if a

member of Parliament has been sentenced, there will be a recall

guarantee. And of course, there will be a committee which looks at other

types of misdemeanour. So you are looking at politicians being judged

by other politicians, rather than by constituents? You cannot possibly

strengthen democracy by allowing a group of politicians to expel

another politician, without asking the majority of constituents # How

is that recall? It is a sham. - get I think this so-called committee of

grandees as demonstrated that it can, when necessary, enforced the

rules. It is an outrageous system, it is an old boys system, it is not

democratic. You would not trust your Parliamentary colleagues to make a

proper decision? If I have a choice of being judged by my electorate or

by the Westminster system, I would choose the voters every time.

about people who might want to take out grievances on their MP? We have

had an example of this. There was, to all intents and purposes, aged

visionary sanctioned recall in 1997, when the Tories cried foul and took

it to the courts and got a rerun. Because it was seen as vexatious,

people came out in their tens of thousands, and the Liberal Democrats

were returned by a majority of more than 20,000. Vexatious attempts to

not succeed. You cannot generalise on one example. On an issue like

abortion, for instance, I suspect there would be the risk of a

significant body of people organising, with a view to try to

depose a member of Parliament. a dangerous or a good idea to trust

constituents? Goodness me, we live in a democracy. Do you not fear any

attempt by constituents to perhaps randomly... ? Think about what might

happen, somebody gets up vexatious claim, a group of people who think

it is madness get together and outvote the others. You have

quadrupled participation in the constituency. I think it would be

dynamic. As I said, it is something we are considering, we are looking

at different options, we may not go for the option which Douglas

prefers. How is that strengthening democracy, Tom, come on? ! We have

seen that the so-called committee of grandees can deliver the goods when

necessary. Some colleagues are worried that this might turn into a

kangaroo court, where it is not actually about a misdemeanour, it is

about... How can you describe the constituents as a kangaroo court?

This is extraordinary! Do you regard your constituents as a kangaroo

court? We have got to think about the threshold to even have an

election, so it is just like running a by-election. If somebody was seen

to be messing around, then clearly, people are going to turn out, if

they think it is a ridiculous waste of time, to return a local MP. It is

normal human behaviour. I do not think MPs have very much to worry

about on this, even though I am not one myself. You said you would be

happy for a register of interests - do you think lobbying has given

politics a bad name? No, there has always been lobbying. In

Westminster, we have got things like the Institute of mechanical

engineers, setting up things so that they can lobby Parliament in order

to have the railways built, in the old days, four example. It has

always happened. Also, I think it is perfectly reasonable if you are

affected by government in some way to have a conversation with them in

order to protect your interest. the grey area, and it is clear from

what you said, you do not ask gems on behalf of them for money. But

there could be a potential conflict if you are involved, or are on the

board, or are being paid as a consultant, influencing Parliament

in a different way - would it be simpler, from the point of view of

the public, if MPs did not get paid for any other work? I disagree. I

want to sit lawmakers, I want MPs to have another role in life, to be

Citizen lawmakers rather than professional politicians. I think

that is down to individual members of Parliament. I might have a

different viewpoint, it is an important part of me representing my

constituency. But you are happy for other MPs to get paid work in areas

which are outside their remit? is a question for their

constituents. If they are not happy with the level of involvement they

have got, then they have an opportunity, every five years, there

is MP recall, it is called a general election. Let me guess what makes

you happy. I bet it is the return of The Daily Politics to your screens

after a week away. There is a growing body of scientific evidence

about what makes us feel good and how it affects our health. Our guest

of the day, James O'Shaughnessy, is interested in how that can be

applied in education. Find out more, we sent out out last week as the

country was barking basking in the glow of the half term holidays. This

is the Royal Mechanical Energy Level Engineers in Berkshire. Do you think

your teachers worry if you are happy? No, not really.What do they

care about? Coughing in the staff room. They try to make you happy in

the staff room -- at school, so that you enjoyed it. Personality is what

it is about, people should be fun people. That is what it is all about

at Wellington College, a private school which takes the development

of character and well-being so seriously, they even have classes

dedicated to it. They have embraced a fairly new movement called

positive psychology, where, instead of looking at what makes people

miserable and trying to prevent it, you look at what makes people happy

I think it is desperately sad for those children. It is a kind of

abuse not to let young people actually have a chance to think

about and develop their own autonomy and sense of looking after their

minds, the emotions, their bodies. You really can teach this stuff. You

can teach character as well. But under this government, Ofsted

has stopped measuring pupils' well-being. The education secretary

wants teachers to focus on facts. The new national curriculum is

heavily weighted on history and great books.

