:00:46. > :00:50.Politics. Is it too easy to schmooze politicians? Parliamentary
:00:50. > :00:56.authorities are recovering dozens of security passes after the latest
:00:56. > :00:59.revelations about lobbying. Plans to overhaul legal aid in England and
:00:59. > :01:02.Wales have been criticised by barristers, who say the changes
:01:02. > :01:06.threaten a world-renowned justice system.
:01:06. > :01:12.How can we produce enough electricity in the future? We will
:01:12. > :01:17.talk to the energy secretary, Ed Davie, about the Energy Bill.
:01:17. > :01:21.And remember Swampy? Can direct action ever make a difference? On
:01:21. > :01:23.the 100th anniversary of the death of a suffragette, we will discuss
:01:23. > :01:27.whether protests can still lead to change.
:01:27. > :01:29.All that in the next hour. And with us for the whole programme today is
:01:29. > :01:32.the former Labour Lord Chancellor, Charlie Falconer. Welcome back to
:01:32. > :01:36.the Daily Politics. Let's start with the parliamentary lobbying scandal
:01:36. > :01:38.that continues to rumble through Westminster. Yesterday afternoon the
:01:38. > :01:43.government said it would bring forward legislation on lobbying
:01:43. > :01:45.before the summer recess after all. And last night the House of Commons
:01:45. > :01:53.authorities announced they are reviewing 80 Commons security passes
:01:53. > :02:00.in order to validate their use. For the latest on this let's talk to our
:02:00. > :02:06.political correspondent Carole Walker. So, what is happening with
:02:06. > :02:10.those passes? We have had a statement from the House of Commons
:02:10. > :02:17.commission in the last few minutes, it seems they are checking all of
:02:17. > :02:20.those passes to see exactly who they have been issued to and who these
:02:20. > :02:25.all party Parliamentary groups are using and allowing access to the
:02:25. > :02:29.House of Commons. Underlying this is a concern that these all-party
:02:29. > :02:33.parliamentary groups can be set up on a huge range of issues. You have
:02:33. > :02:38.got ones you might expect on economic's and banking, defence and
:02:38. > :02:45.diplomacy in the Middle East, but there are all-party parliamentary
:02:45. > :02:49.groups on cider, hockey and cheese. That is why the Speaker has
:02:49. > :02:53.introduced a review of these all-party parliamentary groups. How
:02:53. > :02:56.they work and what exactly they are doing and, indeed, if the passes
:02:56. > :02:59.they are handing out, because the concern is that some of these could
:02:59. > :03:06.be falling into the hands of lobbyists once they get into the
:03:06. > :03:08.palace of wisdom and stare. They are then in a very good position to
:03:08. > :03:12.collar individual parliamentarians and ministers. -- the concern is
:03:13. > :03:20.some of these could be falling into the hands of lobbyists once they get
:03:20. > :03:24.into the Palace of Westminster. Plans to limit organisations'
:03:24. > :03:28.funding of political parties has been thrown in at the last minute.
:03:28. > :03:32.What is the reaction been from unions and the Labour Party? They
:03:32. > :03:37.are, frankly, furious. The minister in the house this morning confirmed
:03:37. > :03:42.there would be legislation to introduce a register of lobbyists,
:03:42. > :03:46.she defended this idea of including this question of the money that
:03:46. > :03:50.third parties, including the unions, give to parliamentary
:03:50. > :03:55.parties. She said it was part of being open and transparent about the
:03:55. > :04:04.funding and influences on politics. But one Labour MP described this as
:04:04. > :04:07.shoddy tactics and certainly we know that now these hopes you might have
:04:07. > :04:12.about ensuring a swift passage of legislation on a register of
:04:12. > :04:16.lobbyists, it will not get a cross-party consensus if they are
:04:16. > :04:21.trying to throw in questions about trade union funding, which throws
:04:21. > :04:26.into doubt the whole process. Thank you. Charlie Falconer, as part
:04:26. > :04:31.of the Labour Party, will you try to stop this going through? I and the
:04:31. > :04:36.Labour Party will strongly support legislation to deal with lobbying,
:04:36. > :04:42.we have been incredibly damaged as a Parliament by the Mercer scandal and
:04:42. > :04:45.the Lord scandal over the weekend. What Carole Walker is saying is that
:04:46. > :04:50.the union stuff and the party political funding stuff is very
:04:50. > :04:54.contentious. I don't know if you're under Hayden Philip did an inquiry
:04:54. > :04:59.and the Labour and the Conservative Party couldn't agree. -- I don't
:04:59. > :05:03.know if you remember, Hayden Phillips did an inquiry. It is a
:05:03. > :05:08.very odd thing for the government to suddenly have thrown in this hand
:05:08. > :05:12.grenade which has the effect, does it not, of leading to dissent about
:05:12. > :05:18.it? If I was the government, I would be trying to get legislation through
:05:18. > :05:23.very quickly which people agree on, because that is really dangerous for
:05:23. > :05:28.Parliament. Are you calling on the government to drop the element that
:05:28. > :05:34.refers to and would affect union funding? Funding of political
:05:34. > :05:39.parties generally, yes. Otherwise Labour would not supported? It seems
:05:39. > :05:44.to be an odd thing to do. If that stays, your feeling is that Labour
:05:44. > :05:50.will not agree and the lobbying will not go through either? It will slow
:05:50. > :05:55.down the bill. What about funding for political parties. You couldn't
:05:55. > :06:00.agree with the Conservatives, isn't it time that was dealt with?
:06:00. > :06:03.should maybe set up cross-party talks to try to reach an agreement,
:06:03. > :06:12.but don't snatch Cockett into a piece of legislation that everybody
:06:12. > :06:14.wants through fast, be sensible if you are the government, recognise
:06:14. > :06:20.the need for urgent action on lobbying.
:06:20. > :06:23.Now it's time for our daily quiz. The question for today is what cost
:06:23. > :06:26.cutting measure did Ed Balls say a Labour government would take if they
:06:26. > :06:30.win the next election? Was it scrap lollypop men and women outside
:06:30. > :06:34.schools, cancel the High Speed 2 rail link, end winter fuel payments
:06:34. > :06:40.for wealthy pensioners or introduce monthly bin collections. At the end
:06:40. > :06:43.of the show Charlie Falconer will give us the correct answer. And if
:06:43. > :06:46.he doesn't get it right, Ed Miliband will be having words!
:06:46. > :06:49.How will the UK keep the lights on for the next 50 years, meet
:06:49. > :06:52.renewable targets and keep energy affordable? Quite a tall order,
:06:52. > :06:56.isn't it? Well, the Energy Bill being discussed in Parliament today
:06:56. > :07:01.is designed to do just that. The Energy Bill sets out plans for
:07:01. > :07:04.energy production for the next few decades. The aim is to reduce the
:07:04. > :07:08.UK's reliance on imported gas and generate enough energy to meet
:07:08. > :07:14.needs. Measures in the Bill include greater safeguards to ensure
:07:14. > :07:16.consumers can access the cheapest energy tariffs. The Bill also paves
:07:16. > :07:19.the way for new nuclear power stations, including a guaranteed
:07:19. > :07:26.price for low carbon electricity producers to help encourage
:07:26. > :07:28.investment. There are concerns that the Energy Bill will lead to higher
:07:28. > :07:35.costs for consumers, with the department saying it will add an
:07:35. > :07:38.extra �95 to the average annual household energy bill by 2020.