He does understand it. I think he is worried that if he talks too much

about it, schools will think oh, this is our pretext for letting go

of academic rigour and focusing on standards, and we can do this softer

stuff instead. Actually, it is not one or the other. It is both.

It was not just digital cameras that flummoxed Tony Blair. His government

started a big well-being programme called social and emotional aspects

of learning. Reviews found that it made hardly any difference. But

research from America showed that similar programmes their lead to an

improvement in exam results of 11 percentage points.

Back at the museum in Berkshire, it looks like everybody is having a

good time. At in 2007, Unicef found that Britain's kids are the most

miserable indie divides world. If it's the job of schools to make them

happier? -- in the developed world. James O'Shaughnessy is part of the

Wellington School's ethos. It is easy for public and private schools

to develop well-being in the curriculum. They have got money to

do it. How do you do it in state schools? That is the challenge that

Wellington is taking on. They have got a well-being curriculum there.

They are now trying to introduce it into the state system. They are

sponsoring one secondary school already. It has taken money to

develop it, but I don't think it takes money to develop it in

schools. Many schools are introducing it into their own

classroom practice. What is resource intensive is coming up with

programmes in the first instance. You have said that good public

schools develop optimism, altruism, things that are not advertised in

the glossy brochures. Do you think that is more important, in the end,

than just the straightforward results that people may or may not

get? Is it the confidence that you come out of some of these schools

with? Is it what you want to develop in state schools? I don't think in

terms of putting public school ethos in state schools. My children go to

state schools. That is what I am worried about changing. That is what

matters. The question is, do we have happy children or successful

children, or do we have both? For the past 50 years, there has been an

argument that you can have one or the other but not both. That seems,

to me, plainly mad. Also, it carriages -- it suggests that if you

focus on academic rigour but also find ways to build children's

character strengths, this has a knock-on benefits both for the

academic work and in a bunch of other things. They are happier, more

productive. They want to play a bigger role in their communities.

Has it been bad to have all of these exams in primary schools? Has the

focus been too much on league tables? Parents want to see those

schools. Is there room for what you are talking about and getting both?

There is. Would we throw out the economic stuff and say, no, it has

been too much? It has not been too much. Parents want to know that

children are getting the fundamentals... Excuse me! Have some

water. They also want their children to develop, for their character to

let them become good and productive people. We don't hear much about

happiness from Michael Gove stock he talks about longer school days,

shorter holidays. He does not talk about a happy school life. Is he

wrong? This is difficult. If you rewind 40 years, the people who

advocated happy schools were the same people who oversaw an education

system that has led to millions of adults being illiterate. The

standard agenda is in some respects in reaction against that. Other

countries are racing ahead of us. We need to focus on that. My argument

is you don't have to choose. You can have both because they are

commensurate. If you have happy children with grit and resilient --

resilience, they are going to do better. A lot of it is what happens

at home. Do you think any work done at school can be undermined if those

virtues are not being taught at home? How a child does in education

is driven more by their parents than their teachers. You need to have a

reinforcement of all of those values, absolutely. But schools can

make a difference. They can help children catch up if they are

falling behind. Good luck in pursuing your happiness in schools.

Thank you very much for being our guest.

Parliament has returned today after the Whitsun recess. So what is in

the diary for our MPs and Lords? As we have been hearing, later today

the House of Lords will discuss the gay marriage bill. It is likely to

have a bruising passage, as one member, Lord Dear, has tabled a

wrecking amendment seeking to Ed Miliband will set out Labour's plan

for spending. Later this week at the Star Chamber will come back.