:07:38. > :07:40.However, the Bill doesn't include a firm target for decarbonisation -
:07:40. > :07:46.that means removing carbon dioxide from the process of energy
:07:46. > :07:53.generation. The Committee on Climate Change recommends this happens by
:07:53. > :07:57.2030 in order to have a largely decarbonised power sector. This is
:07:57. > :08:00.something the Lib Dems are committed to. It happens to be party policy.
:08:00. > :08:06.And the Conservative MP Tim Yeo has tabled an amendment calling for the
:08:06. > :08:14.government to commit to a target to decarbonise. Tim Yeo Joins me now
:08:14. > :08:18.from Central Lobby in the House of Commons.
:08:18. > :08:22.Why is a decarbonisation targets of important? Because it makes it clear
:08:22. > :08:27.to people who want to invest in new electricity generation capacity what
:08:27. > :08:32.the government is committed to. At the moment there is an element of
:08:32. > :08:36.uncertainty. If we have this target, which has been recommended by the
:08:36. > :08:44.government's statutory independent adviser, the climate change can be,
:08:44. > :08:48.-- the climate change committee, it is clear to new investors what the
:08:48. > :08:52.ground rules will be. These are very long-term investments. They need to
:08:52. > :08:58.know not just about the next five years but the next 20. But one of
:08:58. > :09:04.your Tory colleagues has said it would be absurd to legislate for a
:09:04. > :09:08.decarbonisation target. I think that is a minority view. If you look at
:09:08. > :09:13.the majority of the academic world, the business world, the voluntary
:09:13. > :09:17.sector, they recognise that in an industry where you are making very
:09:17. > :09:22.long-term decisions, if we make the wrong decisions now we pay the
:09:22. > :09:26.penalty in the 20 20s and the 20 30s. So you need a target. They are
:09:26. > :09:31.not quite sure whether the government is really serious about
:09:32. > :09:35.reducing carbon emissions from energy generation. This amendment
:09:35. > :09:40.would remove that uncertainty and make investors more cough that the
:09:40. > :09:47.-- confident. They would accept a lower return because the risk would
:09:47. > :09:51.be reduced. Who do you expect report -- support from? I know a number of
:09:51. > :09:55.my conservative colleagues have signed the amendment and will
:09:55. > :10:01.support it is official Liberal Democrat policy so I am hoping that
:10:01. > :10:05.those backbench Lib Dem MPs will do so. If we get all the Lib Dems who
:10:05. > :10:12.supported this when it was debated to vote in favour, I expect to win
:10:12. > :10:15.the vote out 4pm. Sounding very confident. We have been joined now
:10:15. > :10:22.by energy Secretary Ed Davie and the Conservative MP I mentioned, Peter
:10:22. > :10:27.Lilley. Why is there no firm commitment to decarbonisation in the
:10:27. > :10:37.bill? We are legislating for rate, the difference between myself and
:10:37. > :10:37.
:10:37. > :10:41.Tim Yeo is very small. Liberal Democrat voters will be voting for
:10:41. > :10:46.Liberal Democrat policy. But the power to set one is not the same as
:10:46. > :10:48.having a target. The climate change committee said that we should
:10:48. > :10:53.legislate for a power. The difference between them and the
:10:53. > :10:58.government is they want us to use that power in 2014, we have agreed
:10:58. > :11:02.across government we should do it in 2016, with good reason. In 2016 we
:11:02. > :11:07.will be setting the fifth carbon budget which will set the overall
:11:07. > :11:10.carbon emissions for the UK for 2030. We are sending a really strong
:11:10. > :11:16.signal to industry, is Tim Yeo suggested we should, but more than
:11:16. > :11:20.that, last week we suggested that we as a government would be pushing in
:11:20. > :11:24.Europe for a very ambitious greenhouse gas emission target, the
:11:24. > :11:30.most ambitious yet proposed. All this action shows that not just
:11:30. > :11:33.Liberal Democrats but the whole coalition support decarbonisation.
:11:33. > :11:38.But people like Tim Yeo and the businesses he mentions did not say
:11:38. > :11:42.that it guaranteed certainty. You are legislating for decarbonisation
:11:42. > :11:47.but you are not setting the targets, you are going against the wishes of
:11:47. > :11:55.your members who would wish to see it set now. If you are at the
:11:55. > :12:02.debate, you would have seen... not. It was a great debate.Would
:12:03. > :12:07.you be happy if liberal Democrat MPs vote for the amendment? Will you be
:12:07. > :12:13.cross with them? They should vote with the government, the government
:12:13. > :12:19.is supporting Liberal Democrat policy. You are going to complain
:12:19. > :12:26.about the Liberal Democrat MPs voting for an amendment which
:12:26. > :12:33.manifests what the party policy is. Nobody, even the Green Party,
:12:33. > :12:36.proposed a decarbonisation target. Since I became the Secretary of
:12:36. > :12:43.State for energy and climate change, I have argued for this and got it in
:12:43. > :12:51.the bill before Tim Yeo put his amendment down. Why aren't you doing
:12:51. > :12:58.it now? Let me explain. Under the climate change act, in 2016 we have
:12:58. > :13:01.to set the fifth carbon budget, including the year 2030. We will set
:13:01. > :13:06.the decarbonisation target at the same time because they cover the
:13:06. > :13:12.same year. If you could press Europe for a target, why can't you have one
:13:12. > :13:17.now? In Europe the target is about greenhouse gas emissions, not just a
:13:17. > :13:23.target for a sector. Both of these target show the commitment of this
:13:23. > :13:26.government to decarbonisation. Ed Davie, a new generation of
:13:26. > :13:31.nuclear power stations will cost taxpayers and consumers tens of
:13:31. > :13:38.billions of pounds, who said this? Jeremy Paxman has already asked me
:13:38. > :13:43.that, it was me. So things have changed, you are now supporting a
:13:43. > :13:48.new generation of nuclear power stations and a subsidy? We have a
:13:48. > :13:51.coalition agreement which says there will be no subsidy for new nuclear
:13:51. > :13:57.unless it is available to all low carbon technologies. White means
:13:57. > :14:01.there is a subsidy, including a subsidy for nuclear. We are saying
:14:01. > :14:05.it should not get any extra support, compared to other low carbon
:14:05. > :14:10.technology. With nuclear, if you think about the challenge of climate
:14:10. > :14:14.change and the need to go to low carbon, which I think it's essential
:14:14. > :14:23.for our economy, long-term, our economy will be busted if you do not
:14:23. > :14:30.tackle climate change, we need low carbon. That is a load of Tosh,
:14:30. > :14:38.Peter Lilley? Yes, on economic grounds, the maximum benefits would
:14:38. > :14:41.be almost half the likely cost 's. I am a sceptic, of course. I am
:14:41. > :14:47.certain that no proof yet exists that it is worth taking the very
:14:47. > :14:53.costly actions... Let me give you my source, the knighted nation's
:14:53. > :15:01.intergovernmental panel on climate change, his advice on science you
:15:01. > :15:08.say we should accept. -- the United Nations intergovernmental panel.
:15:08. > :15:17.Before you respond, on the issue of nuclear, Peter Lilley, you said it
:15:17. > :15:24.was Tosh, what were you referring to? Specifically? It would be absurd
:15:24. > :15:28.is now to legislate for a target in 2030 that we cannot yet achieved. We
:15:28. > :15:32.may be able to achieve it in 2030, but at present there is no
:15:32. > :15:40.affordable alternative to fossil fuels that would enable us to meet
:15:40. > :15:44.this target. Nuclear is extremely expensive and very sluggish.
:15:44. > :15:51.Renewables cannot provide the baseload, can't provide the power
:15:51. > :15:55.you need for peaks of demand. There is no alternative. They hope that
:15:55. > :16:00.carbon capture and storage will come on stream by then. If it doesn't, a
:16:00. > :16:06.recent report said the cost of meeting that target would be between
:16:06. > :16:08.�30 billion and �40 billion. Are you saying there shouldn't be an
:16:09. > :16:18.agreement now to get companies to sign up to build the new generation
:16:19. > :16:19.
:16:19. > :16:24.of nuclear? I think I am modestly in favour of it. The Conservative
:16:24. > :16:27.stated that there should not be a public subsidy for nuclear. Clearly,
:16:27. > :16:31.there is one? That is why I have become sceptical about nuclear
:16:31. > :16:37.power. I used to strongly supported because I thought it would be
:16:37. > :16:41.cheaper. The latest study of the select committee, largely from
:16:41. > :16:46.before I got onto it, suggests it would be hideously expensive.
:16:46. > :16:50.is going to be a subsidy, let's just say, so that the public know, the
:16:50. > :16:55.idea there is not going to be UK taxpayers subsidising nuclear is not
:16:55. > :16:59.true. There is going to be a subsidy? We made it clear that if
:16:59. > :17:02.you take account of things like the carbon price and so on, nuclear can
:17:02. > :17:08.be competitive if you get a good deal, which we are going to get.
:17:08. > :17:11.are not answering the question, is there going to be a public subsidy?
:17:11. > :17:18.There will be no pub at subsidy that is not available for low-carbon
:17:18. > :17:22.solutions. Can I take on Peter's argued? It basically assumes you
:17:22. > :17:30.don't need to take action on climate change. I think you do need to take
:17:30. > :17:35.action. I think he is saying to pursue the root of gas. Are you
:17:35. > :17:41.rejecting that? Our policy is gas and renewables, gas and carbon
:17:41. > :17:45.capture and storage, the real enemy is the most polluting energy
:17:45. > :17:49.generation form that there is. Peter doesn't believe we need to act
:17:49. > :17:53.against climate change. That is why I disagree with him. To come back to
:17:53. > :17:56.the issue of nuclear, Labour failed completely to resolve the issue of
:17:56. > :18:02.the new generation of nuclear power stations because they could not
:18:02. > :18:06.agree on the issue of a subsidy. So it was left. Which has meant that we
:18:06. > :18:13.are now in this predicament? body politic has failed to resolve
:18:13. > :18:17.this question over a long time. Labour was in power for 13 years?
:18:17. > :18:21.agree, and on a cross-party basis we need to agree where we get to on
:18:21. > :18:28.nuclear. While I find what Tim was saying persuasive about setting the
:18:28. > :18:32.target now, I think Ed's position, that we do need to move forward in
:18:32. > :18:35.relation to it and making sure it is not an undue subsidy, that is
:18:35. > :18:40.something we need to do. Speaking for myself, I would support nuclear
:18:40. > :18:48.power. With a subsidy?You can't do it without a subsidy, that is the
:18:48. > :18:56.problem. Isn't that the problem? We would provide only 4% of total power
:18:56. > :19:01.from nuclear, even if all goes to plan? That's total energy, if you
:19:01. > :19:08.talk about electricity, it's a lot more than that. 80% is very
:19:08. > :19:13.expensive? I think you will find that new nuclear power will be very
:19:14. > :19:18.effective in our new, low carbon world. If other unaffordable things
:19:18. > :19:21.that cost twice so much... That is because in your model you don't take
:19:21. > :19:25.into account the pollution and damage that is threatening our
:19:25. > :19:29.planet, which threatens huge costs, far greater than the cost of
:19:29. > :19:33.investing now in low-carbon. If you act now and you invest in low-carbon
:19:33. > :19:39.now, it is much cheaper than waiting for the cost some damage of climate
:19:39. > :19:44.change, which we are already seeing now in terms of flooding. I agree
:19:44. > :19:47.with that. Fiona Hall has said the contract for difference, in other
:19:47. > :19:51.words a subsidy, is something that goes against the coalition agreement
:19:52. > :19:57.and will prolong the most expensive piece of post-war British
:19:57. > :20:01.policy-making. And this is a Liberal Democrat? I know Fiona, I disagree
:20:01. > :20:05.with him on this one. She doesn't like nuclear in any way. I believe
:20:05. > :20:08.that because the threat of climate change and the cost of climate
:20:08. > :20:13.change are so great that we have to invest in all low carbon
:20:13. > :20:19.technologies. I think excluding any low-carbon technology from the get
:20:19. > :20:22.go, as Fiona would like to do, is the wrong thing to do. It's
:20:22. > :20:26.irresponsible, actually. We have to make sure these low carbon
:20:26. > :20:31.technologies are invested in so that we have diversity and competition to
:20:31. > :20:34.drive down costs. Peter agrees with that, the idea that we should be
:20:34. > :20:39.investing in nuclear in the long term because there are energy
:20:39. > :20:44.requirements? I was attracted to become a scientist in my childhood
:20:44. > :20:52.when nuclear power was first around. Stop interrupting, he's losing his
:20:52. > :20:55.train of thought. Nuclear had just art and it was going to make
:20:55. > :20:59.electricity too cheap to meter. I always supported it because I
:20:59. > :21:02.thought it would be cheap. Now I discover it is going to require a
:21:02. > :21:07.subsidy, meaning it is twice as expensive as electricity from coal
:21:07. > :21:12.and gas. Not only that, it is going to add, as you yourself say, it is
:21:12. > :21:19.going to make ill is more expensive in the next few years? If you look
:21:19. > :21:22.at our bills and prices report and you look at the net impact of our
:21:22. > :21:26.departments policies, we are helping to reduce bills compared to what
:21:26. > :21:29.they otherwise would have been. We are doing it through energy
:21:29. > :21:35.efficiency. We are doing it through standards, to make sure that
:21:35. > :21:40.appliances are more efficient. a time when things are extremely
:21:40. > :21:43.difficult? Bills are being driven up because of gas prices. The gas that
:21:43. > :21:52.Peter loves so much, it has been increasing in price significantly.