Ministers will be brought before it to agree to spending cuts worth

�11.5 billion in the next spending review. Joining us now is keep a

career, -- Pippa Crerar and Andrew Grice. Andrew Grice, another scandal

in talking about MPs and Lords allegedly caught up in yet another

lobbying scandal. Will there be action this time? There will have to

be. Ministers are telling us they intended to introduce a register of

lobbyists in this session of parliament that has just begun. The

fact is, they were not committed to that. In the Queen's Speech, this

was just a few weeks ago, and they cannot put Redgate any longer. We

would not be talking about it today if there were not the revelations in

the newspapers in recent days. This time, ministers will have to get

their act together. The reason allegations... Do you think that the

new generation of MPs will be less susceptible to these allegations of

Bibury? You are right that it does go back to cash for questions and

John Major 's time. He found out the dangers of it to a government of

having backbench MPs misbehaving. It is true also, though, that the

current crop of MPs are perhaps more professional in their mindset and

approach to how they do their politics. It is true that you could

end up with a group of MPs who are perhaps less susceptible. But I

think he is right. Action has to be taken now. The public clamour, in

particular after the expenses scandal, will be so profound that

the government just cannot brush it aside. You can't underestimate how

important it is in terms of the public's perception of politicians.

What brings politics into such attribute is this kind of thing.

Another line of action for politicos, particularly George

Osborne, is the Star Chamber, which everybody likes to talk about. Do

you think the threat of being summoned to be interrogated by

Cabinet colleagues will work? could put more pressure on ministers

who are resisting calls by the Treasury for more cuts. At the end

of the day, the most crucial body will actually be the quad, the body

at the top of the Coalition. They would Cameron, Nick Clegg and their

Treasury counterparts, George Osborne and Danny Alexander. --

David Cameron. It would be lovely to be a fly on

the wall when the discussions are taking place. But, Pippa Crerar,

there could be secretaries of state who promised to do something

untenable like cutting the whole police budget. How desperate does it

get? As he alluded, in 2010, the prospect of the Star Chamber was

brought up never happen. Lots of meetings happen. The Cabinet

ministers were brought into the Star Chamber. Whether it happens again,

it is hard to say. Cabinet ministers will have plenty of tactics up their

sleeve. Things like Iain Duncan Smith promising a �3 billion cut in

his department so money could go to the Armed Forces - that is untenable

and the Lib Dems would oppose it. That is never going to happen.

Another tactic is Peter Lilley suggesting equalised in the age of

retirement, pushing the cuts into the future. They have all got many

tactics up their sleeve. Andrew, Labour is breaking the

promise of universal benefit for pensioners. But it is important

symbolically. Until now, Ed Miliband has said that his label for the

party, one nation Labour, embraces benefits. Ed Balls is called that

into question. Some Labour MPs will not like it. But the leadership

hopes isn't a strong signal that Labour, in office, would impose IMF

-- discipline on public spending. They know they need to rebuild

credibility to have a chance of winning in 2015.

It was billed as the biggest shake-up in policing in England and

Wales since the invention of the modern police force in the 1820s.

Six months on from the election, what kind of impact our police and

current commissioners having? In a moment we will have three

commissioners in the studio. First, this report, which contains some

flashing lights. As a collection is go, they scored

some notable firsts. An empty ballot box in one area of England. And I'm

used polling station in Wales. But if the turnout for police and crime

commissioners in November of last year was the lowest ever in peace

time, the fact they are elected and therefore accountable is, say their

supporters, a long needed reform. To their critics, they are a

politicisation and over expensive unwonted influence on police.

The 15.1% turnout in the elections proved a massive public disinterest

in these elections and these posts altogether. There has only been

negative conclusions from the way the police and crime commissioners

have behaved. We have seen no significant change in the way

policing has taken place. I think that proves the lack of value of the

proposals. Lots of people would like to argue that the commissioners have

been a failure. I think there is evidence to show that some of them

on the right track. The creative work done by some PCC is on value

for money and service delivery are not headline news. Inevitably,

negative stories are. The PCC for Cumbria had to repay hundreds of

pounds for a show that he used. And Barnes may regret her Paris and

adventure. -- and macro Barnes. She was caught out over racist and

Police and crime commissioners have given the impression that they have

gone on a spending spree. What I say to you is what I have

said previously, both here and on other occasions, that the whole

point is the police and crime commissions will be accountable to

their electorate. Police and crime commissioners have

a clear mandate than the police authorities they were placed. I

think that we always help them. I also think they have got a clearer

job, which come in these times, is to improve policing in a time of

tight money. The best PCCs are leading the Way better than any

other public service, actually, in how to do that.

Six months may not be long enough to judge, but critics point to the US

for comparison. These proposals were a cheap import

from the American model of politically elected sheriffs. We

have seen how this model has created a real set of social problems,

including undermining trust and confidence in the police and

creating concerns around race relations.

The 41 PCCs inning lead and well still have 4.5 years to parade how

they will avoid that. I am joined now by three police and grand

commissioners. -- crime commissioners. Welcome to all of

you. I have to start with the mandate - you all one your seats on

a mandate of between 9% and 10% of the elect Ed, which is low by

anyone's judgment, but if there were elections tomorrow, would you do

better? Actually it was 15.8% of the electorate in Sussex. But yes, we

would. It was dark, there were no elections taking place, so it is not

surprising. How much I do you think it would be if it was held

tomorrow? For the sake of statistics, it was 16.6% in my case,

and I got more than 65% of those. Voters did not get any information

about who was standing, apart from the candidates themselves. Uncle how

much higher do you think it would be? I think in most areas, the next

PCC elections will take race alongside the local elections, which

is likely to see turnout boosted quite considerably. I think she has

been fairly kind about the circumstances surrounding the

election in November. Actually, it was an absolute shambles. You could

not have contrived any worse circumstances to hold an election

in. You have all given reasons for that, but what about your record in

the last six months? Absolutely. If you look at what we have done in

Sussex, we have delivered a plan which sets out priorities in

policing which the people in Sussex really want, focusing on anti-social

behaviour, road safety, domestic abuse and violence. That is a

fantastic achievement. The level of correspondence to my office has

increased by 3500%. People know they have got someone they can go to,

which is an achievement. Are you getting the same levels of

correspondence? 4000 pieces of correspondence, but apart from that,

it is tangible things. In Kent, 100 extra officers on the street, mobile

police stations, visible policing, working with specials, it is all

tangible things. I do not talk pie in the sky, it is actually what is

good for the people of Kent, what they want and what I can deliver.

That has been the really good thing about PCC is. I did have my

criticism of it, which I stand by... And yet you are a police and

crime commission, and you said they were a waste of money? Well, what do

you do. Thankfully, the people of Kent agreed with me. We had an

election, I stood on a platform, I said that I would stop the

privatisation of the police to G for S which was on the table when I

walked into my office, I said that I would reject visible policing, and I

have saved a third of the police community support officers who were

due to be cut. In the budget process, I put the precept up, and

what I found was that people were prepared to do that because they saw

that it was going to make a difference. Why did you not both do

what I did, and stand as an independent, and put your party

politics to one side? It should not be there. I have a real issue with

this. I think it is nothing to do with politicising the police. People

when they stand as an independent, they are not independent of

politics, they are just independent of the parties. They are still

political. This is a political decision. We all make big decisions

around tax and spending. These are political issues. We are all

democratically elected, which makes us politicians. Have you not also

decided to put up the precept? Precisely, but I was able to do that

because the old police authority actually had so many Conservative

councillors on it who would not put the precept up, so I was able to do

that. And we still had the police authority, I would not have been

able to do that, so we would not have been able to have an extra 100

people. Is it right for council tax to go up Judge allege well, in

Sussex, we kept the precept the same as last year. Today, we opened the

recruitment for 18 new constables in Sussex, the first time we have done

that for many years, without having to raise the council tax. Why could

you not do that in your area, be able to recruit more officers

without raising council tax? circumstances in each force are

different. Bedfordshire is one of the most hard-pressed forces. We do

not even get from the government what the funding formula says we

should get. We are �24 million a year less due to the operation of

the damping mechanism. So, circumstances vary between different

forces. We have also got a major counter terrorist threat, a major

organised crime threat, as well as alarmingly high levels of serious

and inquisitive crime. So, the situation varies between the forces.

That is why what is appropriate for Bedfordshire is not the same as what

is appropriate for Sussex, but we are each elected to do the best job

we can in our area. You mentioned that you got voted in to protect any

further privatisation or outsourcing - are you going to do more

outsourcing in your area? Just so that people are aware, in Sussex, we

already outsource our custody facilities, and have done for many

years. I am looking at doing further collaboration with my colleague in

Surrey, and the question I would ask is, why do we have 41 policing

forces across the country, who use different payroll systems, and

different human resources departments? This sort of thing

could be amalgamated and outsourced. But you cannot really

collaborate, if you have got some people against outsourcing, and

others in favourite, you cannot do it? We work very closely with Essex.