:21:52. > :21:55.It is gas prices that have driven up electricity and gas prices. I want
:21:55. > :22:00.to insulate the economy from that rising gas price to make sure we
:22:00. > :22:03.have diversity with low-carbon. There is a huge analysis to suggest
:22:03. > :22:13.that if you go green, if you go low-carbon, in the long term it is a
:22:13. > :22:19.lot cheaper. Do you recognise yourself as a publicity seeking
:22:20. > :22:23.nimby? You would include him in that? I wouldn't. I think it's
:22:23. > :22:27.rather sad that you want to discourage the press from reporting
:22:28. > :22:32.views that are not your own. That is not what you said. I've got it in
:22:32. > :22:37.front of me. I know what I said. I'm happy for healthy scepticism. What I
:22:37. > :22:41.am not happy... It says it should not be reported uncritically. In
:22:41. > :22:44.other words, the only time that people like me will be allowed to be
:22:44. > :22:49.reported is when criticism is attached. That is a kind of
:22:49. > :22:54.censorship. Not at all. If you read some of the press, they report
:22:54. > :23:01.climate change sceptics and the anti-climate change science, but
:23:01. > :23:09.they criticise one side. They can't have it both ways. Given that 97% of
:23:09. > :23:14.climate change scientists agree there is a problem, I think we have
:23:14. > :23:19.scientists on our side of the argument. The survey asked two
:23:19. > :23:24.questions. Do you think the average temperature has risen? ANSI, yes, I
:23:24. > :23:27.agree. Do you think that man-made emissions have contributed? Yes, I
:23:27. > :23:37.agree. It didn't ask if it was damaging, severe, if it accounted
:23:37. > :23:38.
:23:38. > :23:41.for the majority. When they did, less said that was the case. Lawyers
:23:41. > :23:45.say the government changes to the legal aid system for criminal cases
:23:45. > :23:50.could threaten the reputation of Justice in England and Wales. Today
:23:51. > :23:53.is the final day of consultation on the plans, which would reduce the
:23:53. > :23:57.budget by �200 million per year. It's not the only reform coming from
:23:57. > :24:01.a department that has earned irritation for radical change. The
:24:01. > :24:05.prize for most radical government department goes to...
:24:05. > :24:10.The Ministry of Justice. FIFA years in a row, the market orientated
:24:10. > :24:16.think tank Reform has named as one of the top performers. It responded
:24:17. > :24:20.to a big cut in its budget with some big changes. For so long, justice
:24:20. > :24:26.has been left in a corner to do exactly what it wants to do, with as
:24:26. > :24:30.much money as it can get out of the Treasury. What this secretary of
:24:30. > :24:34.state has done, in a radical and reforming way, has made sure that
:24:34. > :24:37.the departments deliver value for money. You can see one of those
:24:37. > :24:41.reforms Doncaster and Peterborough prisons, where a payment by results
:24:41. > :24:45.scheme is being piloted. It involves a mixture of private companies and
:24:45. > :24:48.charities that will only get paid by the government if inmates do not
:24:48. > :24:53.reoffend after release. The initial results will be published this
:24:53. > :24:58.month. One of the more controversial areas has been the reduction in the
:24:58. > :25:02.budget for legal aid, currently more than �2 billion per year. Two years
:25:02. > :25:07.ago, the Department removed legal aid from lots of civil cases, things
:25:07. > :25:12.like employment, family law and medical negligence. Now there are
:25:12. > :25:15.plans for big changes to the provision of legal aid in criminal
:25:15. > :25:20.cases. Fees for lawyers will be reduced. Firms will have to tender
:25:20. > :25:25.for contracts to provide criminal legal aid and there will no longer
:25:25. > :25:29.be automatic funding to pursue judicial reviews. Maura McGowan of
:25:29. > :25:33.the Bar Council has helped lead the almost universal opposition amongst
:25:33. > :25:38.the legal profession. Although some lawyers are extremely well paid, no
:25:38. > :25:45.doubt about that, most lawyers that work for legal aid are not that well
:25:45. > :25:48.paid at all. Most junior barristers probably earn about the same as
:25:48. > :25:53.teachers. Nobody would say that teachers are terribly well paid or
:25:53. > :25:57.on a gravy train. Then there are the department plans to give, in their
:25:57. > :26:00.words, more commercial freedom to the courts. Reports that it means
:26:00. > :26:04.privatisation of the system have been denied. But it could mean the
:26:04. > :26:08.likes of Aisling Russian oligarchs being charged extra for access to
:26:08. > :26:16.British justice. And some services being provided by the private
:26:16. > :26:20.sector. One reason for reform is the condition of the court buildings.
:26:20. > :26:23.Anyone that's been to a County Court in the last few years will have seen
:26:23. > :26:26.the poor quality of the buildings. If we can introduce efficiencies and
:26:26. > :26:30.make sure we are spending less on the upkeep of the buildings, there
:26:30. > :26:36.will be more to invest in the infrastructure. That can only be a
:26:36. > :26:40.good thing for lawyers, litigants and judges. Then there is the tone.
:26:40. > :26:43.Gone is Ken Clarke, who likes to talk of a rehabilitation revolution.
:26:43. > :26:49.Replaced by Chris Grayling, who likes to present himself as more of
:26:49. > :26:54.a tough guy. Now, some more tough guys here. We
:26:54. > :26:58.are joined by former Conservative Solicitor General Edward Garnier and
:26:58. > :27:02.by the director of the Reform think tank. Charlie Falconer, what
:27:02. > :27:09.objections do you have to these reforms? They will wreck the
:27:09. > :27:12.system. How?First, crime. The purpose of the criminal justice
:27:12. > :27:18.system is to determine if somebody is guilty or innocent. The effect of
:27:18. > :27:23.the changes is to remove something like 90% of the firms that do
:27:23. > :27:27.criminal defence work and replace them, all of whom will be motivated
:27:27. > :27:30.by money, but not by trying to establish innocence. The only group
:27:30. > :27:34.in the criminal justice system arguing for innocents are the
:27:34. > :27:37.defence counsel. They are being completely starved of money. It's
:27:37. > :27:43.the completely the wrong way to reform the system. The system does
:27:43. > :27:49.need reform, but the way that you do it is by much more offensive...
:27:49. > :27:52.Effective case management. It is the ignorant, completely misjudged a
:27:52. > :28:00.view of a department that appears to know nothing about the law. What do
:28:00. > :28:03.you say to that? I would say that firstly the legal aid budget is �2
:28:03. > :28:08.billion a year. In these times, as Ed Balls himself recognised
:28:08. > :28:14.yesterday, no area of public spending can be exempt from
:28:14. > :28:21.scrutiny. We just have to put that on the table. I would agree with
:28:21. > :28:26.that, how do you make the savings? By destroying the defence, only one
:28:26. > :28:33.bit of the system? What the government is trying its best to do
:28:33. > :28:36.is to preserve access to services. No it's not! As it's doing in other
:28:36. > :28:40.areas of public service, introducing a series of contracts and trying to
:28:40. > :28:46.get a grip on providers to reduce the cost. I agree with you that
:28:46. > :28:51.other aspects of the criminal justice system could be reformed.
:28:51. > :28:57.What are they doing about the other bits? Nothing! I don't think that is
:28:57. > :29:05.fair, there is discussion about case management. What discussion?I think
:29:05. > :29:09.the government deserves credit. In the face of great criticism, it is
:29:09. > :29:17.willing to look at this budget. I would also say that the review for
:29:17. > :29:20.your government, by something of a hero of mine, also recommended a
:29:20. > :29:29.reduction of �100 million in costs, compared to this 200, and also looks
:29:29. > :29:33.at the restriction of choice in some legal services. What work have you
:29:33. > :29:38.done to see what savings could be made by better case management?
:29:38. > :29:42.Normal. We asked for a statement, and nobody was put up. Is there a
:29:42. > :29:52.middle way? Can savings be made to legal aid without wrecking the
:29:52. > :29:58.system? They can be. Charlie's remarks are interesting, certainly
:29:58. > :30:04.hyperbolic, and let's wait and see what the government responses to the
:30:04. > :30:07.consultation. Given that no part of government spending is immune from
:30:07. > :30:14.scrutiny, we must do it in such a way that you don't damage or destroy
:30:14. > :30:20.the criminal justice system while you are at it. Is that a threat,
:30:20. > :30:23.that it might be? The short-term problem is the money problem, the
:30:23. > :30:28.long-term problem is that if you frighten away through absence of
:30:28. > :30:33.proper funding good lawyers from the criminal justice system, you will
:30:33. > :30:37.then not have the growing cohort of bright people wanting to become QCs,
:30:37. > :30:42.then you won't have the judges. In ten or 15 years, we will look back
:30:42. > :30:47.and say, what did we do wrong? You can't square this circle, but if you
:30:47. > :30:53.do it in a hurry and because you have to fit in with a spending
:30:53. > :30:56.review, you will make a mistake. What I am nudging the Lord
:30:56. > :31:00.Chancellor and the Justice Secretary to do is not just to look at the
:31:00. > :31:04.numbers, although they must be looked at, but to look at the
:31:04. > :31:08.quality of the servers that the numbers will provide. Do you back
:31:08. > :31:18.what Chris Grayling is doing? seen the advert but not the finished
:31:18. > :31:21.project. So far, do you support it? I am deeply spec -- sceptical, but I
:31:21. > :31:25.am still giving him room to manoeuvre so that when he finishes
:31:25. > :31:29.his consultation process he will come back with something which will
:31:29. > :31:33.not give long-term damage. review which was done for your
:31:33. > :31:38.government found that the cost of justice in the UK is higher than
:31:38. > :31:43.just about any other country in the world. And it does not say much
:31:43. > :31:47.about the quality, access or servers. The government said we have
:31:47. > :31:54.a Rolls-Royce service, you don't need a Rolls-Royce for every journey
:31:54. > :31:59.in your car. It may be that the country has discovered that it can't
:31:59. > :32:05.afford the best of the most expensive facilities for legal aid.
:32:05. > :32:15.Reign we all agreed that we need to reform the system. -- we are all
:32:15. > :32:16.
:32:16. > :32:23.agreed that we need to reform the system. When I was Solicitor
:32:23. > :32:27.General... You have left.But my memory can just about... I am not
:32:27. > :32:31.saying you do not remember accurately, I am saying the idea of
:32:31. > :32:37.better case management has been dealt with in a quicker way.
:32:37. > :32:40.spent a lot of time with the DPP and the CPS, trying to work out how to
:32:40. > :32:44.make the system more efficient, to take cases from the Crown Court and
:32:44. > :32:51.keep them in the Magistrate's Court, I am sure your government would try
:32:52. > :32:58.to do the same. I don't think there is a difference in approach, but we
:32:58. > :33:03.have to work out how to pay for it. There is one of the principal, the
:33:03. > :33:08.idea that the very best of should be exempt from this system of public
:33:08. > :33:12.support. I think it is fascinating, yesterday Ed Balls said the richest
:33:12. > :33:19.pensioners should not receive winter fuel allowance, there is an
:33:19. > :33:23.important principle. Let's move on, just briefly, to another principle,
:33:23. > :33:28.which is merging some of the courts, which could lead to courts closing.
:33:28. > :33:33.Is that a price worth paying? could well be a good thing. Very
:33:33. > :33:39.often, ringing public services together... Some of the best courts
:33:39. > :33:42.in the country are in the same place as police and probation, we
:33:42. > :33:48.genuinely have a joined up public sector, which I think was a phrase
:33:48. > :33:54.of your government, joined up government. Hallelujah to this.
:33:54. > :33:59.have to be careful of not dropping yourself into a siloed budget
:33:59. > :34:03.system. When magistrates courts were closed under the last government,
:34:03. > :34:09.the saving for the Ministry of Justice was put towards the police
:34:09. > :34:17.because they had to do extra things. Will it be a false economy? At the
:34:17. > :34:23.moment we are boxing in the dark. agree. In principle, do you agree
:34:23. > :34:28.that these moves should be looked at? Is it possible, without reducing
:34:28. > :34:35.justice? It is possible, but you have to move carefully. What you
:34:35. > :34:41.mustn't do is say that I must cut 220 million quid, without looking at
:34:41. > :34:48.the fact. But then you don't cut anything and you don't make savings?
:34:48. > :34:53.You do. The issue of payment by results, will it work? No.Why not?
:34:53. > :34:59.What about for offenders once they have been released from prison to
:34:59. > :35:05.stop them reoffending, payment by results, why can't it work?
:35:05. > :35:13.funds eight upfront? And doesn't it lead to a focus on the people who
:35:13. > :35:21.will not reoffend again? It is ridiculous. I wrote the paper on
:35:21. > :35:25.this. Right, OK.I read a paper which was very good, the reoffending
:35:25. > :35:32.rate is too high. You have industrial numbers of people coming
:35:32. > :35:35.out of prison and reoffending, 55 or 60% of adults, 80 or 90% of
:35:35. > :35:40.youngsters. It is mad economic and it is immoral. Surely what the
:35:40. > :35:45.evidence suggests is that the intensity of intervention is what
:35:45. > :35:50.makes a difference? The people who can't provide that degree of
:35:50. > :35:58.intensity are the third sector and private blunders? They will do the
:35:58. > :36:02.work that suits them. If you look at the health service, the private
:36:02. > :36:07.sector mostly works in the health service, with the mostly risk issues
:36:07. > :36:11.of mental health, where there can be an overlap with the justice system,
:36:11. > :36:18.dealing with cases that the NHS finds difficult to treat in the
:36:18. > :36:27.public sector. You will get that degree of funding into the criminal
:36:27. > :36:31.justice system? You seem to be saying no to everything. Blue.