There is going to be no privatisation of police services in

Kent. We do not need to do it. It is what is best for Kent. We are

already driving out our savings. I think if you drive out savings, they

should go back into the service from whence they came. I do not disagree

with that at all. So why is it necessary to outsourcing your area?

Because you are looking at ways of doing things for less money. If you

privatise great bits of the police service, there will be three or four

large providers doing it, and you will still have to buy back your

services. You are not getting them for free. But what about the idea of

fooling? We have been doing that in Kent since 2007. We were

trailblazers. I am pleased to see that Surrey and Sussex are doing it

now. It is interesting, because both of us, under the Government 's

current proposals for rehabilitation of offenders, we are going to have

to work together on probation at some stage, so we will be looking at

outsourcing them, anyway. To move on to something slightly different, the

Woolwich attack, which was a terrible tragedy, but it has had an

impact on policing, I should think, across the country - what about the

impact in your area? It has a great impact in Bedfordshire, because

unfortunately, we have this very small minority, called the EDL, they

think Luton is their spiritual home because of the origins of that

organisation, and we are also the home to a large Muslim population. I

think the important thing to say is that those extremists who

perpetrated that horrendous attack, they are also a very small minority,

and they do not represent the religion of Islam or the vast

majority of Muslims, who share our horror at what happened. So what

impact has it had on policing? are all trying to pull together to

make that point, that this is all about minorities, very small

minorities, trying to do harm. On Friday, we have what I think was a

very powerful demonstration of people from all backgrounds in our

town coming together and laying flowers at the Cenotaph outside the

town hall and saying, actually, we are the people of Luton, and not

these minorities who are trying to divide our community. Do you think

police commissioners have a role in managing these sensitive

situations? I think they do, we have to make sure that the force handles

them sensitively and properly. As far as Kent was concerned, it is

quiet in Kent. There was a big police presence on the streets,

working with community leaders, and I am pleased with how the police in

Kent dealt with it. Spending cuts cash what impact have government

spending cuts had on policing in Sussex? Under the previous company

and sit spending review, Sussex police had to save 20% in the

budget, equating to �52 million. We are on target to meet that. It has

not had an effect on frontline policing, to the extent that we are

able to freeze the council tax and do some recruitment as well. That

sounds miraculous - what about your area? It has had an impact in Kent.

There has been a slight drawback of visible community policing, the

policing that evil one. I do not want a police service which sits

outside the community, just responding to needs. I want them

working with communities, going into schools and colleges. I am fighting

more cuts to police funding, because that is what will disappear, which

is not fair. How efficient is your office, and the money that is spent

on your salary and the salaries of your staff? Very efficient. We have

13.5 full-time employees, we came in under budget last year, we have got

exactly the same budget this year. But it is a big job, it is more than

the old police authority job. We have got all of the statutory

responsibilities of the old authority, plus all the

commissioning, plus the work with criminal justice, was the work with

partners, it is not a small job. It is a really big job, and the sooner

people realise that, the better. What about the number of people in

your office? I have kept my staff, lament at what I inherited from the

police authority. Nonetheless, my office budget has seen a real terms

reduction this year. I think what is important in the context of

Bedfordshire is the impact that the forthcoming copy and sit spending

review could have. I really worry about that. In Bedfordshire, because

of the previous Comprehensive Spending Review, we have had to move

away from the traditional model of neighbourhood policing and implement

a far more reactive model, and although that has continued to drive

down crying quite successfully, it has nonetheless meant that the force

is less visible to the public, which is a real worry when it comes to

protecting and building public confidence in the force. You have

taken on 12 staff, is that right? No, I inherited staff, we have 12

now. For the people in Sussex, they should know that in Sussex, we have

the 14th largest force in the country, at my office has the

seventh cheapest budget, so in real terms, we have saved �186,000 since

coming into office. But it is not just about what my office saves, it

is about making sure that Sussex police are efficient and effect,

that we can drive out more savings and put them into frontline

policing. I suppose people are worried about the communications

which come with the new office, and all of the trappings, which cost

money... Rightly so, and we should be transparent and accountable.

Expenses on websites... Absolutely, everything is on the website.

Personally I do not claim any allowances for any travel I do

across Sussex, neither does my deputy, but that is up to colleagues