:36:31. > :36:38.not in favour of own thought out ideas which wreck that purpose of
:36:38. > :36:43.the system. That paper sets out on good ideas, it has been over six
:36:43. > :36:48.years. The criminal Justice Department has been subject to
:36:48. > :36:52.cuts, while others have been ring fenced. They are driving change and
:36:52. > :36:58.I think they should take down the ring fences on health and schools.
:36:58. > :37:01.Thank you, gentlemen. We know where the Conservatives
:37:01. > :37:06.stand on a referendum of Britain's membership into Europe. They all
:37:06. > :37:10.want one, but they are just arguing when it takes place. Labour believes
:37:10. > :37:14.that committing to a referendum now would be wrong and damaging to
:37:14. > :37:18.Britain. Here is what Ed Miliband said last month. We don't think it
:37:18. > :37:23.is right now to commit to an in-out referendum in four years. We think
:37:23. > :37:27.it would cause uncertainty for the country at a time when we are trying
:37:27. > :37:32.to sort out the problems of the country. Let's focus on sorting out
:37:32. > :37:35.jobs and living standards and the deep problems are economy faces. By
:37:35. > :37:39.contrast, you see a Conservative Party which is, as Cameron said he
:37:39. > :37:44.wouldn't do, just banging on about Europe and not voting at the
:37:44. > :37:46.problems the country faces. Some Labour Party members would like an
:37:46. > :37:53.in-out referendum, and today they are launching a new group calling
:37:53. > :37:57.for just that. One of the members of Labour for a Referendum is MP Kate
:37:57. > :38:02.Hoey, who joins us. How much support is there within the Labour Party for
:38:02. > :38:05.an in-out referendum sooner rather than later? We are launching Labour
:38:05. > :38:10.for a Referendum today, the numbers to start with are quite small, over
:38:10. > :38:14.20 MPs have signed up. But even in the last day I have had a number of
:38:14. > :38:17.senior Members of Parliament sidle up to me and basically say that they
:38:17. > :38:21.know before the European elections next year that there is going to
:38:21. > :38:27.have to be a commitment that we will have a referendum. We will have a
:38:27. > :38:30.referendum, I think it would be madness for a party to go into the
:38:30. > :38:35.European elections and the next general election basically saying,
:38:35. > :38:40.we don't trust the people, Europe hasn't changed, you haven't had a
:38:40. > :38:44.vote since 1975, you'd have to be over 55 to have a vote, and we will
:38:45. > :38:49.say no. But things have changed so much, we know that Labour supporters
:38:49. > :38:52.in the country wants to see a referendum, so I think we are really
:38:52. > :38:57.just launching this today to show there is support, and even from
:38:57. > :39:01.people who are very, very pro-Europe. It is not an anti-Europe
:39:01. > :39:07.thing, although I personally would be more sceptical. Would you vote
:39:07. > :39:11.for out? I'd like to see lots of power is back, and I don't think we
:39:11. > :39:16.will get them, so I would vote to come out because I feel confident
:39:16. > :39:21.our country and its future. I think we should be more internationalist,
:39:21. > :39:24.I think Europe is a Sikh organisation that will get worse.
:39:24. > :39:33.Some senior people close to Ed Miliband are saying, in the end, we
:39:33. > :39:38.will offer that referendum. Yes. I will not go into any more detail. I
:39:38. > :39:41.think the vast majority of our party realise that we will have to, it is
:39:41. > :39:48.a question of how Ed gets to the stage where he announces that we
:39:48. > :39:53.will support it. I would like to say the sooner the better, really.
:39:53. > :39:58.will he get to that stage? I think he is right that now is not the
:39:58. > :40:05.time. Nobody is saying aged be tomorrow. If you promise a
:40:05. > :40:09.referendum say, in a years time, what about a referendum after
:40:09. > :40:14.renegotiation? The effect of what Cameron is day in, as I understand
:40:14. > :40:22.it, he will renegotiate come what may. Are we committed to a
:40:22. > :40:25.renegotiation? We are certainly not. I don't what is going on. It aims
:40:25. > :40:32.like it is rushing into a referendum, have the referendum,
:40:32. > :40:36.then what? Do we renegotiate if we say to stay in? I think we are
:40:36. > :40:42.looking per a commitment that says, we accept that Europe has changed so
:40:42. > :40:45.much that what people voted for is not what we have got now. We need
:40:45. > :40:51.that in our manifesto before the European Union elections. At some
:40:51. > :40:54.stage we will have a referendum. Suppose we have one immediately
:40:54. > :41:04.after the next general election, assuming we win, if the result is,
:41:04. > :41:09.yes, stay in, what next? That is it. There is no renegotiation? Ed does
:41:09. > :41:14.not seem to want to have it, even bringing back powers. We will have
:41:14. > :41:18.to have that debate. How helpful is that for people like Kate Hoey to
:41:19. > :41:24.use the phrase, bang on about Europe. I don't think it is
:41:24. > :41:30.unhelpful. We are perfectly OK about having the debate. I don't feel that
:41:30. > :41:36.Europe is as significant an issue as, for example, many in the Tory
:41:36. > :41:42.party do, but I find that having this debate in the context of the
:41:42. > :41:46.wide economic issues... I don't think it is tall... I think Miliband
:41:46. > :41:50.is right that the economic situation is very important, but that does not
:41:50. > :41:55.exclude having the debate. How much damage will Labour face at the
:41:55. > :41:58.ballot box if they don't offer a referendum? Without a doubt, the Lib
:41:59. > :42:03.Dems would have come out. They had it in their referendum last time but
:42:03. > :42:10.they would have a referendum, we can't be the only party going
:42:10. > :42:16.without promising it. Denying people a democratic mandate, that is what
:42:16. > :42:19.the Tories and Lib Dems will say. am unelected, Kate is elected. I am
:42:19. > :42:24.not sure the extent to which the public that absorbed in the European
:42:24. > :42:31.issue. Some are and some aren't. It is quite difficult to judge the
:42:31. > :42:34.electoral effect. If you ask people, do you think we should have
:42:34. > :42:39.a vote and a say on what is happening, they might have different
:42:39. > :42:44.views on what the vote would say, but they want to have a say. They
:42:44. > :42:51.don't bring it up every second, that are other more pressing immediate
:42:51. > :42:56.questions. And the economy and immigration, immigration is, in a
:42:56. > :42:59.sense, the UKIP issue. Thank you, Kate Hoey. There were
:42:59. > :43:08.colourful scenes in Westminster yesterday as peers discussed
:43:08. > :43:18.government plans to legalise gay marriage. We must believe in Jesus.
:43:18. > :43:28.
:43:28. > :43:34.# Love is never a crime. Inside the chamber, the decision --
:43:34. > :43:39.the discussion was more sober. Marriage is abolished, redefined and
:43:39. > :43:45.recreated. Being different and unequal for different categories.
:43:45. > :43:49.The new marriage of the bill is an awkward shape, with the same gender
:43:49. > :43:56.and different gender categories scrunched into it. Neither fitting
:43:56. > :44:01.well. The effect on schools, undoubtedly, will be divisive, and
:44:01. > :44:08.we should reflect on the fact that calls have already been made for
:44:08. > :44:13.children to act out gay weddings in class. Homosexuals are often
:44:13. > :44:19.delightful people, very artistic and very loving people, too. No one
:44:19. > :44:25.doubts that the one single moment. But marriage is not about just love.
:44:25. > :44:33.It's about a man and a woman, themselves created to produce
:44:33. > :44:39.children, producing children. question is, does the Bill redefined
:44:39. > :44:43.marriage? It was put to me by one correspondent. The government's
:44:43. > :44:48.plans will redefine the marriages of the 24 million married people
:44:48. > :44:53.without their consent. My Lords, other people have referred to their
:44:53. > :44:59.anniversaries last year -- their anniversaries, last year my wife and
:44:59. > :45:04.I celebrated our diamond wedding. Mutual comfort and support. Is this
:45:04. > :45:14.bill going to redefine that marriage? I have to say, I simply
:45:14. > :45:18.
:45:18. > :45:25.trying to detract from the will of the commons? No, they should not.
:45:25. > :45:28.Our job is to revise legislation when it comes from the Commons. The
:45:28. > :45:33.commons have voted by a substantial majority in favour of gay marriage.
:45:33. > :45:37.Our role is not to take these decisions of principle. The
:45:37. > :45:40.decisions of principle should be taken by the elected chamber, which
:45:40. > :45:45.is the commons. As a matter of principle, we should be allowing
:45:45. > :45:53.this to happen. If the amendment to the second reading motion is allowed
:45:54. > :46:00.today, the bill will fall. That will be the end for this session, for the
:46:00. > :46:09.government attempts to introduce gay marriage. Do you think it will
:46:09. > :46:15.happen? I hope it will not happen. It is a real test for the Lords. If
:46:15. > :46:20.the amendment is allowed and the bill falls, the Lords will appear to
:46:20. > :46:25.do two things. First, to be opposed to gay marriage, which is, to my
:46:26. > :46:32.view, to be opposed to progress, and be opposed to the role of the
:46:32. > :46:36.commons. You think there is a real threat that might happen? I hope
:46:36. > :46:41.very much that the Lords will vote in favour of letting the bill go
:46:42. > :46:45.ahead. Whether that happens, I don't know. I hope that the Lords, by a
:46:45. > :46:49.clear majority, indicate that they want to move forward and also that
:46:49. > :46:54.they accept it is for the Commons to make these decisions. Have you ever
:46:54. > :46:58.made a complaint about a public service or a government department?
:46:58. > :47:01.Did it make any difference? Cases such as the Stafford Hospital
:47:01. > :47:06.scandal suggests that public bodies can almost be blind to the problem
:47:06. > :47:10.is that members of the public report. With, potentially, appalling
:47:10. > :47:13.consequences. This morning, a committee of MPs has been taking
:47:13. > :47:17.evidence on complaining to find out what lessons can be learned and how
:47:17. > :47:21.the system can be improved. While we certainly enjoy a good moan,
:47:21. > :47:28.especially about the weather and public transport, are we any good at
:47:28. > :47:31.complaining? It has to be said, the sun is out, the sky is blue and
:47:31. > :47:35.there is not a great deal to complain about. But we have been
:47:35. > :47:39.talking about complaining. The Public Administration Select
:47:39. > :47:45.Committee has been discussing it. I have the chairman of that committee
:47:45. > :47:49.with me, Bernard Jenkin, and also a representative from the Institute of
:47:49. > :47:56.Customer Service. You were looking at the Stafford example. But it is a
:47:56. > :47:59.wider issue. Are we not being taken seriously when we complain?
:47:59. > :48:02.Complaints are a fantastic source of information about your
:48:02. > :48:05.organisation. Everyone tells you something about why your
:48:05. > :48:11.organisation has failed to meet the expectations of the people you are
:48:11. > :48:13.seeking to serve. Does Whitehall use that information properly? Do
:48:13. > :48:16.government departments and public services use that properly? Or do
:48:16. > :48:19.too many people feel they are bashing their head against a brick
:48:19. > :48:23.wall and they don't even bother to complain because they think nobody
:48:24. > :48:28.is going to listen and nothing is going to change. Is that the
:48:28. > :48:34.experience of those people whose job it is to deal with complaints?
:48:34. > :48:37.the Institute of Customer Service undertakes tracking of customer
:48:37. > :48:42.satisfaction and complaints. The good news is, overall in the UK,
:48:42. > :48:45.customer satisfaction is improving and complaints are falling. But we
:48:45. > :48:48.are more likely to complain if we have a problem. And there is a
:48:48. > :48:54.certain percentage of the population, over 20%, that are
:48:54. > :48:58.silent. If I get access to complain and there is more access to
:48:58. > :49:01.complaint, there are more complaints because people are encouraged to do
:49:01. > :49:07.so, does that mean that the thing there are complaining about has got
:49:07. > :49:12.worse? Or is it a false reading? think it is important to get people
:49:12. > :49:15.to complain. If you are raising that as an issue, broadly, we don't
:49:15. > :49:20.complain for the sake of complaining. There usually is a
:49:20. > :49:25.problem or issue that needs resolution. Is the private sector
:49:25. > :49:31.better than the public sector at this? Broadly, the private sector
:49:31. > :49:35.does perform better than the public sector. That is the problem that we
:49:35. > :49:39.are trying to highlight. We can tweet, we can put it on Facebook,
:49:39. > :49:43.there is a platform for complaints, if they want to listen or not. Are
:49:43. > :49:48.you trying to get the whole of Government and White will be better
:49:48. > :49:51.at receiving those complains? are lessons for the whole of
:49:51. > :49:54.Whitehall to be learned from the Mid-Staffordshire Hospital crisis.
:49:55. > :49:58.There were plenty of complaints, but the management did not want to know
:49:58. > :50:01.about complaints. They didn't want to hear complaints, they didn't want
:50:01. > :50:07.complaints of their own staff, trying to tell them things were
:50:07. > :50:12.going wrong. It is that deafness in organisations that leadership in
:50:12. > :50:16.Whitehall and public services has got to address. That leadership,
:50:16. > :50:18.openness, understanding, sharing of problems instead of denial of
:50:18. > :50:25.problems. All of that should flow from a proper complaints and
:50:25. > :50:31.seizure. I wonder if the fact is, people make their complaints, do you
:50:31. > :50:36.measure the satisfaction of how it is dealt with by the fact something
:50:36. > :50:40.is done about it or the fact they just got listened to? Both. That's
:50:40. > :50:50.an important point. It's not just the outcome, it is how you are dealt
:50:50. > :50:50.
:50:50. > :50:55.with throughout the process. Udal complain about both the service and
:50:56. > :50:59.also the process of the complaints procedure. Did people have a
:50:59. > :51:04.dialogue with me? Did they listen to me? It is critical that is dealt
:51:04. > :51:07.with appropriately and I am dealt with like a human being. Age of
:51:07. > :51:11.austerity, they want to slim things down a bit, big complaints
:51:11. > :51:17.departments often involve a great deal of work and a number of people.
:51:17. > :51:20.How do you get the balance right? you cut that, you are making false
:51:20. > :51:23.economy. You have all this information people want to give you
:51:23. > :51:27.about how you can do things better. If you could just embrace that, it
:51:28. > :51:34.is about moving from what one of our witnesses has called the command
:51:34. > :51:38.state to the relation state. We now live in a stage where every citizen
:51:38. > :51:42.expects to be dealt with politely and not have to be deferential to
:51:42. > :51:45.people in authority and important people doing important jobs. That is
:51:45. > :51:49.what we expect from the private sector. It is automatic in the
:51:49. > :51:53.private sector. We need to make it automatic in the public sector as
:51:53. > :52:03.well. I cannot be deferential their... We could talk about
:52:03. > :52:13.
:52:13. > :52:16.death of Emily Davidson, he threw herself in front of the King's horse
:52:16. > :52:22.at Epsom. The suffragettes quickly established her as a martyr for the
:52:22. > :52:28.rights of women. Eventually, they achieved their aim, but only after a
:52:28. > :52:32.campaign of Iraq's action. Their motto was deeds, not words. It is a
:52:32. > :52:42.strategy that has been followed by many groups over the years. Here is
:52:42. > :52:43.
:52:43. > :52:51.a reminder of some of the more high # A Little less conversation, a
:52:51. > :53:01.little more action # All of this conversation isn't
:53:01. > :53:01.
:53:01. > :54:00.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 59 seconds
:54:00. > :54:03.anything? Is there still a place for it in the 21st century? We are
:54:03. > :54:09.joined by Alison Playford, who has in the past taken part in direct
:54:09. > :54:13.action with the pressure group Occupy. Why have you taken part in
:54:14. > :54:17.direct action in the past? Because I believe that change is achieved when
:54:17. > :54:21.people on the ground grouped together and work together to
:54:21. > :54:24.forward their aims. For instance, the suffragette movement, which
:54:24. > :54:29.achieved votes for women. The civil rights movement, another amazing
:54:29. > :54:33.achievement. In Parliament, we have the equal marriage movement and
:54:33. > :54:38.everything they have come forward to it. This is how things are achieved.
:54:38. > :54:42.It is not politicians, I think, that eventually push that agenda for
:54:42. > :54:45.change. It's not even Martin Luther King, the kind of figureheads that
:54:45. > :54:50.lead the movements. It is the people in the streets and communities that
:54:50. > :54:54.make the true change that we need in the world for equality. Direct
:54:54. > :54:59.action, as opposed to peaceful protest? There are many forms of
:54:59. > :55:03.direct action that our peaceful protest. I am a peaceful protest and
:55:03. > :55:06.I have taken part in direct action all over the world. Some of the
:55:06. > :55:12.scenes we saw there, do you think it needs to be a more aggressive form
:55:12. > :55:16.of protest in order to persuade politicians to change direction?
:55:16. > :55:22.Absolutely not, there is a spectrum of direct action. The kind I work in
:55:22. > :55:25.is creative and non-violent. I am talking about inclusion of people,
:55:25. > :55:29.encouraging people to work in the action movements, I would feel that
:55:29. > :55:34.the best way to do this is to do that in a non-violent and inclusive
:55:34. > :55:37.way. However, I do not judge people that take more radical tactics,
:55:38. > :55:43.necessarily. If you take the suffragettes, the kind of pressure
:55:43. > :55:47.that they were working under was unbelievable. Their demands were
:55:47. > :55:53.such basic human rights. For instance, now, it is inconceivable
:55:53. > :55:56.to ask that we would live in a world where women do not have the vote.
:55:56. > :56:00.The Occupy movement, it is inconceivable that we live in a
:56:00. > :56:03.world where we have the economic disparity that we have today.
:56:03. > :56:07.will come back to weather that has achieved anything. Peaceful protest
:56:07. > :56:11.is, I don't think anybody would disagree with that. When it crosses
:56:11. > :56:15.the line in terms of breaking the law, is it still worth doing?
:56:15. > :56:19.look at the civil rights movement in the United States of America, those
:56:19. > :56:24.pictures of police officers with dogs, attacking people that were
:56:24. > :56:29.peacefully protesting, maybe they were technically breaking the law,
:56:29. > :56:36.direct action there is hugely important. But direct action can
:56:36. > :56:44.delay and setback causes, as well. For example? The mine workers strike
:56:44. > :56:49.in 1984, direct action, it did have an effect on improving a lot of
:56:49. > :56:53.those things. I don't think it was direct action and setback the
:56:53. > :56:56.Mineworkers, I think it was the Tories and Margaret Thatcher.
:56:56. > :57:02.the question seems to be, does direct action bring to public
:57:02. > :57:05.attention something they did not know about before? The civil rights
:57:05. > :57:09.movement is an incredibly powerful example. The Arab Spring, the
:57:09. > :57:14.rioting that started in Tunisia as the result of the mistreatment of a
:57:14. > :57:17.market trader, it is another important way of demonstrating that
:57:17. > :57:21.the public, or a strong section of the public... But Alison is so
:57:21. > :57:27.right, it has to be a real section of the public. The blacks in
:57:27. > :57:33.America, the people in Tunisia, if it is not properly representative,
:57:33. > :57:38.if what you're doing... Did you not think was representative? I don't
:57:38. > :57:42.know, it depends on what particular issue. What changes have come about?
:57:42. > :57:47.I would say that not much has changed. Apart from engaging people
:57:47. > :57:51.and raising awareness? It is commonly understood now that we have
:57:51. > :57:55.been totally abused by the banking system. That is absolutely the
:57:55. > :58:00.normal parlance of people to understand, that this country has
:58:00. > :58:04.been desperately, desperately damaged. What we need now is to find
:58:04. > :58:07.a way for people to engage. Currently, we are facing a
:58:07. > :58:14.government that is destroying the NHS. The NHS is one of the
:58:14. > :58:17.absolutely most important British bastions, as is the welfare state.
:58:17. > :58:21.The government is destroying them and we must take action
:58:21. > :58:26.immediately. Just time to find that the answer to the quiz. The question
:58:27. > :58:36.was, what cost-cutting measure would Ed Balls take if Labour won the
:58:36. > :58:41.election? Was at the winter fuel payments? It certainly was. Will
:58:41. > :58:45.Labour support that? Peter Hain says it's a terrible idea. Ed Balls,
:58:45. > :58:48.Shadow Chancellor, said that was his position, I am sure that we will
:58:48. > :58:51.support him. On that note of consensus, thanks to Charlie